Law Offices

Estimate New York sentences in criminal cases Click Here

Criminal Defense Lawyer and Counselor at Law Committed to "Professional Excellence"

The law firm of John W. Mitchell is committed to give you the best possible and highly effective criminal defense. Our representations encompass all aspects of the criminal process, from grand jury investigations to post-indictment proceedings, including arraignment, suppression, other pretrial motions, trial, sentencing, appeal and post-conviction remedies.

We are aggressive, accomplished, well known and respected by all those in the New York City criminal justice system.

Attorney John W. Mitchell is passionate about representing his clients professionally.

*PROFESSIONAL EXCELLENCE* is our commitment to provide:

Excellent Legal Representation;
Personal Guidance; and
Results.

Falsely Accused:

In Cabe, the defendant was a juror undergoing voir dire. He was asked if “anybody in your immediate family or yourself had been arrested?” The defendant answered, “One of my boys was arrested.” It was true that one of the defendant’s sons had been arrested; however, the defendant failed to reveal that he had also been arrested. The defendant was charged with perjury based on the false impression given by his truthful, though incomplete, response.

The Court of Appeal ordered the case dismissed. The federal rule established in Bronston v. United States (1973) 409 U.S. 352 construed the federal perjury statute to not apply to false implications that could be drawn from sworn answers that were literally true. Applying the federal rule, the 2nd District Court of Appeal held that a false impression is not a statement, therefore a perjury charge will not lie. In fact, Cabe broadened the federal rule by applying it to a non-adversarial questioning.

Additional case law holds that a witness is under no obligation to volunteer testimony which explains questions which are not relevantly answered or not completely explained, although the answers to questions asked may have left a misleading impression. If counsel fails to ask more specific questions, the witness’ failure to volunteer testimony to avoid the misleading impression does not constitute perjury, because the crucial element of falsity is not present in his testimony.

Disclaimer

Nationwide Criminal Attorneys Asbestos Cancer Lawyers