FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W322556228> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W322556228 startingPage "117" @default.
• W322556228 abstract "Prior to joining the Office of the Solicitor General in May 1972, at the age of 33, I had enjoyed a variety of experiences as a lawyer--D.C. Circuit law clerk, Counsel to the Governor of the Virgin Islands, associate in a law firm practicing principally before the now defunct Civil Aeronautics Board--but had argued only two appeals, each time as a court-appointed lawyer in a criminal case. Number three was to be a horse of a different color. In order to reduce the pressure a new lawyer might feel, the practice in the SG's Office was to assign as a first argument a case of comparatively modest importance that was, regardless of the quality of the advocates' oral arguments, either a sure winner or a sure loser. There could be little doubt in which category my maiden effort fell. While the Court's opinion characterized the issue in Bronston v. United States as narrow but important, (1) there was no conflict in the circuits on the issue, which then as now was the main basis for granting review; nor was the issue of such nationwide significance as to require authoritative resolution by the Supreme Court. But in a few cases each Term, the Court would grant review because the ruling below simply seemed intolerably wrong. This appeared to be such a case. Bronston was a perjury prosecution. The defendant was the principal of a movie production company that had filed for bankruptcy under Chapter XI, and the allegedly perjurious testimony was given in the course of the following examination by creditors: Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston? No, sir. Have you ever? The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich. The second answer was literally true, but unresponsive to the question, which concerned Bronston's personal bank accounts. What Bronston neglected to say was that he had personally had a very substantial account in a Swiss bank for over five years. He was prosecuted for perjury on the theory that, though perhaps literally true, his statement was false by implication and intended to mislead. In affirming the conviction, a divided court of appeals held that [f]or the purposes of [the perjury statute] an answer containing half of the troth which also constitutes a lie by negative implication, when the answer is intentionally given in place of the responsive answer called for by a proper question, is perjury. (2) When one of my first assignments as a rookie in the SG's Office was the merits brief in the Bronston case, it was clear that my first-argument destiny was sealed. In the process of writing the brief--defending the basic rationale of the court of appeals while at the same time attempting to articulate a limiting principle that would provide a basis for affirmance yet would not vastly overextend the reach of the perjury statute--I fell prey to the lawyer's common tendency to come to believe that the position he or she is advancing has considerable merit and could be embraced by a reasonable jurist. Indeed, in my most private moments I actually told myself that I might, just might, pull it off and somehow win this most unpromising specimen of a case. When I was being more realistic, the question was whether I could get any votes at all. By the time I was formally assigned the Bronston argument, I had performed the first essential act of the government Supreme Court advocate--acquiring my argument outfit. Then as now, male counsel representing the government in the Supreme Court (and there were few women assigned that role in those days) were required to wear a morning suit with striped pants, a vest, and a silver-colored tie. In my youth, before I gained a fuller appreciation for the value of tradition and ritual, I thought this a silly practice; I showed my rebellion the only way I could: buying used trousers for $5.00 and a used coat for $25.00. I did not buy a vest, however, but borrowed one from a colleague in the Office. …" @default.
• W322556228 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W322556228 creator A5048530552 @default.
• W322556228 date "2003-03-22" @default.
• W322556228 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W322556228 title "Tilting at Windmills" @default.
• W322556228 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W322556228 type Work @default.
• W322556228 sameAs 322556228 @default.
• W322556228 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W322556228 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W322556228 hasAuthorship W322556228A5048530552 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C136197465 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C144559511 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W322556228 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C10138342 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C111919701 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C136197465 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C144024400 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C144133560 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C144559511 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C154945302 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C17744445 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C182306322 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C185592680 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C199539241 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C2778272461 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C41008148 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C55493867 @default.
• W322556228 hasConceptScore W322556228C98184364 @default.
• W322556228 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W322556228 hasLocation W3225562281 @default.
• W322556228 hasOpenAccess W322556228 @default.
• W322556228 hasPrimaryLocation W3225562281 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W1485060874 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W1547622979 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W1555940954 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W1585617792 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W2145083809 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W219998212 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W230123776 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W232756237 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W283458914 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W290815164 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W2978822506 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W304780581 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W323958360 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W336652853 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W340432114 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W349984768 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W588530952 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W763236730 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W81902425 @default.
• W322556228 hasRelatedWork W311317797 @default.
• W322556228 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W322556228 isParatext "false" @default.
• W322556228 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W322556228 magId "322556228" @default.
• W322556228 workType "article" @default.