Perjury - FindLaw Perjury Download article as a PDF Juries and judges often base their verdicts, sentences, or other important decisions on sworn testimony and signed documents. Statements given under oath and certain legal documents are presumed to be truthful, or at least made in good faith. But how do we know for sure that witnesses and other parties involved in a legal matter are telling the truth? We can’t always be certain, but those who are caught knowingly misleading a court face serious criminal charges of perjury . To “perjure” yourself is to knowingly make false or misleading statements under oath or to sign a legal document you know to be false or misleading. This crime is taken very seriously because the foundation of the legal system depends on trust and credibility. After all, just one sworn statement has the power to tip the scales of justice and dramatically alter someone’s life. Perjury is considered a crime against justice , since lying under oath compromises the authority of courts, grand juries, governing bodies, and public officials. Other crimes against justice include Criminal Contempt of Court , Probation Violation , and tampering with evidence.

Examples of Perjury There are a number of different ways you could perjure yourself, but the crime is committed either in statements made under oath or in signed documents. Here are some examples: While completing a sworn affidavit during child support proceedings in family court, John intentionally understates his monthly income by $2,000, signs the printed document, and files it with the judge’s clerk. Jill is sworn in and testifies at trial that her friend, Mary, was having lunch at her house when the crime with which Mary was charged occurred. However, credit card receipts and mobile phone records indicate otherwise. Frank intentionally omits $15,000 he won at a casino from his federal income tax return, which he signs and sends to the IRS. In all of these examples, evidence of the crime typically comes to light when testimony or signed statements directly conflict with verifiable information. The man who understated his monthly income, for example, likely would be caught by authorities when his employer’s payroll records indicate a higher income. But since witnesses and others involved in legal proceedings may unintentionally provide false testimony in good faith, prosecutors must be able to prove the intent to deceive or mislead.

For example, a witness to a robbery testifies that the suspect had green eyes and a scar on his left cheek, but other evidence points to a suspect with blue eyes and a scar on his right cheek. Unless prosecutors can prove that the witness was trying to protect the assailant by knowingly lying about key facts, she has not perjured herself just because her memory of the incident is hazy. Penalties State and federal penalties for perjury include fines and/or prison terms upon conviction. Federal law ( 18 USC § 1621 ), for example, states that anyone found guilty of the crime will be fined or imprisoned for up to five years. Most state laws have similar provisions, but judges typically have discretion to use leniency (including probation in lieu of a prison sentence) where appropriate. And if you are convicted, you may even lose your livelihood. If you work in a profession where truthfulness is valued, such as the legal profession, law enforcement, and some public service jobs, you could lose your professional license. Perjury is considered a very serious crime against the integrity of the justice system. If you have been charged with the crime or have additional questions, consider speaking with a criminal defense attorney.

Free Perjury Case Evaluation by a Criminal Defense Attorney Perjury is a strange crime, as it is rarely charged and even harder to prove. For a testifying defendant, the penalties for perjury are usually far less severe than the penalties for the crime charged. For civilian witnesses, however, the threat of perjury is often a tool prosecutors use to ensure candid testimony and to garner convictions. If you have received a subpoena or are being interviewed by law enforcement, you should consult with a criminal defense attorney for a free case review . Next Steps Lying under oath - definition of lying under oath by The Free Dictionary Lying under oath - definition of lying under oath by The Free Dictionary Also found in: Thesaurus , Wikipedia . ThesaurusAntonymsRelated WordsSynonymsLegend: Want to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us , add a link to this page, or visit the webmaster's page for free fun content . Link to this page: perjurious References in periodicals archive ?

Former New Zealand all-rounder Cairns was on Monday found not guilty of lying under oath during his successful libel case in 2012 against former Indian Premier League chairman Lalit Modi, who accused him of match fixing on Twitter two years earlier. Copyright © 2003-2017 Farlex, Inc Disclaimer All content on this website, including dictionary, thesaurus, literature, geography, and other reference data is for informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete, up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional. What Is the Penalty for Lying under Oath? (with pictures) What Is the Penalty for Lying under Oath? Edited By: E. E. Hubbard Last Modified Date: 29 December 2016 Copyright Protected: These 10 animal facts will amaze you The act of lying under oath is called perjury in most jurisdictions, although it can also be referred to as forswearing or lying on oath. In legal terms, it requires an intentional act of lying after a person has taken an oath or affirmation to tell the truth.

Penalties for this crime can vary by jurisdiction, but often include imprisonment. Perjury is a crime in many jurisdictions. A person can commit perjury by lying under oath either verbally or in writing. Although the possible punishment for this crime can vary, under the laws of many countries, it is considered serious and therefore carries a possible prison sentence if a person is convicted. In reality, however, prosecutions for perjury are somewhat rare in most places. A person may commit perjury by testifying under oath and making a false statement during that testimony. Under the rules of procedure in most legal systems, a witness must be "sworn in" prior to beginning his or her testimony. Swearing in includes the witnesses agreeing, under the penalties of perjury, to tell the complete truth when he or she testifies. Ad A mistake of fact or an unintentional misrepresentation of fact is not considered to be perjury. In order for a witness to commit perjury during his or her testimony in court, he or she must intentionally make a false statement of fact. In addition, in many places, telling a lie about something immaterial to the matter before the court is not considered perjury.

The statement upon which a charge of perjury is based must be something that was relevant to the court's decision in the matter before the court. A person may also be guilty of lying under oath in writing. Many legal documents include a statement attesting to the fact that the person executing the document swears, under the penalties of perjury, that the information contained in the document is true and accurate. Once a person signs the document, he or she is subject to a charge of perjury if a material fact was misrepresented or a false statement was made in the document. Perjury is often charged as a felony . In the United States, at the federal level and in most state courts, it is punishable by a year or more in prison. In the United Kingdom, perjury is punishable by up to seven years in prison. Ad anon954446 Post 20 My partner was declared bankrupt. Even though she was mentally ill, the sworn affidavits said in the statements that they had never been in touch with my partner and had never received any payments from her and yet we had bank statements showing she had a direct debit each month paying her debt at 10 pounds a month.

anon947601 Post 19 I was involved in a case where I had dated this woman 12 years ago. I had lunch with this woman at her request because my current girlfriend and I had broken up. She found a sexy text that she had asked me about. I told her it wasn't for her and she hit the fan. I know her mother (an elderly woman) very well and she told me not to contact her unless it had something to do with her mom. To make a long story short, she and her mother both lied on me in court and were caught lying by my attorney. They still convicted me and sentenced me to six months in jail (suspended). This was my first offense. I lost my job, my home, my vehicle, my cell phone, my friends, etc. I was denied unemployment, welfare and I don't know where I'll end up next -- maybe on the streets as a bum. I was in line for a six figure job that I had been waiting for all my life. All this because I sent a text message to the wrong person.

anon359876 Post 18 I did not have money to hire a lawyer, so I let an appointed lawyer represent me. They did more damage than I could imagine, and I wish I had not had a lawyer at all. My neighbor lied about me doing what I did not do. The judge ordered me to pay my neighbor $8600 for damages, and I cannot believe this. Why does society allow liars to rise, and honest people to pay for the crime I did not commit? My neighbor is looking for an easy way to make money. anon348947 Post 17 I just took my ex to court for contempt and after getting him to say, more than once, that he chose not to follow the court order, the judge ruled in my favor. I got a judgment from it and got to sit and watch my ex get lectured by the judge. The judge also told him that if he commits contempt again, he will face jail time. Part of the contempt was my ex not paying his half of our daughter's braces.

In court he told the judge, under oath, that he had set up for a few months now for the orthodontist to take $40 from his account every month. I got a call from the orthodontist the other day saying that he has not been paying them and that it was set up for them to take only $20 a month. Would this be grounds for perjury since he knew he was not paying and was not giving them $40, but told the judge he was? anon339263 Post 16 I've learned my lesson that those who commit perjury in court are rewarded while those of us who actually tell the truth get robbed. I sued an insurance company over a claim they denied, which, according to the policy wording, and what I was told by my agent, was covered. I sat through three days of trial and had to listen to their lawyer and claims adjuster lie over and over to the jury about the policy wording and to add insult to injury, I had to sit there and basically be accused of insurance fraud by the claims. When we appealed the case and pointed out the numerous lies told by them, the judge couldn't have cared less.

He denied the appeal and didn't even address the lies that we brought to his attention. I now know the only way to win a court case is to commit perjury because the judges and courts don't care. Instead they are the people who are rewarded. anon335271 Post 15 The judicial system is broken because most people involved in the prosecution and defense are lawyers. It's fair to say 25 percent of them are just plain dishonest. About 50 percent of them are just plain lazy and don't lose one minute of sleep defending or prosecuting or searching for the truth. The 25 percent who actually care are judges who are overworked and very tired. This can all be summed up into one short sentence: Lawyers get their money for nothing, and real criminals get off for free. anon324961 Post 14 The entire judicial system is a joke. Lawyers will promise to take care of matters and they do nothing but take your money. tudorgirl Post 13 I would be grateful if someone could advise me in a situation.

My son went out and met his friend whom he hadn't seen for some time, and this friend also met up with 54 of his friends who my son didn't know. They had a few drinks and later on as they were walking, one of the group shouted to three men about the same age (18) did they want to buy weed (although non of them had any). They said no, then one of the others pulled a penknife out and waved it at one of the three. It was in a dark area but under night CCTV. To make a long story, short some ran off and my son just froze. There was a confrontation, since this one dropped his phone and accused my son or someone of picking it up. My son told him to search him which he did and nothing was found – no knife or phone. By this time, there were about 18 people around. The police arrived and arrested my son, but the one who pulled the knife wasn't arrested, nor was the other one. An hour or so later, the one with the knife called a number from the mobile phone and the one whose phone it was went back to police to say he had been offered the phone back for £20.

It was arranged that the police would watch and then they arrested him (my son was still in a cell) then another was arrested. My son had told them the guy was involved, but the one with the knife refused to answer any questions. The other pleaded not guilty (the same as my son). At the time of the incident, my son told the officer to get the footage from the CCTV which surrounded the area, which would prove he was nowhere near the attack and not involved. The others – especially the one who had started it – were interviewed. I went to each meeting with my son's solicitor and he was told to stay away from all involved and not to contact any witnesses, which he thought would have also included his friend. Several requests was made by his solicitor to get a copy of the footage, and some 10 weeks later we were told that there was none, which was really devastating to my son. I contacted the council several times to see if their was a way to get a copy, but was informed unless a copy was requested from the police it was too late. The prosecution's three witnesses are into amateur filmmaking, and 10 minutes before the trial started, we were informed that the film had turned up.

We were thrilled. The other defendant viewed it for about an hour, then we watched. We heard the barrister tell the defendant this is you here, which was just a figure in the distance and could have been anyone. As he left the room, he confirmed the film was six minutes out. They left the room then we watched it. Immediately, my son told his barrister that it was not the film, that nothing made any sense, there was no incident, only two figures in the distance and it showed mountain biking stunts at the location of the attack, but his barrister did not want to know. He said he did not want to upset the judge. The day continued and the following morning. Halfway through, it was obvious how important the CCTV how important it was, so l went out and telephoned the main controller who had told me no film was done. She also confirmed that it was impossible to be six minutes out. The max for their cameras was 10 seconds. Again, we told his barrister and he refused to act, and hardly spoke to us after. The three prosecution witnesses lied in court.

They were asked if they took drugs or had used knives, and they all said no, yet on their film, they are as high as a kite and the main one is injecting his arm. The knives they used were big samurai swords. My son has always suffered from anxiety and has never, ever been in a fight. He hates violence, Also, my son was described wrong in his clothing. Of the other two who got charged, one had seven convictions and the other had nine. My son had none but they were 17 and he was charged as an adult. They got 18 months and my son got 30 months. Can he bring charges against the use of tampered or wrong evidence and also against the three for perjury? I did download everything. l would be really grateful for any advice about this. Sorry for going on so much, but it is so complicated. anon297980 Post 12 Today I went to family court because my ex lost his job and filed a motion to delete his child support monthly charges. I responded because he has violence in his background from the past two years and it is frowned upon when children are involved.

Well, I didn't use his documents as perjury because I was hoping the judge could just see for himself. I requested a motion to change venue on the grounds that the attorney was also a municipal judge in the same city ans the circuit judge that was hearing the case and the attorney was also his clients bro-in-law and I thought there could be a bias judgment on the proceedings. That request was denied and the hearing took place. So it was time to shine. I asked many questions and one specific question many times and the witness (ex) denied the truth of the questions under oath. I then submitted proof of his perjury and stated to the courts that it was one part of his perjury just committed. I was allowed to then gain answers about the questions asked and finally got the true answer but not entirely, because he claims someone else paid for the proof I proved he committed perjury about. Let's see what the judge rules on the case, because I can tell you it should be completely in my favor all the way. I must say pro se isn't too bad. anon292607 Post 11 Perjury is condoned in our courts of law.

We sued our insurance company -- Allstate -- for bad faith when they refused to pay our claim. Allstate brought in someone who was willing to lie under oath. Proof that he committed perjury was given to the DA, but he refused to investigate it, but they were willing to put a welfare recipient who had gotten $800 extra into jail. We have a corrupt legal system, worse than a third world country. anon262743 Post 10 I am involved in a custody case at the moment regarding my son. His mother and her family have all so far lied in sworn documentation and I have video evidence to prove it, but the court is allowing them to just continuously get away with the lies and every one of them does have a bearing on the case because they are resulting in me not seeing my son as often as I should. It also means my son is in a situation where there is an aggressive dog and people are looking after him who shouldn't be. Their perjury has made a major difference in the case and while I do not want to stop my son seeing that side of the family, I do hope the court will stop messing about, realize they are lying under oath and in sworn documents and sentence them to jail.

Every one of them really does deserve it. The thing that troubles me is that it is my son who misses out because of their lies. Perjury - What Is Perjury? What is perjury? by FreeAdvice staff Perjury is the criminal offense of lying under oath. A perjury charge may be brought when someone makes a false statement after being sworn in or promising to tell the truth in a legal situation. For instance, a person giving testimony on the stand during a court case who tells a lie may be charged with perjury. Someone who lies during a deposition, or who lies on a signed declaration or affidavit can also be charged with this offense. Perjury Laws Both individual states and the federal government have laws making perjury a criminal offense. While the basic definition of perjury is the same at both the federal and the state level, the penalties may be different. For instance, the federal law against perjury in the U.S. Code classifies perjury as a felony. This means that someone who lies under oath in federal court, or who lies under oath to a person acting on behalf of the federal government may be sentenced to up to five years in jail. Some states classify perjury as a felony as well.

Penalties for a felony are always more serious than a misdemeanor and can include large fines, and a year or more of jail or prison time. In other states, however, perjury may be a misdemeanor. In New York, for instance, whether perjury is a felony or a misdemeanor depends upon the lie that was told and the impact of that lie. Under New York law , simply telling a lie under oath is a class A misdemeanor, but telling a material lie under oath, or an important lie, is a felony. Elements of Perjury In order for a defendant to be found guilty of perjury, the prosecutor must prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Although the elements of perjury vary between individual states and federal law, the elements of perjury are similar. In order for a person to be charged with perjury, he or she generally must have 1) been sworn in or made a solemn legal promise to tell the truth; and 2) made a false statement or told a lie on purpose. Prosecutors can sometimes prove that a defendant lied by showing inconsistency in prior statements made by the defendant.

For instance, if a person testifies one way in a deposition and another way in court, and the statements conflict with one another, this is solid evidence of perjury even if the prosecutor cannot prove which of the statements was untrue. Most states and the federal government have an additional requirement, that the misstatement was material or important to the proceedings in which it was made. If a witness was testifying in case about a robbery of a diner, for example, lying about whether he saw the defendant at the diner would be material since seeing the defendant at the scene of the crime would be relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence. Lying about what he ate for breakfast, on the other hand, usually wouldn't be a material misstatement that would result in a charge of perjury. Defenses to Perjury Charges Perjury charges are usually very difficult for prosecutors to prove because perjury is a crime of intent. This means that a defendant charged with perjury can only be found guilty if the prosecutor shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he or she intended to make the false statement under oath, or, that the witness told the lie on purpose.

As such, criminal attorneys often defend their clients by arguing that the defendant did not intend to lie, or that the party believed the statement to be the truth at the time they made it. Making a mistake or remembering facts inaccurately is not an intentional misstatement, so if a defendant successfully argues that he simply made an error he cannot be found guilty of perjury. It tends to be difficult for a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the misstatement wasn't just a mistake, so this defense is often successful. Lawyers defending clients accused of perjury also typically make the arguement that the misstatement was not material or relevant to the proceedings. However, this defense requires attorneys to show that the statement was actually irrelevant; it is not enough to show that the defendant believed his lie was not relevant. Courts have consistently held that a person's belief about whether his statement was material or not isn't the important factor. Instead, the important factor is whether the statement pertained to an issue viewed as objectively material by the court. Another good defense to perjury charges is proving that the false statement was corrected before it had an impact.

For instance, if a party said something untrue under oath but recanted before the statement had any legal effect, such as before the jury considered its truth during the trial, then the defendant could not be found guilty of perjury. Free Legal Advice – Get Informed Why Police Officers Lie Under Oath - The New York Times The New York Times SundayReview |Why Police Lie Under Oath Search Why Police Lie Under Oath By MICHELLE ALEXANDER Continue reading the main story THOUSANDS of people plead guilty to crimes every year in the United States because they know that the odds of a jury’s believing their word over a police officer’s are slim to none. As a juror, whom are you likely to believe: the alleged criminal in an orange jumpsuit or two well-groomed police officers in uniforms who just swore to God they’re telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but? As one of my colleagues recently put it, “Everyone knows you have to be crazy to accuse the police of lying.” But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie.

In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so. That may sound harsh, but numerous law enforcement officials have put the matter more bluntly. Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.” The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects.

“But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.” Advertisement Continue reading the main story Remarkably, New York City officers have been found to engage in patterns of deceit in cases involving charges as minor as trespass. In September it was reported that the Bronx district attorney’s office was so alarmed by police lying that it decided to stop prosecuting people who were stopped and arrested for trespassing at public housing projects, unless prosecutors first interviewed the arresting officer to ensure the arrest was actually warranted. Jeannette Rucker, the chief of arraignments for the Bronx district attorney, explained in a letter that it had become apparent that the police were arresting people even when there was convincing evidence that they were innocent. To justify the arrests, Ms. Rucker claimed, police officers provided false written statements, and in depositions, the arresting officers gave false testimony. Continue reading the main story Mr. Keane, in his Chronicle article, offered two major reasons the police lie so much. First, because they can.

Police officers “know that in a swearing match between a drug defendant and a police officer, the judge always rules in favor of the officer.” At worst, the case will be dismissed, but the officer is free to continue business as usual. Second, criminal defendants are typically poor and uneducated, often belong to a racial minority, and often have a criminal record. “Police know that no one cares about these people,” Mr. Keane explained. Photo Credit Wesley Allsbrook All true, but there is more to the story than that. Police departments have been rewarded in recent years for the sheer numbers of stops, searches and arrests. In the war on drugs, federal grant programs like the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program have encouraged state and local law enforcement agencies to boost drug arrests in order to compete for millions of dollars in funding. Agencies receive cash rewards for arresting high numbers of people for drug offenses, no matter how minor the offenses or how weak the evidence. Law enforcement has increasingly become a numbers game. And as it has, police officers’ tendency to regard procedural rules as optional and to lie and distort the facts has grown as well. Numerous scandals involving police officers lying or planting drugs — in Tulia, Tex.

and Oakland, Calif., for example — have been linked to federally funded drug task forces eager to keep the cash rolling in. THE pressure to boost arrest numbers is not limited to drug law enforcement. Even where no clear financial incentives exist, the “get tough” movement has warped police culture to such a degree that police chiefs and individual officers feel pressured to meet stop-and-frisk or arrest quotas in order to prove their “productivity.” Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up Privacy Policy For the record, the New York City police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, denies that his department has arrest quotas. Such denials are mandatory, given that quotas are illegal under state law. But as the Urban Justice Center’s Police Reform Organizing Project has documented, numerous officers have contradicted Mr. Kelly.

In 2010, a New York City police officer named Adil Polanco told a local ABC News reporter that “our primary job is not to help anybody, our primary job is not to assist anybody, our primary job is to get those numbers and come back with them.” He continued: “At the end of the night you have to come back with something. You have to write somebody, you have to arrest somebody, even if the crime is not committed, the number’s there. So our choice is to come up with the number.” Exposing police lying is difficult largely because it is rare for the police to admit their own lies or to acknowledge the lies of other officers. This reluctance derives partly from the code of silence that governs police practice and from the ways in which the system of mass incarceration is structured to reward dishonesty. But it’s also because police officers are human. Research shows that ordinary human beings lie a lot — multiple times a day — even when there’s no clear benefit to lying.

Generally, humans lie about relatively minor things like “I lost your phone number; that’s why I didn’t call” or “No, really, you don’t look fat.” But humans can also be persuaded to lie about far more important matters, especially if the lie will enhance or protect their reputation or standing in a group. The natural tendency to lie makes quota systems and financial incentives that reward the police for the sheer numbers of people stopped, frisked or arrested especially dangerous. One lie can destroy a life, resulting in the loss of employment, a prison term and relegation to permanent second-class status. The fact that our legal system has become so tolerant of police lying indicates how corrupted our criminal justice system has become by declarations of war, “get tough” mantras, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for locking up and locking out the poorest and darkest among us. And, no, I’m not crazy for thinking so. Michelle Alexander is the author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” A version of this op-ed appears in print on February 3, 2013, on Page SR4 of the New York edition with the headline: Why Police Lie Under Oath.

Today's Paper | Subscribe Perjury: Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law Perjury: Laws and Penalties Share on Facebook “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” – a mantra recited dozens of times a week in TV shows and movies. It’s so familiar that its significance can be overlooked. But, when sworn in a court or other official proceeding, it makes everything said afterward either the truth or perjury. Perjury, the crime of lying under oath, is a serious offense because it can derail the basic goal of the justice system—discovering the truth. Even the famous and the powerful have faced the consequences of perjury, which include prosecution ( Barry Bonds ), prison (Marion Jones), and impeachment (Bill Clinton). Historically, perjury was defined as lying while testifying in court. The law now defines the crime to cover not just trials but also many other proceedings, including grand juries, family law court, bail hearings, Congressional committee hearings, and depositions in civil lawsuits. Sworn statements made to governmental agencies such as the Social Security Administration or in financial affidavits (such as loan applications) are also covered.

It’s also a criminal offense to cause another to commit perjury, called suborning perjury. For more information on this crime, see Suborning Perjury . What Is Perjury? A witness under oath commits perjury by making a statement in a court or other proceeding that the witness knows is not true. The statement must be “material” to the subject of the proceeding, meaning that it must have some relationship to the lawsuit, investigation, or inquiry of the proceeding. All parts of this definition are important, so let’s take a closer look at each: Perjury only happens under oath. The witness must have vowed to tell the truth to someone who is authorized to administer the oath, such as a judge, notary public, or other official. And, the proceeding must be “competent,” that is, authorized by law. For example, a grand jury that has launched an investigation that is beyond its powers is not a competent proceeding. Perjury requires a statement. Silence or a refusal to give a statement is not perjury (but may lead to other charges). In addition to testimony, a statement adopted in the proceeding, as when a witness authenticates a false writing while under oath, is also perjury. Intent to mislead.

The witness must know that the testimony is false and must give it with the intent to mislead the court. Only false statements are perjury. False testimony that results from confusion, lapse of memory, or mistake is not perjury. Conflicts in testimony may be perjury if one of the conflicting statements is necessarily false (and prosecutors can prove perjury without proving which one is false). Inconsistent statements can lead to perjury. A witness’s testimony is viewed as a whole. So, a witness who claimed he did not remember an event when questioned at one point in testimony, but who clearly recalled aspects of the event when asked later, may have committed perjury. (Inconsistency under oath is what led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment.) But, where a witness’s testimony is inconsistent in a way that is of no consequence in the proceeding, that is not perjury. Statement made in court or other proceeding. 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 superflouos 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. This means that true statements, even when made to intentionally mislead, are not perjury. For example, where a defendant in a mail fraud case testifies that he did not “send” the fraudulent document because he did not actually put the document in the mailbox himself, he has told the literal truth and has not committed perjury. In such a situation, the prosecutor has to ask further questions (such as, “did you direct someone to drop the document in the mailbox?”) in order to get the defendant to admit to participating in the fraud, or get the defendant to lie about participating. Recanted or corrected statements Sometimes, witnesses say or write something that they later recant. Whether their change of heart constitutes a legally recognized defense to a perjury charge depends on the law of the state where charges would be brought.

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.S.C. §1621) won’t necessarily avoid prosecution even by recanting during the same proceedings where she committed the perjury, but the recantation can be taken into consideration to show that the person did not intend to mislead. 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.S.C. §1623). However, by admitting to the prior false statement (in order to take it back), the witness may open herself up to prosecution under the broader statute described above (§1621)! 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. In these cases, a defendant will claim that this has happened and the prosecutor will deny it. 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 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. For example, a low-level accomplice might be granted immunity so that he can testify against a crime syndicate’s boss. But false testimony given after a prosecutor has granted a witness immunity may still be prosecuted as perjury! How is Perjury Punished? A person convicted of perjury under federal law may face up to five years in prison and fines.

The punishment for perjury under state law varies from state to state, but perjury is a felony and carries a possible prison sentence of at least one year, plus fines and probation. Penalties are increased in relation to how much the perjury interfered with the proceeding. When the perjurer was a witness in his own criminal trial, his sentence for the underlying conviction may also be increased, on the grounds that a lying defendant is one who has a bad character and is not likely to be rehabilitated quickly. Judges can punish a perjurer who lied under oath to hide or assist a crime in a way that goes beyond the sentence for perjury. That defendant may also be charged as an accessory to the crime he was attempting to hide or assist, if that charge will carry a greater sentence. And a perjurer may even be charged as an accessory to a crime of which he is convicted, if he lied to conceal that crime. There is no civil remedy for a criminal defendant wrongly convicted based on another’s perjury, nor for a party to a civil lawsuit who loses because of a witness’s perjury. A person who commits perjury also may have violated other laws that do provide remedies, however.

For more information, see What Happens If You Lie Under Oath? | Legalbeagle.com What Happens If You Lie Under Oath? By Beverly Bird shironosov/iStock/Getty Images If you’re like most people, you might think that the issue of lying under oath involves only the most obvious example -- you take the witness stand at a trial and you solemnly swear to tell the truth. Then, for one reason or another, something entirely different comes out of your mouth. In fact, you probably make statements under oath a lot more frequently than you realize, and if you lie, it’s perjury. Statements Made Under Oath When you fill out an application for a driver’s license or for credit, you typically supply information under oath. You do the same when you complete and sign your tax return. If you’re ever involved in a civil lawsuit, such as a divorce, you’ll have to submit multiple documents to the court, all of them under penalty of perjury -- you’re presenting facts and information to the court upon which the judge will base a ruling. Be alert for certain phrases when you sign anything.

There may be a statement to the effect that you’re declaring under penalty of perjury that the information you’re submitting is true and correct. This wording or something similar generally appears right above or below the signature line of whatever document you’re dealing with. Requirements of Perjury Perjury requires that the lie you’ve told is “material.” This means that it has a direct effect on the outcome of the matter you’ve lied about. If you sign a tax return that doesn’t report all your income, it’s perjury because the lie by omission directly affects what you owe in taxes. If you give false testimony at a trial, your statement must directly relate to the issue being tried. If you say that you lived in Oregon but you never actually set foot in the state, this would be perjury only if the issue of your presence there has some bearing on the case, such as if the crime you’re testifying about was committed there and you’re claiming to have witnessed it. You must also have knowledge that what you’re saying is untrue and, of course, you must make the statement under oath, attesting that it is true.

Possible Defenses If you make a statement that isn’t honest, it’s possible to raise certain defenses if you’re subsequently charged with perjury. You might be able to take back or recant your statement, but time is typically of the essence -- you generally can’t recant years later if you’ve realized you’re in trouble because of what you said. You can try to convince the court that you didn’t lie -- you just didn’t understand the question being posed to you. Because perjury requires a willful untruth, an honest error or confusion can often be raised as a defense. Penalties for Lying Under Oath In some states, penalties for perjury can depend on the sentiments of the judge and the severity of what happened because of the lie. For example, if an innocent defendant was convicted and sent to prison because of your misstatement, you might receive a prison term of two to four years in states such as California.

If your alimony order is half what it would have been if you had told the court the truth in your divorce documents, you might get just a slap on the wrist and an adjusted alimony order, or you could face criminal charges or civil sanctions, such as having to make an extra monetary payment to your ex to compensate. In many states, perjury is a felony, but the judge could still just place you on probation if the result of your lie wasn’t very serious. If your perjury involves the federal government, such as lying on your tax return, you risk a minimum of a year in prison, plus fines. References Officer accused of lying under oath; Lawsuit filed | WGN-TV Officer accused of lying under oath; Lawsuit filed Posted 5:55 PM, April 17, 2014, by WGN Web Desk and Marcella Raymond Share Update: Email This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated. Five police officers are accused of lying under oath during testimony about a drug case and the man arrested in the case has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit.

In what has been called a “Perry Mason” moment, a videotape played in court contradicted what three Chicago and two Glenview police officers had just said on the stand. The judge was outraged and called it a conspiracy. 23-year-old Joe Sperling’s arrest in Glenview was recorded last june. Police said they stopped him because he didn’t use his turn signal properly. Sperling had been under surveillance by Chicago narcotics officers who asked Glenview for assistance. All five police officers told the court the same story: that they followed proper procedure in arresting Sperling and confiscating a pound of pot from his car. But the video showed otherwise. It showed procedures weren’t followed and Sperling was arrested Without the videotape, Sperling was likely headed to jail after several drug arrests and a 2010 drug conviction. But charges were dismissed. The five officers were stripped of their police powers and placed on desk duty pending internal investigations. They could also face perjury charges and possibly lose their jobs.

Question: What is the name for the crime of lying under oath?
Answer: Perjury