Does perjury apply to all truth?

BobMmm · November 7, 2007, 11:02pm

Now suppose I’m on the witness stand and I tell the truth about the crime or whatever but the lawyer asks a totally irrelevent question.

Like let’s say I am a witness for a auto accident involving two other drivers and I"m asked.

“Like did you lie on your job resume”

Now I realize it’s the defense or prosecuting attorney’s job to object, but suppose they don’t and I say “No, I didn’t like on my resume.”

But I did.

Could I be prosecuted for perjury. I realize I most likely wouldn’t be prosecuted as the court won’t waste its time but the question is COULD I be prosecuted.

flurb · November 8, 2007, 1:50am

Well, you don’t get to decide what’s relevant. If the lawyer is asking it, and opposing counsel and the judge don’t pipe up, then there’s a pretty strong presumption that the question is relevant to the case. In the example you give, the answer to the question could reflect on your credibility as a witness.

UltraVires · November 8, 2007, 2:02am

You could be prosecuted for anything at all. The question is would you be convicted, and the answer would depend on the circumstances.

Perjury would mean that you were untruthful about a relevant fact to the case at hand. Now, if the attorney was trying to paint you as lying about the auto wreck because you lied on your job resume, then a judge could conclude that is a reasonable, relevant question and you answer needs to be truthful. Another judge could say that it is irrelevant to the case.

On the other hand, if the attorney asks, “How are you today?” and you say “Fine!” even though you really feel sort of tired and feel a cold coming on, then that lie would not rise to the level of perjury.

Or, if the attorney asks where you were coming from on the afternoon in question before you saw the wreck and you said “From church” when in reality you were meeting your mistress at a sleazy hotel, and you don’t want your wife to know this, so you lie in court, chances are the judge won’t find it relevant to the case, and no perjury.

But the bottom line is that you don’t get to decide what is relevant to the case, so if you lie in court, you leave your fate in the judge’s hand…

Jman · November 8, 2007, 3:11am

Remember…you can always plead the fifth!

DrDeth · November 8, 2007, 3:11am

I asked a US Attorney I was working with about this. He said, in order for a lie to rise to Perjury it must be:

Signifigant

Relevant (to the case at hand)

And not a simple “exculpatory denial”= “I didn’t do it”.

IANAL.

Walloon · November 8, 2007, 2:51pm

Is the prosecutor a teenage girl?

Diogenes_the_Cynic · November 8, 2007, 3:01pm

If you get charged with perjury, the jury will decide if it was relevant. If you can convince the jury that the question was not material then it was not material. Just because your lawyer doesn’t object to the question at the original trial does not mean it’s automatically relevant.

Not being credible as a witness is not necessarily perjurous. Perjury laws state that the question has to be relevant to the specific case, not just your general “credibility.”

Diogenes_the_Cynic · November 8, 2007, 3:03pm

Actually, you do still have a right to a jury trial and the JURY will decide if the question was relevant, not the judge.

Gfactor · November 8, 2007, 3:09pm

Actually, the exculpatory denial defense was accepted by a majority of the circuits until 1998, when the Supreme Court rejected it in Brogan. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-1579

Bricker · November 8, 2007, 3:11pm

Well, yes. The judge at the original proceeding may be called upon to make a decision about materiality, obviously, in the context of ruling on an objection. But if you’re charged with perjury, you are entitled to have a jury decide that question. And the judge at your trial is also entitled to a bite at the apple: he can decide that as a matter of law, the question was NOT material and take the issue out of the jury’s hands. It doesn’t work the other way, of course; that judge must still defer to the jury’s finding of fact to find that it WAS material.

Bricker · November 8, 2007, 3:13pm

Not quite.

Er… I see Gfactor beat me to the punch. So, what he said.

Gfactor · November 8, 2007, 3:23pm

Actually, it depends on the jurisdiction: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ks&vol=supct/1998/19980417/&invol=75383 (In a criminal prosecution where the defendant is charged under a state statute with perjury, the trial court is to determine as a matter of law if the alleged false testimony or writing was on a material matter.)

Diogenes_the_Cynic · November 8, 2007, 3:27pm

Wow, what a bullshit decision.

In any case, that’s still the judge at the perjury trial making the decision, not the judge at the original trial.

Gfactor · November 8, 2007, 3:36pm

Michigan pretty much does the same thing (no linkable cases though). Here is the statute:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(igburw45x4d1y045mgq3sk2h))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-423

The statute does not include a materiality requirement. The courts say the issue is for the judge.

Yes.

sciurophobic · November 8, 2007, 3:42pm

I bet Bill Clinton would say it shouldn’t.

Gfactor · November 8, 2007, 3:54pm

Clinton had a more difficult problem because part of his perjury occured during civil discovery, which has much broader concepts of materiality and relevance: Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review | Law Reviews | Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School

Also more complicated are cases, like Brogan, that involve false statements out of court, often under 18 U.S.C. § 1001:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

And here’s a (rather dated) summary of the federal caselaw on materiality:

The false statement must be material to the proceedings. A false statement is material if it has “a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed.” Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988)(denaturalization proceeding). The testimony need not have actually influenced, misled or impeded the proceeding. For example, potential interference with the grand jury’s line of inquiry suffices to establish materiality, because of the grand jury’s broad investigative function. United States v. Williams, 993 F.2d 451, 455 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Gribben, 984 F.2d 47, 52 (2d Cir. 1993). The government need not prove the legitimacy of the grand jury’s investigation which led to the testimony, only the pertinence of the particular testimony to the grand jury’s investigation. United States v. Regan, 103 F.3d 1072 (2d Cir. 1997). A similarly broad construction of materiality is appropriate in the context of false declarations made in connection with civil depositions. United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 754 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 99 (1994); United States v. Holley, 942 F.2d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 821 (1993). But see United States v. Adams, 870 F.2d 1140, 1146-48 (6th Cir. 1989)(false statement must tend to affect the outcome of the underlying civil suit for which the deposition was taken). The statement may be material to any proper matter of inquiry, including collateral matters that might influence the outcome of decisions before the tribunal, such as determining credibility issues. United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d at 755. Materiality is not negated merely because the tribunal did not believe the testimony or sought cumulative information. United States v. Reilly, 33 F.3d 1396, 1419 n.20 (3d Cir. 1994). Furthermore, testimony may be material even if it relates to events as to which the statute of limitations has run, since the grand jury may have legitimate reasons to inquire about such events aside from an expectation of returning an indictment charging those events as crimes. United States v. Chen, 933 F.2d 793, 797 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Nazzaro, 889 F.2d 1158, 1165-66 (1st Cir. 1989).

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01748.htm

DrDeth · November 9, 2007, 3:29am

Well, for me, that was back in the 90’s so it was before the newer SCOTUS case. :smack:

But still pleading “Not Guilty” can’t bring charges of Perjury can it?

And, Gfactor, are you sure you want to call Clinton’s lies “perjury”? No conviction, no crimila charges even, right?

Starving_Artist · November 9, 2007, 3:50am

This is a curious statement. IANAL, but to me one can be said to be guilty of a crime without having been convicted of it or even charged with it. For instance, if I were to commit a murder, I would still be a murderer in actual point of fact whether or not I was ever brought to justice for it. Further, if someone were aware I had committed that murder and called me a murderer despite the fact that I was never charged, he would still be correct in his statement. Yes, no? I’m aware that this may be incorrect, legally speaking, and I’m open to correction if so. But for now, to dismiss the description of Clinton as a perjurer simply because the machinations of the process stalled for political reasons and failed to bring him to justice on these crimes that everyone knows he committed seems specious to me.

Gfactor · November 9, 2007, 3:50am

A plea is not testimony. So no.

Substitute “statements.”