With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence that the statements in question were made under oath. Although Wyche contends, without supporting authority, that the “under oath” requirement cannot be established by circumstantial evidence, we disagree. First, as Wyche concedes, the other elements of the crime of perjury may be proved using circumstantial evidence. See Appellant’s Br. at 14. Second, as indicated by our standard of review, the elements of a crime ordinarily can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. See Voss, 82 F.3d at 1524-25. Case law on the issue establishes that “perjury cases, like all criminal cases, are susceptible to proof by circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Chapin, 515 F.2d 1274, 1280 (D.C.Cir.1975); see also United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758, 770 (3d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Third, the perjury statute itself supports

A: holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence
B: holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
C: holding that conviction can be supported solely by circumstantial evidence
D: holding intent to intimidate or threaten may be proved by circumstantial evidence such as ones conduct or statements
A.