Apart from the obvious situations where a witness is shown to be lying under oath in court either to benefit one party or damage another, we also commonly see these charges after a domestic violence arrest. Occasionally, once the incident is over, the domestic violence victim will regret having the defendant arrested and may try to undo the arrest by going to the police and prosecutor and swearing that nothing happened or that the whole thing was made up.
Often, law enforcement will try to explain to the individual that by recanting, they are admitting that the information in the domestic incident report — information which was sworn to under oath — is false. If the person continues to claim that the story was made up, the prosecutor may elect to prosecute the original victim for the false statements in the domestic incident report. If you, or a loved one, has been charged with Perjury or Making a Punishable False Statement, call the experienced attorneys at the Law Offices of Jeffrey Lichtman immediately.
Call us today to learn more about charges for lying under oath in New York City. Charges for Lying Under Oath in New York City When a person swears under oath to tell the truth, failing to do so can lead to criminal prosecution. What is Perjury? Situations Involving Lying Under Oath Apart from the obvious situations where a witness is shown to be lying under oath in court either to benefit one party or damage another, we also commonly see these charges after a domestic violence arrest.
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.
For example, a low-level accomplice might be granted immunity so that he can testify against a crime syndicate's boss. Clemens, a seven-time winner of the Cy Young Award as a Major League Baseball pitcher for teams such as the New York Yankees and Red Sox, was indicted by a federal grand jury in for making false statements and perjury during his testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, when he claimed that he never used performance-enhancing drugs such as human growth hormone or steroids.
In , an initial trial involving Clemens ended in a mistrial. The following year, he was acquitted of all charges. Haldeman was sentenced to a maximum of 8 years in prison, which was later reduced to one to four years. He wound up serving 18 months. Mitchell served 19 months in prison. Weinberger, a former Defense secretary, was indicted on felony charges in for lying to Congress about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, in which officials sold arms to the Iranian government to support militant rebels in Nicaragua.
Weinberger was among a number of Reagan aides who were charged with lying to Congress, along with Clair George, deputy director of operations at the CIA, and John Poindexter, Reagan's national security adviser.
0コメント