With regard to lying to the Feds, the applicable statute is 18 usc 1001, which provides:
In Brogan v. United States522 U.S. 398 (1998), the US Supreme Court has held that even a mere “exculpatory no”, merely making a false denial of knowledge or information about a subject of a federal investigation, can result in a conviction under this section.
Well, sometimes.
Since it is well know that the human memory is somewhat fallible, at what point does misremembering become lying?
Nothing in that says you don’t have a right to remain silent. It only deals with some lower court rulings that post-arrest but pre-Miranda silence can be mentioned in court under certain circumstances.
Well, yes. That’s kind of the point - that exercising the right to silence should not count against you.
Yep, and here’s a great quote: "Here’s how it works. The feds identify some fact that they can prove. It need not be inherently incriminating; it might be whether you were at a particular meeting, or whether you talked to someone about the existence of the investigation. They determine that they have irrefutable proof of this fact. Then, when they interview you, they ask you a question about the fact, hoping that you will lie. Often they employ professional questioning tactics to make it more likely you will lie — for instance, by phrasing the question or employing a tone of voice to make the fact sound sinister. You — having already been foolhardy enough to talk to them without a lawyer — obligingly lie about this fact. Then, even though there was never any question about the fact, even though your lie did not deter the federal government for a microsecond, they have you nailed for a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 USC 1001."
IIRC, I’ve read of cases where a person under investigation has told lies to some third party (like a friend or relative), and then that third party, when questioned by police, repeated that lie to police.
So they prosecuted the original subject for lying to the police. The theory was that the subject lied to the third party with the intention and expectation that the third party, under questioning, would repeat the lie (not necessarily knowing it was a lie).
Good point.
Actually, that was some guy whose lawyer made statements. The charge was that the guy lied to his lawyer knowing that the lawyer would say that lie to the police. (This happened IIRC about 3 or 4 years ago). Fortunately, the judge tossed that charge pretty quick.
Of course, to discuss this in court would drag in lawyer-client privilege.