General questions using Martha Stewart’s situation as an example.
I know that when I go to a court and I take an oath, that if it can be proven that I lied, I can be found guilty of perjury.
If I go in front of Congress and take an oath, apparently the same thing can happen.
What other entities (are allowed to) administer an oath? I assume just governmental entities, but obviously not all of them.
Also, I assume that a non-govermental entity can demand that I take an oath, i.e., employer, etc.
If I talk to a governmental agency/agent, i.e., the police and if I lie to them, it is not perjury (not under oath) but is it “obstruction of justice”? It would have to be proven in a court of law- correct?
If Congress wants information from me and I sent them statements, etc., and if those statements can be proven false, am I potentially guilty of a crime?
Don’t forget that providing false information and lying are two different things. Intent is important, and content is also important.
You may, in all innocence, provide information that you believe to be true but turns out not to be. You may also provide a piece of wrong information inadvertantly, realize it, and correct it. Neither of these scenarios would be perjury.
I’m not sure wbout a deliberate lie that turned out to be irrelevant to an investigation. For instance. perhaps the police are investigating a murder, and you deny rumors of an affair with the victim, though you did in fact have one. Like Gary Condit, say.
I think your choice of terms for lying to a cop are correct, that you could possibly be charged with obstruction of justice. I think, however, that a prosecutor would have to prove that the investigation was materially affected by your lie. Any real lawyers willing to respond to this point?
Giving an oath or not really doesn’t play into it. As yojimbo mentioned, one is “on deck” to provide the truth as far as one knows it to be true.
There’s a gentleman down in my old stomping grounds (Monterey) who’s possibly facing obstruction of justice charges for providing a false alibi for two other folks who’ve been convicted of attempted murder.
Generally, lying to a governmental authority is a bad idea.
People should always have the right to silence, however. I disagree with the current court’s system that if you say ANYTHING, you have to say EVERYTHING. I hate that. You should be able to say “Iplead the Fifth” at any particular question ytou don’t want to answer.
No, cdhostage is correct. You cannot pick and choose which questions to answer, and which to take the 5th on. You can answer questions up to the point where you hit one and feel the need to take the fifth on it, but after taking the fifth on one question, you must not answer any more questions , or lose your right against self-incrimination (or face contempt charges if in a court).
I’m not stating this well, because I don’t understand the rationale behind it. Perhaps someone else can clarify this. There are different rules for this as far as whether you’re beiing interviewed by a cop, or testifying before a court, and I may be confusing the rules between the two.
No, that’s not so, friedo. A witness may certainly invoke his right against self-incrimination, but he may not selectively use it to offer self-serving testimony but shield himself from harmful cross-examination.
Any testimony must be subject to cross-examination. Any subject explored on direct examination is fair game for cross. In addition, the cross-examination may explore issues related to the witness’ credibility, such as previous felony convictions, even if they were not mentioned in direct examination.
So, in a sense, “If you say anything, you must say everything,” is true. Matters completely unrelated to the trial at hand, however, are still subject to the privilege. If you’re on trial for robbery, you may not be compelled to answer questions about a suspicious fire the previous week in another part of town.
A related question of some interest: must you actually have a reason to “take the Fifth” before taking it? That is, can you refuse to testify even if your story is that it wasn’t you, but some other guy? Or must you actually be holding back incriminating testimony before you are privileged to refuse to testify?