United States v. Maggitt, 784 F.2d 590, 599 (5th Cir. 1986). See also United States v. Lewis, 876 F. Supp. 308, 311 (D. Mass. 1994)("Obstruction of justice does not require proof of a false statement under oath, and perjury does not require proof that the defendant had the specific intent to impede justice."). This is so even though the false statements are the basis for the obstruction of justice charge.
Mass. Gen. L. c. 268, ยง 1. Wilfulness is not the same thing as specific intent, and perjury is not a specific intent crime. See Lack v. U.S., No. 91-11520, 1993 WL 565986, *13 (D.Mass., Oct. 4, 1993) ("Specific intent or bad motive is not required for a finding of wilfulness."); U.S. v. Lewis, 876 F. Supp. 308, 312 (D. Mass., 1994) ("perjury does not require proof that the defendant had . . . specific intent. . . .").
In determining what has become manifest before a defendant recanted, courts have considered not only information possessed by the defendant, but also information presented to defendant's attorney. See, e.g., United States v. Lewis, 876 F. Supp. 308, 311 (D.Mass. 1994) (denying defendant's motion to dismiss under section 1623(d) because, among other things, "the Assistant U.S. Attorney had informed his lawyer a few days earlier that the government 'had reason to doubt the truthfulness' of his testimony.");United States v. Tucker, 495 F. Supp. 607, 613 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) (denying motion because, among other things, "the prosecutor . . . told defendant's counsel immediately prior to defendant's recantation appearance that, in the Government's view, the appearance was 'too late'."); United States v. Mazzei, 400 F. Supp. 17, 19 (W.D.Pa. 1975) (denying motion because "[f]ollowing [the defendant's] appearance before the grand jury, defendant's counsel was advised by the U.S. Attorney that he considered defendant's answers to be untrue and would seek an indictment."); Cf. D'Auria, 672 F.2d at 1087 (noting that, between alleged false testimony and alleged recantation, AUSA informed defense counsel he believed defendant's testimony to be perjurious). Second, w