than his material truthful statements. See Silveira, 297 F.Supp.2d at 356-58. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 1 . According to Silveira, a "master fundraiser" brokers contracts with individual fundraisers and oversees all of the fundraising activities for an organization. 2 . There was no evidence that Silveira was implicated in that investigation. 3 . We also reject Silveira’s suggestion that we limit our inquiry temporally — that the materiality of the statement must be measured at the time that the statement is given. By its very nature, a grand jury investigation is an ongoing process. The veracity or materiality of certain information is often not appreciated until later in the investigation. See United States v. Goguen, 723 F.2d 1012, 1019 (1st Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (2d
holding that summary judgment was inappropriate where plaintiff testified that statement written by defendant was false and defendant testified that statement was verbatim and accurate because although there was certainly not overwhelming evidence of falsification a reasonable jury would be entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony and reject defendants holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendants motion in arrest of judgment when the indictment lacked a material element and it was not apparent that the grand jury based the indictment on facts that satisfy this element of the crime and that the only permissible cure was to send the matter back to the grand jury holding that defendants false statement was material even though the grand jury was not certain that the defendant had lied until several weeks later when three witnesses testified contrary to the defendant holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose