CHICAGO (CN) - The inconsistent testimony of five plaintiffs who claim to have been forcibly arrested during Mexican Independence Day festivities did not meet the legal definition of perjury, the 7th Circuit ruled.
Esteban Montano and four others sought injury damages from their 1997 arrest, claiming they had been beaten and later strip-searched at the station house.
The district court sanctioned the five men for their alleged perjury by dismissing their claim.
On appeal, Judge Sykes ruled that the court's perjury findings were incorrect.
The district judge "failed to identify any legal definition of perjury," Sykes wrote.
According to Sykes, perjury is marked by a "willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than the result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory."
The district judge's finding of perjury was based on inconsistencies between the plaintiff's definition and trial testimony.
"No evidence suggests these inconsistencies were willful, material falsehoods," Sykes wrote.
The appellate court remanded the case.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Alaska, Hawaiian Airlines April 17, 2024 -
-
Contributor-Test-Post-2024-04-12 April 12, 2024 -
