It’s not as easy to not lie as many people here think. People being interviewed in these cases get asked an enormous amount of detailed questions about events which may have happened long ago, which they may easily misremember, and/or they may misunderstand the question, or respond awkwardly themselves. I suspect that if prosecutors deliberately set out to entrap someone on perjury charges, they can probably succeed close to 100% of the time.
This is just based on myself speaking to people about events which happened long ago, and the frequency with which they (or I ) misremember small-but-significant details (and generally in a manner which is consistent with their overall take on the situation or their roles in it - which would be prime perjury stuff).
And that’s even without the stress of being interviewed by prosecutors and facing possible indictment yourself.
[A certain relative of mine was once interviewed by the feds (I think the FBI, but I’m not sure) who were investigating his boss for his suspected involvement in some criminal conspiracy (the boss was related to someone involved). My relative was a crucial alibi witness, because he was with the boss at a trade show when the crime went down. The investigators were gentle at first, and told him they understand why he would want to protect his boss etc., but took a harder turn as the conversation came to a close, and said if he was lying to protect his boss he would get in big trouble himself, and if he wanted to change his testimony he could still do it. But the real truth is that point it would have been too late. If he changed his testimony then he would be explicitly admitting to having lied in earlier parts of the interview, and he would be forced to testify to anything they told him to say, or be charged himself.]
I’m pretty sure that “claim” was rhetorical. (His point was that the attorneys made more than the ostensible plaintiffs in class action lawsuits. Another poster said he was such a plaintiff so jtur posed as a hypothetical attorney in that case.)
To be clear, a ‘perjury trap’ is not entrapment. I don’t think that’s what you meant though. But I think a lot of people will tell the truth under oath out of self interest so not really that easy for a prosecutor, but probably easy when they know they have the type of person on the stand who routinely lies about anything.
Aside from that, I don’t know when the term ‘perjury trap’ first came into use but I recall hearing it a lot following Bill Clinton’s testimony in the Paula Jones case. Perhaps it was said about that case but I remember a lot of politicians starting to say investigations were just a way to set up ‘perjury traps’.
One job I had back in my insane youth involved a prejob piss test for weed. Someone was boosting stuff from the warehouse, so they decided to lie detector test anybody with access. I screwed with them because one of the screening questions was about weed use. I correctly answered yes to previous weed use, when the boss confrontation hit, I pointed out that I was well able to pass all piss testing, and my weed use was trying it back in high school, so I had no problem admitting to having previously tried weed as past use was not present use. Since I wasn’t the one boosting stuff, and I wasn’t using drugs, they were informed by HR they couldn’t touch me.
There is logic to your question when you look at search warrants. A search warrant is based on specific suspicions such as illegal drugs. If during the search there are other things discovered (besides drugs) that are legally actionable they cannot be used against you.
The noted constitutional law lawyer Ken White, AKA ‘Popehat’, has talked about the concept of the ‘Perjury Trap’ at length. Often in the context of lying to a federal agent. His brief description of the process and purposes behind it, may be found here: Thread Reader App
If the contraband was found in plain view, or in a place that may have possibly concealed the items described on the warrant, the contraband gets excluded? Do you have a case cite stating that?
IANAL and the law classes I took were geared toward business law so a lawyer would be better suited to answer the question. But I do know that search warrants have to be specific and can’t be used for a fishing expedition. I would think a case can be made for perjury traps based on the principal behind search warrants.
Again, IANAL but if you’re questioned regarding a specific crime then the questions should relate to the crime and the “crime of lying” should be relevant to prosecution of that crime and not for the simple act of lying. But that would be my opinion.
When conducting a search, police may only search the places and people listed on the search warrant, and may only search for the sought-after evidence. Accordingly, officers may only search places where they might reasonably find the evidence. For example, officers searching for a rifle may not look in a small jewelry box.
But that’s the trick. If you say no, then it sounds like you currently beat your wife. If you say yes, then it sounds like you previously beat your wife. Thus there is no good “yes” or “no” answer.
Right. But that’s not what you said earlier. You said that if other legally actionable things are found during the search they can’t be held against you.
If they are searching for a rifle and open a closet and find a kilo of cocaine and a dead hooker, that’s certainly going to be admissible - because the closet could’ve conceivably housed a rifle.
If you’re answering in response to my post I think you missed the point as it applies to the topic. the law specifically addresses warrant-less searches. The purpose of the law is to prevent fishing expeditions.
Perjury traps, IMO, mirror searches beyond the scope of a warrant.
) misremember small-but-significant details (and generally in a manner which is consistent with their overall take on the situation or their roles in it - which would be prime perjury stuff).