I was responding to the statement that you could be convicted of “perjury” for saying 9:00 pm instead of 9:02 pm to a police officer. I was willing to overlook the point that police questioning is not usually performed under oath. You could tell I was responding to that statement because I quoted it.
Can you please point me to the exact location in any of those videos where it says that someone can be convicted of “perjury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake?
Way back in my early years;
Summer time. 23 years old;
Friends age 18 to 25; Just because it’s handy, I collect the money, buy the beer, head for the local swimming hole; 3 or 4 other guys could have been the culprit that day. Much fun and beers consumed.
Little brother Dan takes a nap in the afternoon sun. (May have had female companionship pre-nap). Cut to 9 PM. Dan drives us 4 drunks home. Predates term “designated driver”. State cop with rookie trainee pulls us over for dead tail lite. Long story short, Dan tells cop to go to hell and goes to jail for DUI. Months later trial happens. I’m called as witness. Me and two others testify to Dan taking 3-4 hour nap before driving. Dan’s Lawyer knows I bought the beer. Tells me to testify to everything I saw and know. Tells me to plead 5th about where the beer came from. I wondered to the lawyer if I could take the 5th on one subject and testify about another. Too much Perry Mason on my part. He says one subject is separate from another.
Just my experience. Oregon 1978. Many things may have changed by now.
Brother found Not Guilty;
If you are the one on trial. If you are a witness, maybe not so much. If you witness a murder, and the reason you were there to witness it is that you saw it through the window of the liquor store you were robbing, you might not want to admit that.
In a rare circumstance like this, where someone committing a serious but non-homicidal crime happens in the course of the crime to witness murder (unconnected to his crime), chances are he will get immunity, unless there are plenty of other witnesses).
Nope. This is correct.
There’s a host of reasons you might want to take the fifth and not be guilty of a crime. If you are living under as assumed name for any reason-- you are on the run from an abusive spouse; you are an undercover FBI agent; you are in witness protection, and you are asked your name, you can’t answer, or, can’t if the attorney asks if that has been your name all your life, which he could do if he has discovered your past, and he just wants to eliminate your testimony.
OK, that’s probably rare, they could ask you something that might jeopardize your job, for example. There are a lot of things you could be asked. And it could be strategy on the part of one side or the other, which it was in the Simpson trial. That whole mess what about eliminating Fuhrman’s testimony because it was so damaging.
You didn’t quote psychonaut in full: he was speaking about the specific case of the accused deciding to testify. In that situation, by entering the witness box, the accused has waived his 5th Amendment rights, as summariesed by FindLaw: Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination
It’s true. This applies to testimony by the accused. If a criminal defendant testifies, he waives his right to Fifth Amendment protection. The Fifth Amendment can’t be both a sword and a shield.
Exactly and it makes sense - a defendant cannot get up on the stand, say under oath “I was watching TV with grandma at the time, may she rest in peace” and then refuse to answer details that may poke holes in his story - “what show, describe the show, why did grandma get the door and pay for the pizza, why was it a small, how did you get to grandma’s, where did the taxi pick you up, etc.” Once he’s “opened that door” he has to allow any questions.
No one made such a statement. Someone said that you ‘prejure’ yourself, but that doesn’t mean thee same thing as saying ‘could be convicted of the crime of prejury in a court of law’.
Can you please point me to the exact location in this thread where anyone said that someone can be convicted of “prejury” or even of lying to a police officer for making such a trivial mistake?
But I see what you mean. He said “You just perjured yourself.” That implies, of course, that you can’t be convicted of perjury. And since you can perjure yourself without committing perjury and therefore there is no risk of being convicted of perjury… Yeah, sure I see exactly what you’re getting at.
“You just perjured yourself” means that you made a provably untrue statement. The fact that you’ve made an untrue statement can be used to cast doubt on other testimony, make it look like you’re hiding something, or just to cast you as a bad person in general. The statement does not mean that you have definitely met the legal definition of perjury in a particular jurisidiction, or that a prosecutor will attempt to prosecute you for that level of perjury, or that it would make it through a jury trial.
You most definitely can perjure yourself with no risk of being convicted of it, so I’m not even sure how much of what you posted is sarcasm and how much is just a lack of understanding of English on your part.
Just to clarify, IANAL but to the layperson (i.e. juror) “perjury” means to lie on the stand regardless of what the legal definition is. Being off by two minutes may not be legal perjury but it could be perceived as such by the jury and I’m sure the DA would play that up.
Ex-fuckin-zactly. Whenever we get into these “never talk to cops” threads pkbites and Loach come on and try to explain how we’re wrong but they always neglect the asymmetry of knowledge. THEY may know if you are a suspect but you certainly don’t when they want to chat with you. And they always say, “If you are a suspect I need to …” but I don’t know those rules. To wit, I just found out that you have certain protection against arrest/seizure while in you house. As soon as you step on your porch because they ask you nicely the rules change.
And let’s not even start the fact that if cops want to play by the rules fairly, why do they refuse to answer directly when you ask, “Am I being detained?” or “Am I free to go?” I’m really thinking the best strategy is to ask once each:
“Am I free to go?”
<cop non-answer>
“Am I being detained?”
<cop non-answer>
“I refuse to answer your questions as per my 5th Amendment rights. Furthermore I request an attorney as per my Constitutional rights.” (repeat to everything a cop says.) I know the cops and lawyers will tell me I’m not entitled to a lawyer at that point unless blah blah blah but at that point after I’ve asked twice if i can go and you refuse to say yes/no - either arrest me or let me leave.
Even a layperson knows what lying is. Anyway, the prosecutor is not a lay person, and accusing a witness of perjuring himself without having the evidence to support that claim is a good way to get a mistrial.
And showing that a witness is perjuring himself with the evidence to support that claim like a film showing that he’s incorrect, even if it’s a technicality, is a good way to show the jury that the witness is unreliable.
No, since a minor error like that isn’t perjury, and a “Ahaa!” from a DA like that would be a dick move. The opposing counsel would object and the Judge would be unhappy with the DA.
But the DA would not directly accuse the witness of perjury. So maybe “perjury” is the wrong word but at best you’ve shown yourself to be an unreliable witness with inaccurate information. At worst some juror(s) may feel you deliberately lied thinking you wouldn’t get caught.
“Showing that a witness is prejuring himself” does not mean “declaring that the witness has committed the criminal offense of prejury”. DAs and police make dick moves like that ALL THE TIME, and judges don’t actually get mad at them. “That is a dick move” is not actually a valid objection in any court in the US.
Don’t you guys watch Law and Order? Or even Matlock? The prosecutor (or defense) does not tell the jury or court the witness is committing perjury. Instead, he asks - “are you aware of the penalties for perjuring yourself under oath? Do you want to change your answer?”
I fail to see how that is not a prejudicial question saying exactly the same as “You’re lying, aren’t you?”