Meyers v. United States Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An army officer was convicted of suborning perjury. The court held that the perjured testimony could be proven by a witness who heard it, not just by the official transcript, finding the Best Evidence Rule inapplicable to proving the content of oral statements.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that the Best Evidence Rule is limited to proving the contents of a writing and does not require a stenographic transcript to be used as the exclusive evidence of prior oral testimony; a witness who heard the testimony is equally competent to prove it.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Bennett Meyers, an Army officer, was indicted for suborning perjury. The government alleged he induced Blériot Lamarre, the president of a corporation secretly owned by Meyers, to lie to a Senate subcommittee investigating war contracts. The indictment charged Lamarre with falsely denying Meyers’ financial interest in the company, among other things. At Meyers’ trial, the prosecution’s key initial witness was William Rogers, the counsel for the Senate subcommittee. Over defense objection, Rogers was permitted to testify from memory about the “substance” of Lamarre’s testimony before the subcommittee. The official stenographic transcript of Lamarre’s testimony was not introduced into evidence until much later in the trial, near the close of the government’s case. Meyers was convicted and appealed, arguing that allowing Rogers’ oral testimony violated the Best Evidence Rule because the transcript was the best and only proper evidence of what Lamarre had said under oath.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Best Evidence Rule require the government to prove the substance of prior oral testimony with a stenographic transcript, thereby precluding the testimony of a witness who heard the statements?
No. The conviction was affirmed. The court held that the Best Evidence Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla paria
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Best Evidence Rule require the government to prove the substance of prior oral testimony with a stenographic transcript, thereby precluding the testimony of a witness who heard the statements?
Conclusion
The case provides a strong precedent limiting the Best Evidence Rule to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud
Legal Rule
The Best Evidence Rule applies only when the contents of a writing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sin
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the appellant's argument that the transcript was the "best Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proid
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The perjurious nature of testimony is determined from its overall context,