United States v. Moore
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
613 F.2d 1029 (1979)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Moore (defendant), a police officer, was suspected of funneling information to the owner of a business that was under surveillance. Another officer, who had discussed the surveillance with Moore, met Moore at a service station and secretly recorded their conversation. A grand jury was convened. Moore appeared before the grand jury and denied recollection of his first meeting with the officer. Moore recalled meeting the officer at a service station but testified that the meeting was unrelated to police business and that he never called anyone to ask about the surveillance. When Moore met with prosecutors, the recording of the service station meeting was played. Moore was advised he could avoid perjury charges if he testified before the grand jury that his prior testimony was false. During a rehearsal of the testimony, Moore acknowledged that the first conversation with the officer occurred but provided an innocent explanation for the second. The prosecutor ended the rehearsal, and Moore was indicted for making false statements before the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The prosecutor refused to allow Moore to reappear before the grand jury to testify, and the court dismissed the indictment. The government (plaintiff) appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Robinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
