Perjury Perjury The act or an instance of a person’s deliberately making material false or misleading statements while under oath. – Also termed false swearing; false oath; (archaically forswearing.Garner, Bryan A. (1999). Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul MN: West Group. p. 1160. Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to a judicial proceeding. That is, the witness falsely promises to tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example, it is not considered perjury to lie about ones age unless age is a factor in determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits. Perjury is considered a serious offense as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years. On the other hand, the California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. However prosecutions for perjury are rare. In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial. The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury, even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example of this is the United States income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) Statements which entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly, or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters immaterial to the legal proceeding. Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to perjure themselves, is itself a crime. Actus reus The actus reus of perjury might be considered to be the making of a statement, whether true or false, on oath in a judicial proceeding. Perjury is a conduct crime. Sentence A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both. The following cases are relevant: • R v Hall (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 153 • R v Knight, 6 Cr App R (S) 31, [1984] Crim LR 304, CA • R v Healey (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 297 • R v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr App R (S) 27 • R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 86 • R v Adams [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 15 • R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 61 United States Perjury operates in American law as an inherited principle of the common law of England, which defined the act as the willful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, in a judicial proceeding or course of justice, of a false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry. William Blackstone touched on the subject in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, establishing perjury as a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely, and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question. The punishment for perjury under the common law has varied from death to banishment and has included such grotesque penalties as severing the tongue of the perjurer. The definitional structure of perjury provides an important framework for legal proceedings, as the component parts of this definition have permeated jurisdictional lines, finding a home in American legal constructs. As such, the main tenets of perjury, including mens rea, a lawful oath, occurring during a judicial proceeding, a false testimony have remained necessary pieces of perjury’s definition in the United States. Statutory definitions Perjury’s current position in America’s legal takes the form of state and federal statutes. Most notably, the United States Code prohibits perjury, which is defined in two senses for federal purposes as someone who: (1) Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true. The above statute provides for a fine and/or up to five years in prison as punishment. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two broad categories of judicial proceedings may qualify as perjurious: 1) Federal official proceedings, and 2) Federal Court or Grand Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person. More generally, the statement must occur in the course of justice, but this definition leaves room open for interpretation. One particularly precarious aspect of this phrasing is that it entails knowledge of the accused person’s perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. It is important to note the distinction here, between giving a false statement under oath and merely misstating a fact accidentally, though this distinction can be especially difficult to discern in court of law. Precedents The development of perjury law in the United States centers on United States v. Dunnigan, a seminal case that set out the parameters of perjury within United States law. The court uses the Dunnigan based legal standard to determine if an accused person, [T]estifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. However, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution. The Dunnigan distinction manifests its importance in with regard to the relation between two component parts of perjury’s definition: in willfully giving a false statement, a person must understand that she is giving a false statement to be considered a perjurer under the Dunnigan framework. Deliberation on the part of the defendant is required for a statement to constitute perjury. Jurisprudential developments in the American law of perjury have revolved around the facilitation of perjury prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries. With this goal in mind, congress has sometimes expanded the grounds on which an individual may be prosecuted for perjury, with section 1623 of the United States Code recognizing the utterance of two mutually incompatible statements as grounds for perjury indictment even if neither can unequivocally be proven false. However, the two statements must be so mutually incompatible that at least one must necessarily be false; it is irrelevant whether the false statement can be specifically identified from among the two. It thus falls on the government to show that a defendant (a) knowingly made a (b) false (c) material statement (d) under oath (e) in a legal proceeding. These proceedings can be ancillary to normal court proceedings, and thus, even such menial interactions as bail hearings can qualify as protected proceedings under this statute. Wilfulness is an element of the offense. The mere existence of two mutually exclusive factual statements is not sufficient to prove perjury; the prosecutor nonetheless has the duty to plead and prove statement was willfully made. Mere contradiction will not sustain the charge; there must be strong corroborative evidence of the contradiction. One significant legal distinction lies in the specific realm of knowledge necessarily possessed by a defendant for her statements to be properly called perjury. Though the defendant must knowingly render a false statement in a legal proceeding or under federal jurisdiction, the defendant need not know that they are speaking under such conditions for the statement to constitute perjury. All tenets of perjury qualification persist- the “knowingly” aspect of telling the false statement simply does not apply to the defendant’s knowledge about the person she intends to deceive. Materiality Perjury law’s evolution in the United States has experienced the most debate with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge (as they do not meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury. However, such fundamental truths of perjury law become muddled when discerning the materiality of a given statement and the way in which it was material to the given case. In United States v. Brown, the court defined material statements as those with a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to be addressed, such as a jury or grand jury. While courts have specifically made clear certain instances which have succeeded or failed to meet the nebulous threshold for materiality, the topic remains unresolved in large part, except in certain legal areas where intent manifests itself in an abundantly clear fashion, such as with the so-called perjury trap, a specific situation in which a prosecutor calls a person to testify before a grand jury with the intent of drawing a perjurious statement from the person being questioned. Defense of recantation Despite a tendency of American perjury law toward broad prosecutory power under perjury statutes, American perjury law has afforded potential defendants a new form of defense not found in the British Common Law. This defense requires that an individual admit to making a perjurious statement during that same proceeding and recanting the statement. Though this defensive loophole slightly narrows the types of cases which may be prosecuted for perjury, the effect of this statutory defense is to promote a truthful retelling of facts by witnesses, thus helping to ensure the reliability of American court proceedings just as broadened perjury statutes aimed to do. Subornation of perjury Subornation of perjury stands as a subset of American perjury laws and prohibits an individual from inducing another to commit perjury. Subornation of perjury entails equivalent possible punishments as perjury on the federal level. This crime requires an extra level of satisfactory proof, as prosecutors must show not only that perjury occurred, but also that the defendant positively induced said perjury. Furthermore, the inducing defendant must know that the suborned statement is a false, perjurious statement. ABOUT LII / GET THE LAW / FIND A LAWYER / LEGAL ENCYCLOPEDIA / HELP OUT USC› Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 79 • PREV • NEXT 18 USC Chapter 79 - PERJURY • USC-prelim • US Code • Notes • Updates USCPrelim is a preliminary release and may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. Current through Pub. L. 112-283. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) • §1621. Perjury generally • §1622. Subornation of perjury • §1623. False declarations before grand jury or court Perjury Under Federal Law By MeredithBeach, eHow Contributor Three federal laws provide for the prosecution of perjury. Perjury is intentionally and willfully making a false statement in a court or government proceeding. The falsity of the statement must be known to the person making the statement at the time it is made. There are three federal perjury laws. Presenting false statements under oath in federal official proceedings is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1621. Presenting false statements under oath before a federal court or grand jury proceedings is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1623. Inducing or procuring another to commit perjury in violation of either of the above sections of the U.S. Code is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 1622. Although not considered perjury because of the lack of court or government proceeding, 18 U.S.C. 1001 prohibits the making of a false statement before any department that is in the federal jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. 1621 o Under 18 U.S.C. 1621 the government must show that the witness testifying under oath or affirmation gave willingly false testimony concerning a material matter rather than as a result of confusion, mistake or faulty memory. A matter is material if it influences the decision of the case or controversy. This section is frequently prosecuted when 18 U.S.C. 1623 is not a viable charge and in sentencing enhancement cases. 18 U.S.C. 1623 o To prove perjury, the government must establish that the defendant (1) knowingly made a (2) false (3) material declaration (4) under oath (5) in a proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. Ancillary proceedings include depositions in connection with civil litigation, pretrial proceedings, bail hearings, habeas proceedings, venue hearings or suppression hearings. Also under this section of the U.S. Code, a perjury conviction may be permitted on the basis of two inconsistent material declarations rather than the showing that one of the statements is false. 18 U.S.C. 1622 o Procuring or inducing another to commit perjury is outlawed under 18 U.S.C. 1622. Under this law, the act of perjury is committed by someone other than the defendant to the perjury case. The defendant to the perjury case is being charged with the subornation, or inducement, of perjury. In many situations, the prosecutor may seek to charge someone who induced perjury with obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1503 or 1512, because these sections do not require the defendant to succeed in inducing perjury. False statements o Closely related to perjury is 18 U.S.C. 1001, which prohibits making a false statement in any matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. This does not require the person making the statement be under oath. This section also applies to congressional entities. Prosecution: o According to Congressional Research Service, the false statement provisions in 18 U.S.C. 1001 are more widely prosecuted when compared with federal perjury laws. Of the federal perjury laws, 18 U.S.C. 1623 is more widely prosecuted when compared with the other two federal perjury laws. Who Prosecutes Perjury? • When perjury charges are filed, the government is responsible for prosecuting. This usually means the U.S. Attorney, district attorney or city attorney will be in charge. It depends on where the original case that elicited the perjury was tried. The perjury case will be prosecuted in the same court of law. Perjury is rarely tried, but is often used as a threat during criminal trials. Civil lawsuit perjury is even more rare. It is difficult to prove that an individual is lying instead of testifying in an honest manner, but not remembering accurately. Assigning the Case • The prosecuter in a perjury trial will be representing the people in her district, city or country. This is why the case will be referred to in all legal documents as the people vs. (defendents name). She will be assigned the case by her superior. This may be the district attorney of a county or possibly even the attorney general of the United States. When Perjury is Prosecuted • The prosecutor of the individual charged with perjury will not file against a participant in court proceedings who lies about nonmaterial issues, such as age. Prosecution of perjury by affidavit is reserved for when the false testimony can affect the outcome of the trial. This does not mean the information actually influences the outcome; only that it could change the outcome. The people (prosecutors) do not need to prove that the defendant knew the false testimony would affect the proceedings. When Perjury is not Prosecuted • The attorney representing the prosecution will not charge a defendant with perjury if there is only one witness to the lie. There needs to be another testimony or some additional evidence for them to consider prosecuting. He will not take the time and incur the cost to bring charges if a witness believes their testimony was true though later found to be false. In addition, if the attorney believes that the outcome would have been the same without the perjury, he will probably not file charges. Warning • Prosecutors of perjury have discretion on whether to file charges. They are influenced by many things, including trial outcome, political aspirations (many district attorneys run for office), office policies and the ideals of the attorney. However, perjury can be a significant offense, especially when an innocent defendant is found guilty. Though it is not always prosecuted, anyone who lies on the stand is running the risk of becoming a defendant in a new trial.
Posted on: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:16:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015