Later he was tried and convicted for perjury. However, in a decision written by Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger , the Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that although Bronston may have knowingly misled, his statements were literally true. If a line of questioning is ambiguous, the answers given will not support a perjury conviction.
Although Bronston made misleading and evasive statements, this alone is not sufficient to meet the false statement requirement. A perjury charge related to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton further demonstrates how difficult it is to justify a perjury prosecution. Experts argue over whether President Clinton perjured himself when testifying before the grand jury about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The law draws a line between lying and perjury.
He was ultimately impeached in the U. House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case but was not convicted in the U. Many claim that he was prosecuted for perjury for political reasons and that most citizens would rarely be charged with perjury over matters such as this. Still, many high-profile cases demonstrate that prosecuting perjury is not easy because of the legal standards imposed in the Bronston case.
This article was originally published in Glaberson, William. Turn on desktop notifications for breaking stories about interest? Here is an explanation: False Statement. Comments 0. Top Stories. American tourist shot at Mexico beach resort: 'I thought this is it' 1 hour ago.
Durham probe offers fresh support for man who has long denied being 'dossier' source Nov 11, PM. ABC News Live. False statements made outside of official proceedings are not perjury. For example, if a witness lies to a lawyer who is taking notes in order to draft an affidavit, the witness has not committed perjury unless she later signs the affidavit under oath with the false statement in it.
Sworn, written statements submitted to courts or government agencies are statements made in a proceeding and subject to perjury laws. Only a "material" statement can be perjury. The false statement must be capable of influencing the proceeding — that is, it must have a relationship to the subject of the proceeding.
This includes a false statement that would tend to mislead or hamper an investigation. This means that a lie, even under oath, about a subject that is not material to the proceeding is not perjury. For example, falsely bragging that "I never update my Facebook page at work," while testifying in a case having nothing to do with social networking at work, would not be a likely candidate for a perjury charge.
A material statement that is superfluous to the outcome may still be perjury. Even where false testimony does not affect the outcome of a case, the lying witness may be prosecuted for perjury. For example, suppose an ex-cop is on trial for his involvement in a gambling operation. Several witnesses have testified to his involvement, but on the stand, he falsely denies any involvement. This denial would be a material statement, even though it arguably did not affect the jury's finding of guilt the jury had the other witnesses' testimony to rely on.
Common Defenses to Perjury Here are some common defenses to perjury. True Statements Remember, perjury is giving false testimony—saying or writing something that is not true.
Recanted or Corrected Statements Sometimes, witnesses say or write something that they later recant. If the case were to be brought in federal court, one of two results is possible, courtesy of the two federal laws that concern perjury: A person charged under a broad perjury statute 18 U.
Someone may be able to avoid eventual prosecution by recanting or correcting the false statement, but must do so during the same proceeding in which it was made; and the false statement must not have "substantially affected" the proceedings.
But this only works if the witness is charged under the second, narrower statute 18 U. Needless to say, a witness who must decide whether to recant a false statement needs the advice of an experienced attorney see below. The "Perjury Trap" In some cases, the prosecutor will call a defendant solely because the prosecutor knows that he will likely lie under oath, committing perjury, and the prosecutor doesn't need his testimony for any other purpose.
Whether or not a prosecutor has actually set this "perjury trap," this is a hard defense to raise, for two reasons: No materiality. For a perjury charge to stick, the lie must be material, as explained above. But where the perjury trap involves asking about something that doesn't really matter, the lie won't rise to the level of perjury.
So the better course is to claim simply that there's no materiality. The prosecutor's hopes that the witness will lie aren't enough to defeat the charge. After all, hoping a witness will lie doesn't make that witness do so. As long as the questions asked of the witness are related to the issue under investigation or raised in a lawsuit, the prosecutor is not setting a trap, even if the prosecutor harbors a hope that the witness will lie.
Defenses That Aren't Available Some defenses that you might think will apply will not be available in a perjury prosecution in certain situations. They include: Double jeopardy. This defense claims that the defendant is being tried twice, in the same jurisdiction court , for the same offense.
It doesn't apply when a defendant is being tried for a crime, but then is charged later for perjuring himself during trial. For example, a defendant in a rape case who was acquitted based on DNA evidence but lied under oath about his alibi may still be prosecuted for perjury.
The limits of immunity. Prosecutors sometimes offer immunity from prosecution to witnesses who themselves are or could be subject to criminal charges, but who have important information that would support a case against another, more serious criminal defendant.
0コメント