Yurisich

MEMORANDUM *

Frederic and Vera Yurisich appeal them jury convictions for perjury. The Yuri-siches object both to the sufficiency of the evidence against them and to the tactics used by the government in securing their convictions. We are concerned that the civil discovery process not be abused by the government as a mere setup for a criminal perjury prosecution. Nonethe *701 less, in light of the chronology of events in the civil case, including the sequence of discovery, and the requirement that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we affirm the convictions.

The judge’s instruction to the jury that a false answer is material if it would have had a tendency or would have been capable of influencing the judge in the civil case was not erroneous, because the judge would have been the trier of fact, had that case gone to trial. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 840 (9th Cir.2003) (“[A] relevant decision-making entity in evaluating the materiality of statements given in civil depositions is the trier of fact in the civil case.”). That the civil case settled before trial does not alter the relevant decision-maker, as materiality is determined…