21

In 1804, US vice president Aaron Burr killed former Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton in a duel.

Wiki gives the following description of the events on the day of the duel.

In the early morning of July 11, 1804, Burr and Hamilton departed from Manhattan by separate boats and rowed across the Hudson River to a spot known as the Heights of Weehawken, New Jersey, a popular dueling ground below the towering cliffs of the Palisades. Dueling had been prohibited in both New York and New Jersey, but Hamilton and Burr agreed to go to Weehawken because New Jersey was not as aggressive as New York in prosecuting dueling participants. The same site was used for 18 known duels between 1700 and 1845, and it was not far from the site of the 1801 duel that resulted in the death of Hamilton's eldest son Philip Hamilton. They also took steps to give all witnesses plausible deniability in an attempt to shield themselves from prosecution. For example, the pistols were transported to the island in a portmanteau, enabling the rowers to say under oath that they had not seen any pistols. They also stood with their backs to the duelists.

So both Burr and Hamilton knew they were doing something illegal, but opted to do it anyway, as well as provide plausible deniability for the witnesses.

Suppose I am one of the people who rowed them to the island. Afterwards I'm called to testify, and in response to the question 'did you see any weapons?' I say (truthfully) under oath that I had not, even though I knew full well they exist, I was transporting them, and that they were going to be used in an illegal activity. Would I be committing a crime?

Allure
  • 4,352
  • 4
  • 30
  • 57

1 Answers1

37

and in response to the question 'did you see any weapons?' I say (truthfully) under oath that I had not, even though I knew full well they exist...

This would not be perjury. It is very common, especially for a prepared witness, to answer questions narrowly, directly, and exactly. Especially yes/no questions.

Your question supposes that there is something problematic with an answer being strictly true. There is not. It is important to distinguish facts strictly and precisely.

It would be up to the person asking the questions to ask more or better questions, or for the other side to ask more questions in cross-examination.

The prosecutor would likely ask more questions to try to establish knowledge even without having seen the weapons:*

  • even so, you knew there were weapons on board
  • what did you think you were transporting them to?
  • you were told though that there were weapons in the portmanteau
  • and you knew you were taking them to a duel
  • etc.

For the defence, this fact (not having seen the weapons) might be all they're trying to establish and the defense might leave it at that. But they might ask even further questions to bolster lack of knowledge:*

  • and no one mentioned any weapons?
  • and you had no idea why you were transporting these people
  • do you ask your passengers why they're going where they're going?
  • did you ask these passengers why they were going where they were going?
  • etc.

* Whether the specific example follow-up questions are appropriate will depend on whether the question is happening during direct examination or cross-examination (where leading questions, as many of my examples are, are permissible). Whether the proposed example questions are prudent will depend on the theory of the case and what the prosecution/defence anticipates the answer to be. And it makes no difference whether a "question" is literally phrased as a question ("did you do X?") or simply put to the witness as a point to be agreed with or disagreed with ("So you did X"). The difference is a matter of style and both are leading questions which would be appropriate only on cross-examination.

Jen
  • 87,647
  • 5
  • 181
  • 381