When people testify under oath in court, what stops the, from lying? Does anyone think that they are actually telling the truth? What percent of people under oath actually do they’ll the truth.
People like Michael Flynn ask for immunity. Wouldn’t it be easier just to lie?
If they are found to have lied under oath, they can face charges of perjury.
n/m
I imagine that, to some degree, it comes from the old sense of honor. In various past cultures, being known as an oath-breaker means no chance of advancement, or business dealings requiring trust (i.e. orders and payment in advance and the like), or leadership of any kind, or really any position of trust and prestige in society. Therefore, it was assumed that very, very few people would be willing to risk their reputation since it could be so devastating, and the vast majority would do their best to stick to an oath taken in public.
Another factor is that, if a defendant can be shown to be lying on one point, it is easier to disbelieve him on other points.
“I didn’t shoot the clerk - I was never in the convenience store”.
“Then how did your fingerprint wind up on the counter?”
“Okay, I was there, but it wasn’t me that shot him.”
Cases don’t typically go to trial unless the prosecution has enough evidence to convict even if the defendant lies.
Regards,
Shodan
That might be an interesting bit of historical info, but I think the OP is asking about today. In that case, the risk of being prosecuted for perjury is most likely the reason. It is no small matter.
I never understood this either. Lying to people is fine, but if you tell them ahead of time “this isn’t a lie, I swear,” then lying to them is a big no-no? It seems to me that lying is the problem all by itself, not lying after saying some magic words.
The operative word here is duress. If an armed bailiff is standing there, and I am compelled to swear an oath under penalty of contempt, that renders the oath meaningless and non-binding…
I hope I never have to explain to a judge that if an accused has ever disclosed to me any facts that might be incriminatory, he has done so under my implicit oath of secrecy, which, being voluntary, carried more weight than the sworn oath of my testimony, which is uttered under duress.
What if a witness said “For the record, this oath is not sworn under my free will”?
Almost no one gets charged with perjury.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/perjury092498.htm
It’s a good simple procedure to inform a witness that they have to answer honestly under penalty of law. I don’t know if that makes any difference, but it eliminates the excuse that the witness didn’t know they had to tell the truth in those rare cases where perjury is prosecuted.
So, you’re saying it’s working, right? 
But note that your cite is only for federal cases. I still say it’s “no small matter”.
You have really thought this one out. Congratulations to you!
This is my last post in this matter, I swear. 
https://daily.jstor.org/why-is-perjury-so-rarely-prosecuted/
Doesn’t that only apply if the flag in the courtroom has a gold fringe?
In general lies are covered by free speech, lies under oath aren’t.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
If the person is on trial because of a heinous act, s/he is probably not overly concerned about conscience, so why care about the morality of lying under oath? And some such people feel invulnerable or are in a position where they are (eg those in very high public office). So they would not be frightened of a perjury accusation.
The whole process strikes me as archaic but I suppose there is no alternative.
But what about the person who lies to give this guy an alibi?
Something I’ve been curious about – Can a witness change the oath if need be?
On TV, witnesses almost always swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. i suspect that at least in some jurisdictions the oath is pretty close to that.
Luckily I’ve never been a witness in a trial, but that business about “the whole truth” has long bothered me, because the witness is not allowed to volunteer information. Thus the witness testimony might give a false impression even if the answers were 100% truthful.
I have wondered what would happen if the witness swore to “tell the truth, nothing but the truth, and as much of the truth as I’m allowed to.” I think under some circumstances, I’d want to do just that.
Not exactly. You can be prosecuted for lying to a police officer, even though there is no formal oath-taking involved. Ordinarily, doing so would fall under the heading of interfering with the proper exercise of law enforcement. I imagine that would expand to any officer of the court.
In my line of work, I’m required to obtain sworn testimony, but there is no required form for the oath. Personally, I ask: "Do you swear or affirm under the penalty of perjury that your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
In essence, it is little more than a formality. Statements made under oath are presumed to be considered and intentional, as opposed to off-the-cuff utterances.
But obviously, sworn witnesses blatantly lie all the time.