G.R. No. 2029 : April 25, 1905
THE UNITED STATES, complainant-appellee, vs. CHAUNCEY McGOVERN, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The defendant, Chauncey McGovern, was charged with perjury for allegedly giving false testimony in a prior criminal case (U.S. v. Dean Tompkins). The complaint specified four false statements: (1) that he was an expert in handwriting with technical training; (2) that he had testified as a handwriting expert in the Dreyfus, Capt. Oberlin Carter, Roland Molineaux, Fair, Dr. Kennedy, Dolly Reynolds, and other cases; (3) that he had worked as a handwriting expert for about three years for the Sunday World; and (4) that he had examined twenty-four documents in the Tompkins case under powerful magnifying glasses. The prosecution presented evidence, including testimony from Dr. Dade, to prove the falsity of these statements.

ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Chauncey McGovern committed perjury by making false statements under oath in the Tompkins case.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of conviction and ACQUITTED the defendant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the falsity of the alleged perjurious statements.

1. Regarding the second charge (testifying in listed cases): The evidence did not prove that McGovern testified he was a witness in the Dreyfus and other cases. The preponderance of evidence indicated he stated he had handled the important evidence in those cases, which was a different claim. The stenographer likely misinterpreted his testimony.

2. Regarding the third charge (working for the Sunday World): The prosecution presented no evidence to show that his statement about working for the Sunday World was false.

4. Regarding the fourth charge (using powerful magnifying glasses): The prosecution failed to prove the statement false. The term “powerful” is relative, and no evidence established an objective standard or showed that the glasses he used (Army surgeon’s glasses Nos. 8, 10, and 20, which he testified magnified objects from one to five diameters) were not “powerful.”

In conclusion, the prosecution did not meet the requisite burden of proof for perjury. The defendant was acquitted, with costs de oficio.