Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 353 (1973) is a case in which a witness gave a non-responsive answer, thereby evading the truthful answer. The issue in Bronston was "whether a witness may be convicted of perjury for an answer, under oath, that is literally true but not responsive to the question asked and arguably misleading by negative implication."
Bronston was involved in bankruptcy proceedings. Attorneys for his creditors were examining him, under oath, regarding his assets in various countries. During this examination,the following exchange took place:
Q. Do you have any bank accounts in Swiss banks, Mr. Bronston?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you ever?
A. The company had an account there for about six months, in Zurich.
The whole truth was that Bronston avoided answering was that he had had a large personal bank account in Switzerland for five years.
Bronston was convicted of perjury, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. In an opinion by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that if a witness gives a non-responsive answer, it’s the cross-examiner’s responsibility to ask follow-up questions to clarify the answer.