Opinion
Criminal Action No. 04-320-06.
July 26, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The defendant Zaynah Rasool is charged in Count 28 of the Indictment with having committed perjury in her answer to a question before the grand jury. The question, and her answer, are set forth in the Indictment as follows:
Q#2: You would have no idea how Christine Hall's application, she was designated as having received a degree from Muslim Teacher's College in 1990, and attending the University of Maryland when she didn't. Do you have any idea how that happened, when she didn't?
A#2: No, I don't. I don't know how that happened, no.
Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that count of the Indictment, which is the only count in which she is charged. The motion will be granted.
In the first place, and of primary importance, the question is hopelessly ambiguous. Defendant's answer can be interpreted as stating that she did not know how it happened that Christine Hall received a degree from Muslim Teacher's College in 1990, or that she did not know why her application stated that she had attended the University of Maryland when she had not done so, or that she did not know why the application reflected that Ms. Hall had received a degree from Muslim Teacher's College, or that she did not have knowledge as to whether Ms. Hall had attended either of those institutions or both.
The government concedes that the question put to the defendant was indeed ambiguous, but argues that, in the context of other questions put to the witness, the ambiguity is removed. I disagree. The other questioning is equally ambiguous.
The government contends that it was seeking to establish that Faridah Ali (now a co-defendant) was fraudulently altering the resumes of applicants for teaching positions, so as to make them appear qualified to teach when they lacked the qualifications. Even assuming that this defendant's knowledge of Ms. Ali's wrongdoing was material to the grand jury's inquiries, no reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the witness understood what the questioning was driving at, and nevertheless made an intentionally false statement under oath.
As a secondary matter, it should be noted that a leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer which is desired. The question involved here was undoubtedly a leading question, "You have no idea . . .," and plainly invited a negative response. The defendant was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury, and was being questioned by the prosecutor. It does not seem equitable for the prosecutor to suggest a negative answer to the question, and then charge the witness with perjury for accepting the suggestion.
Finally, even if the witness did understand the question — an issue as to which, on this record, a reasonable doubt persists — her answer was in the nature of an "exculpatory no." Denials of guilt are not generally regarded as perjurious.
For all of the foregoing reasons, Count 28 of this Indictment will be dismissed.
An Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of July 2004, upon consideration of the motion of the defendant Zaynah Rasool to dismiss Count 28 of the Indictment, and the government's response, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The defendant's motion is GRANTED. Count 28 of the Indictment is DISMISSED as to the defendant Zaynah Rasool.