In Bronston v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a witness cannot be convicted of perjury for giving literally true but misleading or nonresponsive answers in court proceedings. The case arose when Samuel Bronston, former head of a film production company, was asked during bankruptcy proceedings whether he had ever had any Swiss bank accounts. He responded truthfully that his company had held such accounts but failed to mention personal Swiss bank accounts he himself once possessed. Although this omission led creditors on a fruitless search for missing assets and arguably obstructed justice, the Court found it did not constitute perjury because Bronston's answer was technically accurate. This decision has been criticized as encouraging dishonesty by allowing witnesses to evade questioning with cleverly worded responses.

In the dissenting opinion for Bronston v. United States, Justice White argued that perjury statutes should be applicable to literally true but misleading statements made under oath. He contended that the majority's interpretation of the statute was too narrow and failed to consider its purpose: deterring false testimony and ensuring truthfulness in legal proceedings. According to him, a witness who intentionally misleads or confuses an examiner with their answers is just as culpable as one who outright lies. The responsibility shouldn't solely lie on lawyers to detect such deceptions during examination; witnesses must also bear some accountability for their testimonies' clarity and honesty. Thus, he disagreed with absolving Samuel Bronston from his perjury charge based on a literal interpretation of his statement's truthfulness.