If a Person Lies Under Oath Once He Will Lie Again Under Oath

Human action of swearing a faux adjuration or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, apropos matters cloth to an official proceeding.^[A]

Like most other crimes in the common law system, to be bedevilled of perjury one must accept 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 information technology is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding. Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people oftentimes draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may accept honest only mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may take a different perception of what is the accurate manner to state the truth. In some jurisdictions, no criminal offense has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or bailiwick to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to exist made) that are textile to the upshot of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one'south age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to take legal capacity.

Perjury is considered a serious law-breaking, as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In Canada, those who commits perjury are guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.^[i] Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.^[2] In the United States, the general perjury statute nether federal police force classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison house judgement of up to five years.^[3] The California Penal Lawmaking allows for perjury to be a majuscule offense in cases causing wrongful execution. Perjury which caused the wrongful execution of another or in the pursuit of causing the wrongful execution of another is respectively construed as murder or attempted murder, and is ordinarily itself punishable past execution in countries that retain the death penalty. Perjury is considered a felony in most U.South. states too as most Australian states. In Queensland, under Section 124 of the Queensland Criminal Lawmaking Deed 1899, perjury is punishable by up to life in prison if it is committed to procure an innocent person for a crime that is punishable past life in prison. All the same, prosecutions for perjury are rare.^[4]

In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and and so cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.^{[ citation needed ]}

The rules for perjury too apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed every bit a witness before an advisable official. An example is the U.s.a. 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 upward to three years in prison house for violation of the tax render perjury statute. Run into: 26 U.Due south.C. § 7206(one)

In the United States, Republic of kenya, Scotland and several other English-speaking Democracy nations, subornation of perjury, which is attempting to induce another person to commit perjury, is itself a crime.

Perjury law by jurisdiction [edit]

Canada [edit]

The offence of perjury is codification by section 132 of the Criminal Code. It is defined by section 131, which provides:

(1) Bailiwick to subsection (iii), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to let it to exist made before him a false statement under adjuration or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn proclamation or deposition or orally, knowing that the argument is false.

(i.ane) Subject to subsection (three), every person who gives bear witness under subsection 46(ii) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives show or a statement pursuant to an order made nether department 22.2 of the Common Legal Assist in Criminal Matters Human action, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that information technology is false, whether or not the false statement was fabricated under oath or solemn affirmation in accord with subsection (one), then long equally the imitation statement was fabricated in accordance with any formalities required by the constabulary of the place outside Canada in which the person is nigh nowadays or heard.
(ii) Subsection (ane) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.

(three) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do non apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made past a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.^[five]

As to corroboration, see section 133.

Anybody who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.^[1]

European Union [edit]

A person who, before the Court of Justice of the European Wedlock, swears anything which he knows to exist false or does not believe to be truthful is, whatever his nationality, guilty of perjury.^[6] Proceedings for this offence may exist taken in whatever place in the State and the offence may for all incidental purposes exist treated as having been committed in that place.^[7]

India [edit]

"The offence of perjury finds its place in law past virtue of Section 191 to Section 203 of the Indian Penal Lawmaking, 1860 ('IPC'). Unlike many other countries, the offence of perjury is muted on account of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C"). Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. restricts whatsoever court to take cognisance of an offence of perjury unless the same is by way of a complaint in writing past the court before which the offence is committed or by a superior court."^[8]

Nigeria [edit]

United Kingdom [edit]

England and Wales [edit]

Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. Information technology is created by section 1(1) of the Perjury Human action 1911. Department ane of that Human activity reads:

(1) If whatsoever person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a argument material in that proceeding, which he knows to be imitation or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on confidence thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term non exceeding vii years, or to imprisonment ... for a term non exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

(2) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before whatever court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.

(three) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, simply is made on oath before a person authorised past police to administrate an adjuration to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, exist treated equally having been made in a judicial proceeding.

(4) A statement fabricated by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding—

(a) in some other role of His Majesty'due south dominions; or

(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in whatever place by bounding main or state outside His Majesty's dominions; or

(c) in a tribunal of any foreign state,

shall, for the purposes of this department, exist treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in England.

(v) Where, for the purposes of a judicial proceeding in England, a person is lawfully sworn under the say-so of an Human activity of Parliament—

(a) in any other office of His Majesty'southward dominions; or

(b) before a British tribunal or a British officeholder in a strange country, or within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England;

a statement made by such person then sworn as aforesaid (unless the Act of Parliament under which it was fabricated otherwise specifically provides) shall be treated for the purposes of this section every bit having been made in the judicial proceeding in England for the purposes whereof information technology was made.

(6) The question whether a argument on which perjury is assigned was cloth is a question of law to be adamant by the courtroom of trial.^[9]

The words omitted from section 1(1) were repealed by section one(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948.

A person guilty of an offence under section 11(1) of the European Communities Deed 1972 (i.due east. perjury before the Court of Justice of the European Marriage) may be proceeded against and punished in England and Wales every bit for an offence nether section 1(i).^[ten]

Section 1(4) has effect in relation to proceedings in the Courtroom of Justice of the European Union as it has effect in relation to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign land.^[11]

Department 1(4) applies in relation to proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention every bit it applies to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.^[12]

A argument made on oath by a witness outside the United Kingdom and given in evidence through a live telly link past virtue of department 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 must be treated for the purposes of section 1 as having been made in the proceedings in which information technology is given in prove.^[xiii]

Section ane applies in relation to a person acting every bit an intermediary equally it applies in relation to a person lawfully sworn every bit an interpreter in a judicial proceeding; and for this purpose, where a person acts as an intermediary in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of department i, that proceeding must be taken to be part of the judicial proceeding in which the witness'south evidence is given.^[14]

Where whatever argument made by a person on oath in whatever proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 1 is received in show in pursuance of a special measures management, that proceeding must exist taken for the purposes of department 1 to be role of the judicial proceeding in which the statement is so received in prove.^[15]

Judicial proceeding [edit]

The definition in section one(ii) is not "comprehensive".^[16]

The volume Archbold says that it appears to be immaterial whether the courtroom earlier which the argument is made has jurisdiction in the particular cause in which the statement is made, because there is no express requirement in the Act that the court exist one of "competent jurisdiction" and considering the definition in section one(2) does non announced to require this by implication either.^[xvi]

Actus reus [edit]

The actus reus of perjury might exist considered to be the making of a statement, whether true or imitation, on oath in a judicial proceeding, where the person knows the statement to be false or believes it to be fake.^{[17] [eighteen]}

Perjury is a carry crime.^[19]

Mode of trial [edit]

Perjury is triable only on indictment.^[xx]

Sentence [edit]

A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or to a fine, or to both.^[ii]

The following cases are relevant:

• R v Hall (1982) iv 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] ii Cr App R (S) 27
• R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 86
• R 5 Adams [2004] ii Cr App R (S) 15
• R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (South) 61

See as well the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing manual.^[21]

History [edit]

In Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, the offence of perjury could only be committed by both jurors and by compurgators.^[22] With time witnesses began to announced in court they were not then treated despite the fact that their functions were akin to that of modern witnesses. This was due to the fact that their role were not yet differentiated from those of the juror and so evidence or perjury by witnesses was not fabricated a offense. Even in the 14th century, when witnesses started appearing before the jury to testify, perjury by them was not fabricated a punishable offence. The maxim then was that every witness's evidence on oath was truthful.^[22] Perjury by witnesses began to exist punished before the terminate of the 15th century past the Star Bedchamber.

The immunity enjoyed by witnesses began also to be whittled down or interfered with by the Parliament in England in 1540 with subornation of perjury^[22] and, in 1562, with perjury proper. The punishment for the offence and so was in the nature of monetary penalty, recoverable in a civil action and not by penal sanction. In 1613, the Star Sleeping accommodation declared perjury past a witness to be a punishable offence at common law.

Prior to the 1911 Act, perjury was governed by section 3 of the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1540 v Eliz 1 c. 9 ( An Act for the Punyshement of suche persones as shall procure or comit any wyllful Perjurye ; repealed 1967) and the Perjury Act 1728.

Materiality [edit]

The requirement that the statement be material can exist traced back to^[23] and has been credited to^[24] Edward Coke, who said:

For if it exist non material, then though it be false, yet it is no perjury, because it concerneth not the indicate in conform, and therefore in event it is extra-judicial. As well this act giveth remedy to the party grieved, and if the deposition exist not material, he cannot be grieved thereby.^[25]

Northern Ireland [edit]

Perjury is a statutory offence in Northern Ireland. It is created by commodity iii(1) of the Perjury (Northern Republic of ireland) Social club 1979 (S.I. 1979/1714 (Due north.I. 19)). This replaces the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 (c. 13) (Northward.I.).

United States [edit]

Perjury operates in American law as an inherited principle of the common constabulary of England, which defined the human activity as the "willful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in any form immune by police force to be substituted for an oath, in a judicial proceeding or grade of justice, of a false testimony material to the event or thing of inquiry".^[26]

William Blackstone touched on the bailiwick in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, establishing perjury equally "a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, admittedly, and falsely, in a thing material to the event or point in question".^[27] The punishment for perjury under the mutual law has varied from death to adjournment and has included such grotesque penalties as severing the tongue of the perjurer.^[28] The definitional construction 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 adjuration, occurring during a judicial proceeding, a false testimony have remained necessary pieces of perjury's definition in the United States.^[29]

Statutory definitions [edit]

Perjury'southward current position in the American legal arrangement takes the form of state and federal statutes. Most notably, the Us Code prohibits perjury, which is defined in ii senses for federal purposes as someone who:

(1) Having taken an adjuration earlier a competent tribunal, officeholder, or person, in whatever example in which a police force of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he volition 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 whatever material affair which he does non believe to exist true; or (ii) in any declaration, document, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under department 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true whatsoever material matter which he does non believe to be true^[thirty]

The above statute provides for a fine and/or up to v years in prison as penalisation. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two broad categories of judicial proceedings may qualify equally perjurious: 1) Federal official proceedings, and 2) Federal Court or K Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person.^[28] More than mostly, the statement must occur in the "class of justice," but this definition leaves room open for interpretation.^[31]

1 particularly precarious aspect of the phrasing is that it entails knowledge of the accused person'south perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. Information technology is important to note the distinction here, between giving a false statement under oath and just misstating a fact accidentally, simply the stardom can be peculiarly difficult to discern in court of law.^{[32] [33]}

Precedents [edit]

The development of perjury law in the United states of america centers on Usa five. Dunnigan, a seminal instance that gear up out the parameters of perjury within United States police force. The courtroom uses the Dunnigan-based legal standard to determine if an accused person: "testifying 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 defoliation, mistake, or faulty retentivity."^[34] Nevertheless, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution.^[35]

Dunnigan distinction manifests its importance with regard to the relation between ii component parts of perjury's definition: in willfully giving a fake statement, a person must understand that she is giving a false argument to exist considered a perjurer under the Dunnigan framework. Deliberation on the part of the defendant is required for a argument to plant perjury.^[36] Jurisprudential developments in the American police of perjury take revolved around the facilitation of "perjury prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony earlier federal courts and chiliad juries".^[37]

With that goal in heed, Congress has sometimes expanded the grounds on which an individual may be prosecuted for perjury, with section 1623 of the Usa Code recognizing the utterance of 2 mutually incompatible statements as grounds for perjury indictment even if neither can unequivocally be proven false.^[38] Even so, the two statements must be then mutually incompatible that at to the lowest degree ane must necessarily be simulated; it is irrelevant whether the false statement can be specifically identified from among the ii.^[39] Information technology thus falls on the authorities to show that a defendant (a) knowingly fabricated a (b) false (c) material argument (d) under oath (due east) in a legal proceeding.^[40] The 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.^[41]

Wilfulness is an element of the offense. The mere existence of two mutually-exclusive factual statements is non sufficient to prove perjury; the prosecutor nonetheless has the duty to plead and testify that the statement was willfully made. Mere contradiction will non sustain the charge; there must exist strong corroborative evidence of the contradiction.^[42]

One significant legal stardom lies in the specific realm of cognition necessarily possessed by a accused for her statements to exist properly called perjury. Though the accused must knowingly render a false statement in a legal proceeding or nether federal jurisdiction, the accused need not know that they are speaking under such conditions for the statement to constitute perjury.^[43] All tenets of perjury qualification persist: the "knowingly" aspect of telling the faux statement simply does not use to the defendant's knowledge well-nigh the person whose charade is intended.

Materiality [edit]

The evolution of U.s.a. perjury constabulary has experienced the most fence with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally truthful cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge^[44] (as they do not see the falsehood requirement) but as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury.^[45] Yet, such fundamental truths of perjury law become muddled when discerning the materiality of a given statement and the mode in which it was textile to the given example. In U.s.a. v. Brown, the court divers material statements equally those with "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the determination of the conclusion-making trunk to be addressed," such as a jury or chiliad jury.^[46]

While courts take specifically made clear certain instances that have succeeded or failed to see 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 manner, such as with the so-called perjury trap, a specific situation in which a prosecutor calls a person to prove before a grand jury with the intent of cartoon a perjurious statement from the person being questioned.^[47]

Defense of recantation [edit]

Despite a tendency of US perjury law toward broad prosecutory power under perjury statutes, American perjury law has afforded potential defendants a new form of defence force not institute in the British Common Law. This defense requires that an private acknowledge to making a perjurious statement during that same proceeding and recanting the statement.^[48] Though this defensive loophole slightly narrows the types of cases which may be prosecuted for perjury, the effect of this statutory defence force is to promote a truthful retelling of facts by witnesses, thus helping to ensure the reliability of American court proceedings only as broadened perjury statutes aimed to do.

Subornation of perjury [edit]

Subornation of perjury stands as a subset of US perjury laws and prohibits an individual from inducing another to commit perjury.^[49] Subornation of perjury entails equivalent possible punishments equally perjury on the federal level. The crime requires an extra level of satisfactory proof, as prosecutors must show non merely that perjury occurred merely besides that the defendant positively induced said perjury. Furthermore, the inducing defendant must know that the suborned argument is a false, perjurious argument.^[50]

Notable convicted perjurers [edit]

• Jonathan Aitken, British politician, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in 1999 for perjury.^[51]
• Jeffrey Archer, British novelist and politician, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for perjury in 2001.^[52]
• Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit mayor was convicted of perjury in 2008.^{[53] [54]}
• Marion Jones, American track and field athlete, was sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment later being found guilty of two counts of perjury in 2008.^[55]
• Marking Fuhrman, Los Angeles Police Section detective, entered a no contest plea to a perjury charge relating to his testimony in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson.^[56] This was one of the seminal occurrences of perjury past a police officeholder.^[57]
• Alger Hiss, American government official who was accused of being a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950.
• Lil' Kim, American rapper was convicted of perjury in 2005 later lying to a g jury in 2003 about a February 2001 shooting. She was sentenced to ane twelvemonth and one day of imprisonment.^[58]
• Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was bedevilled in 2007 of two counts of perjury in connection with the Plame affair.^[59]
• Bernie Madoff, the former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, in 2009 was found guilty of perjury in relation to investment fraud arising from his operating a Ponzi scheme.^[60]
• Michele Sindona, convicted of perjury related to a artificial kidnapping in August 1979.^[61]
• Tommy Sheridan, Scottish politician, constitute guilty of lying on affirmation in a trial in 2010.^[62]
• John Waller, British highwayman, known for his decease while being pilloried for perjury in 1732

Allegations of perjury [edit]

Notable people who have been accused of perjury include:

• Barry Bonds was indicted by a federal thou jury for allegedly perjuring himself in testimony denying the employ of performance-enhancing drugs.^[63] The perjury charges were later dropped later on a deadlock by the trial jury.^[64]
• Former U.South. President Bill Clinton was accused of perjury and equally a upshot was impeached by the Firm of Representatives on xix December 1998.^[65] No criminal charges were ever brought and upon leaving office he accustomed immunity.^[66]
• Andy Coulson, British announcer and political aide, was cleared of perjury charges in the News International phone hacking scandal, because his questioned testimony was ruled immaterial.^[67]
• Michael Hayden, the former managing director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has been accused of lying to Congress during his 2007 testimony almost the CIA'southward 'enhanced interrogation techniques.^{[68] [69]}
• Keith B. Alexander, the former director of the National Security Agency (NSA), had told Congress in 2012 that "we don't hold data on US citizens".^{[70] [71]}
• James R. Clapper, the former Managing director of National Intelligence, was accused of perjury for telling a congressional committee in March 2013, that the National Security Agency does non collect whatsoever type of information at all on millions of Americans.^{[72] [73] [74]}

See also [edit]

• Brady material
• False confession
• Forced confession
• Horkos
• Lies (evidence)
• Making false statements
• Obstacle of justice
• Performativity
• Pitchess motion
• Statutory declaration
• Testilying

References [edit]

1. ^ "Perjury The act or an instance of a person's deliberately making material simulated or misleading statements while under oath. – Likewise termed false swearing; false oath; (archaically forswearing." Garner, Bryan A. (1999). Black's Law Dictionary (seventh ed.). St. Paul MN: W Group. p. 1160.

Notes [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Criminal Code, due south 132, as amended past RSC 1985, c 27 (1st Supp), s 17 and SC 1998, c 35, south 119.
2. ^ ^{a b} The Perjury Human activity 1911, section 1(ane); the Criminal Justice Deed 1948, sections 1(i) and (2)
3. ^ Encounter: 18 UsaC. § 1621; 28 United statesC. § 1746.
4. ^ "Perjury". Criminal Law Lawyer Source. Archived from the original on 8 February 2019. Retrieved viii April 2010.
5. ^ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 131, as amended by RSC 1985, c 27 (1st Supp.), south 17, and SC 1999, c 18, s. 92.
6. ^ The Court of Justice of the European Communities (Perjury) Act 1975, section 1
7. ^ The Court of Justice of the European Communities (Perjury) Act 1975, section 2
8. ^ "Instance law showing how seriously perjury is taken in India".
9. ^ "Perjury Act 1911". legislation.gov.uk . Retrieved 24 July 2015.
10. ^ The European Communities Act 1972, section 11(1)(a)
11. ^ The Evidence (European Court) Order 1976 (South.I. 1976/428), commodity 3, as read with commodity 2
12. ^ The Patents Human activity 1977, section 92(5)
13. ^ The Criminal Justice Human activity 1988, department 32(3)
14. ^ The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 29(vii)
15. ^ The Youth Justice and Criminal Testify Act 1999, department 31(six)
16. ^ ^{a b} Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. 1999. Paragraph 28-159 at page 2303.
17. ^ Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law. Thirteenth Edition. Oxford Academy Press. 2011. Section 4.1.4 at page 49.
18. ^ Smith, J. C. and Hogan, Brian. Criminal Law. Second Edition. Sweet & Maxwell. 1965. p. 509 footnote 12.
19. ^ Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan'due south Criminal Law. Thirteenth Edition. Oxford University Press. 2011. Section 4.1.5.2 at folio 50.
20. ^ The Perjury Deed 1911, department 1(1); the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, section 17(1) and Schedule 1, paragraph 14(a)
21. ^ "Perjury". cps.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 24 July 2015.
22. ^ ^{a b c} Turner, J. W. C. Kenny Outlines on Criminal Police (London: Cambridge University Press, 1964) (18th edition), p.421.
23. ^ Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Do. 1999. Paragraph 28-160 at page 2303. They cite iii Inst 167.
24. ^ Smith, J. C, and Hogan, Brian. Criminal Law. Sweet & Maxwell. 1965. Second Edition. Folio 506.
25. ^ 3 Inst 167. This passage is quoted by Smith, J. C, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law (Sweet & Maxwell, 1965) (2nd Edition), p. 506.
26. ^ Clark, William (1894). Hand-Book of Criminal Law. Due west Publishing Company.
27. ^ Blackstone, William (1765). Commentaries on the Constabulary of England. Oxford Printed at the Clarendon Press.
28. ^ ^{a b} Doyle, Charles (2010). "Perjury Nether Federal Constabulary: A Brief Overview". Congressional Inquiry Service.
29. ^ Livingston, Edward (1828). A System of Penal Law for the U.s..
30. ^ United States Code, Championship 18, Role ane, Department 1621.
31. ^ Clark, William (1894). Hand-Volume of Criminal Police. West Publishing Co.
32. ^ Shuy, Roger (2011). The Language of Perjury Cases. Oxford University Press.
33. ^ Doyle, Charles (eleven May 2018). False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved 2 December 2018.
34. ^ Us v. Dunnigan 507 U.South. 87 (1993).
35. ^ United States v. Fawley (1998).
36. ^ cLARK, William (1894). Hand-Book of Criminal Police. West Publishing Co.
37. ^ Dunn five. United States 480 U.Due south. 294 (1987).
38. ^ Us Lawmaking, Title 18, Part 1, Section 1623 (c).
39. ^ The states v. McAfee 971 F.2d 755 (1992).
40. ^ United states of america v. Gorman.
41. ^ United States v. Greene 355 U.S. 184 (1957).
42. ^ People five Greenbacks, 388 Michigan Reports 153 (1972). See People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71 (1998), rev'd on other grounds 461 Mich 147 (1999).
43. ^ United States v. Yermian 468 U.Due south. 63 (1984).
44. ^ Bronston v. United States, 409 U.Southward. 352 (1973).
45. ^ United states v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).
46. ^ United states of america five. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
47. ^ Gershman, Bennett (1981). "The "Perjury Trap"". Step Police Faculty Publications.
48. ^ United states of america Code, Title eighteen, Part 1, Department 1623 (d).
49. ^ United States Lawmaking, Title xviii, Part i, Section 1622.
50. ^ Rosen v. N.Fifty.R.B. 735 F.2d 564 (1984).
51. ^ "UK Politics: Aitken's downfall complete". BBC News Online. BBC. 8 June 1999. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
52. ^ "Archer jailed for perjury". BBC News Online. BBC. 19 July 2001. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
53. ^ Chris Lawrence (24 March 2008). "Detroit mayor faces felony charges". CNN. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
54. ^ "Mayor: 'I lied under oath'". Retrieved 4 September 2008.
55. ^ Lynn Zinser (12 Jan 2008). "Judge Sentences Jones to 6 Months in Prison". The New York Times . Retrieved 17 March 2010.
56. ^ "Marker Fuhrman's perjury probation ends". CNN.
57. ^ Slobogin, Christopher (Autumn 1996). "Reform The Police: TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO Practise Almost IT". University of Colorado Police Review. Bedrock, Colorado: University of Colorado Law School. 67: 1037. Retrieved 28 Dec 2012.
58. ^ "Lil' Kim Sentenced To Jail". NME. viii July 2005. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
59. ^ Dowd, Maureen. "Lewis "Scooter" Libby confidence". The New York Times . Retrieved 21 March 2010.
60. ^ Brockman, Joshua (17 December 2008). "Q&A: Madoff Case Puts Spotlight on SEC". National Public Radio. Retrieved 26 May 2009.
61. ^ "Nation: Business relationship Settled". Time. Time. 7 April 1980. Archived from the original on 13 March 2007. Retrieved 21 March 2010.
62. ^ "Tommy Sheridan found guilty of perjury". BBC. 23 December 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2010.
63. ^ "Barry Bonds indicted on perjury, obstruction charges". ESPN. 19 November 2007. Retrieved twenty March 2010.
64. ^ Mintz, Howard (18 September 2014). "Barry Bonds example: Court to rehear domicile-run rex'due south entreatment". San Jose Mercury News . Retrieved 1 October 2015.
65. ^ Alison Mitchell (20 Dec 1998). "Impeachment: the overview -- Clinton impeached; he faces a senate trial, 2d in history; vows to do job till term's 'last 60 minutes'". The New York Times . Retrieved ten Apr 2010.
66. ^ Neil A Lewis (20 January 2000). "Exiting Task, Clinton Accepts Immunity Deal". The New York Times . Retrieved 17 March 2010.
67. ^ "Andy Coulson cleared of perjury as trial collapses". BBC News. 3 June 2015. Retrieved i October 2015.
68. ^ "What Happens When You Prevarication To Congress?" Fourth dimension. 10 Dec 2014.
69. ^ "Michael Hayden: The Nation's Biggest Liar, or Unassailable Patriot?". Bloomberg. 10 December 2014.
70. ^ "To reform the NSA, fire officials who lie". The Guardian. 25 September 2013.
71. ^ "Put the NSA on trial". Salon. xi June 2013.
72. ^ "Has James Clapper been indicted for perjury yet?". Retrieved 18 July 2017.
73. ^ "Lawmakers to Obama: Fire your intelligence chief for lying". MSNBC. 27 Feb 2014.
74. ^ "Lock Him Up? Lawmakers Renew Calls for James Clapper Perjury Charges". U.S. News. 17 November 2016.

External links [edit]

Look upwards perjury in Wiktionary, the free lexicon.

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Perjury

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Perjury.

• Bryan Druzin, and Jessica Li, The Criminalization of Lying: Under what Circumstances, if whatsoever, should Lies exist fabricated Criminal?, 101 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (Northwestern Academy) (forthcoming 2011).
• Gabriel J. Chin and Scott Wells, The "Bluish Wall of Silence" as Evidence of Bias and Motive to Lie: A New Approach to Law Perjury, 59 Academy of Pittsburgh Police Review 233 (1998).
• Perjury Under Federal Law: A Brief Overview Congressional Research Service

pereztoply1984.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

Share this post