Search results
May 4, 1992 · On May 4, 1988, respondent John H. Williams, Jr., a Tulsa, Oklahoma, investor, was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of "knowingly mak[ing] [a] false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing . . . the action [of a federally insured financial institution]," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (1988 ed., Supp. II ...
UNITED STATES v. JOHN H. WILLIAMS, JR. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on May 4, 1992. The case was argued before the court on January 22, 1992.
On May 4, 1988, respondent John H. Williams, Jr., a Tulsa, Oklahoma, investor, was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of "knowingly mak[ing] [a] false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing . . . the action [of a federally insured financial institution]," in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1014 (1988 ed., Supp. II).
May 4, 1992 · On May 4, 1988, respondent John H. Williams, Jr., a Tulsa, Oklahoma, investor, was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of "knowingly mak[ing] [a] false statement or report . . . for the purpose of influencing . . . the action [of a federally insured financial institution]," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 (1988 ed., Supp. II).
- 112 S.Ct. 1735,504 U.S. 36,118 L.Ed.2d 352
- No. 90-1972,90-1972
- 04 May 1992
United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the presentation of exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. It ruled that the federal courts do not have the supervisory power to require prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOHN H. WILLIAMS, JR. An error occurred while loading the PDF. Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
Defendant John H. Williams, Jr. is a businessman in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Between September 1984 and November 1985 defendant obtained loans and loan renewals from several banks in Tulsa. With each loan or renewal request, defendant presented the banks with two types of financial statements.
