Home  ›  What Is It Called When You Lie to the Judge.

What Is It Called When You Lie to the Judge.

Written By sábado, 2 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit

Act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affidavit to tell the truth

Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[A]

Like nearly other crimes in the common law system, to be bedevilled of perjury one must accept had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act and to accept actually committed the act (actus reus). Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and information technology is not perjury to lie near matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding. Statements that entail an interpretation of fact are not perjury because people often draw inaccurate conclusions unwittingly or make honest mistakes without the intent to deceive. Individuals may accept honest but mistaken beliefs about certain facts or their recollection may be inaccurate, or may have a different perception of what is the accurate way to state the truth. In some jurisdictions, no criminal offense has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty. Instead, criminal culpability attaches only at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) that are material to the event of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie almost one'southward age except if historic period is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for onetime historic period retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to take legal chapters.

Perjury is considered a serious offense, as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In Canada, those who commits perjury are guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.[one] Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.[two] In the United States, the general perjury statute nether federal constabulary classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison judgement of up to five years.[3] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a upper-case letter offense in cases causing wrongful execution. Perjury which caused the wrongful execution of another or in the pursuit of causing the wrongful execution of another is respectively construed equally murder or attempted murder, and is commonly itself punishable by execution in countries that retain the death penalty. Perjury is considered a felony in almost U.S. states as well as most Australian states. In Queensland, under Section 124 of the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899, perjury is punishable by up to life in prison if it is committed to procure an innocent person for a crime that is punishable by life in prison house. Notwithstanding, prosecutions for perjury are rare.[4]

In some countries such as France and Italia, suspects cannot exist heard nether oath or affidavit and and then cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.[ citation needed ]

The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalisation of perjury even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness earlier an advisable official. An case is the Usa income tax render, which, past law, must be signed every bit true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax constabulary provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute. See: 26 U.South.C. § 7206(one)

In the United States, Republic of kenya, Scotland and several other English-speaking Commonwealth nations, subornation of perjury, which is attempting to induce another person to commit perjury, is itself a law-breaking.

Perjury constabulary past jurisdiction [edit]

Canada [edit]

The offence of perjury is codification by section 132 of the Criminal Code. It is divers by section 131, which provides:

(1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized past law to let it to be made before him a false argument nether oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

(1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Show Act, or gives show or a statement pursuant to an order fabricated under section 22.2 of the Common Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Human action, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is faux, whether or non the imitation statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place exterior Canada in which the person is almost nowadays or heard.
(2) Subsection (i) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.

(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) exercise non apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not especially permitted, authorized or required past law to brand that statement.[5]

Equally to corroboration, meet section 133.

Anybody who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding xiv years.[one]

European Matrimony [edit]

A person who, before the Court of Justice of the Eu, swears anything which he knows to exist false or does not believe to be truthful is, whatever his nationality, guilty of perjury.[half-dozen] Proceedings for this offence may be taken in any place in the State and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed in that place.[7]

Bharat [edit]

"The offence of perjury finds its place in constabulary by virtue of Section 191 to Section 203 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). Unlike many other countries, the offence of perjury is muted on account of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C"). Department 195(i)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. restricts any court to have cognisance of an offence of perjury unless the same is past way of a complaint in writing by the court before which the offence is committed or by a superior court."[8]

Nigeria [edit]

U.k. [edit]

England and Wales [edit]

Perjury is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is created by section one(one) of the Perjury Act 1911. Section 1 of that Act reads:

(one) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or equally an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be imitation or does not believe to be true, he shall exist guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, exist liable to penal servitude for a term non exceeding vii years, or to imprisonment ... for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine or to both such penal servitude or imprisonment and fine.

(ii) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before any courtroom, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.

(3) Where a statement fabricated for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made earlier the tribunal itself, merely is fabricated on oath earlier a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, information technology shall, for the purposes of this department, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.

(four) A statement fabricated by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding—

(a) in some other role of His Majesty's dominions; or
(b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place past sea or land outside His Majesty'southward dominions; or
(c) in a tribunal of any foreign land,

shall, for the purposes of this department, be treated as a statement made in a judicial proceeding in England.

(5) Where, for the purposes of a judicial proceeding in England, a person is lawfully sworn under the authority of an Act of Parliament—

(a) in any other role of His Majesty'due south dominions; or
(b) before a British tribunal or a British officer in a foreign country, or inside the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England;

a statement made by such person so sworn as aforesaid (unless the Act of Parliament under which information technology was made otherwise specifically provides) shall be treated for the purposes of this section as having been made in the judicial proceeding in England for the purposes whereof it was made.

(six) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to exist adamant by the court of trial.[ix]

The words omitted from department ane(i) were repealed by department 1(two) of the Criminal Justice Human action 1948.

A person guilty of an offence under section 11(1) of the European Communities Deed 1972 (i.e. perjury before the Court of Justice of the European Wedlock) may be proceeded against and punished in England and Wales as for an offence under section 1(1).[10]

Department 1(4) has effect in relation to proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Union equally it has upshot in relation to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign land.[11]

Section ane(4) applies in relation to proceedings before a relevant convention court under the European Patent Convention as it applies to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a strange state.[12]

A statement fabricated on adjuration by a witness outside the United Kingdom and given in prove through a live television receiver link by virtue of section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 must be treated for the purposes of section 1 as having been made in the proceedings in which it is given in evidence.[13]

Section 1 applies in relation to a person acting as an intermediary as it applies in relation to a person lawfully sworn as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding; and for this purpose, where a person acts every bit an intermediary in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section i, that proceeding must be taken to exist part of the judicial proceeding in which the witness'south evidence is given.[fourteen]

Where any statement fabricated by a person on oath in whatever proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of department 1 is received in evidence in pursuance of a special measures direction, that proceeding must be taken for the purposes of section 1 to be office of the judicial proceeding in which the statement is so received in prove.[fifteen]

Judicial proceeding [edit]

The definition in section 1(2) is not "comprehensive".[16]

The book Archbold says that it appears to be immaterial whether the court before which the statement is made has jurisdiction in the particular crusade in which the argument is made, because there is no express requirement in the Act that the courtroom be one of "competent jurisdiction" and because the definition in section 1(ii) does non announced to crave this past implication either.[sixteen]

Actus reus [edit]

The actus reus of perjury might be considered to be the making of a argument, whether true or false, on adjuration in a judicial proceeding, where the person knows the statement to exist false or believes it to be false.[17] [xviii]

Perjury is a conduct crime.[19]

Style of trial [edit]

Perjury is triable only on indictment.[twenty]

Sentence [edit]

A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years, or to a fine, or to both.[two]

The following cases are relevant:

  • R v Hall (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 153
  • R five Knight, 6 Cr App R (S) 31, [1984] Crim LR 304, CA
  • R five Healey (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 297
  • R v Dunlop [2001] ii Cr App R (Southward) 27
  • R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (Due south) 86
  • R v Adams [2004] ii Cr App R (Southward) xv
  • R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (Due south) 61

Run into also the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing transmission.[21]

History [edit]

In Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, the offence of perjury could only be committed by both jurors and by compurgators.[22] With time witnesses began to appear in court they were not so treated despite the fact that their functions were akin to that of modern witnesses. This was due to the fact that their role were not nevertheless differentiated from those of the juror and so evidence or perjury by witnesses was non made a crime. Fifty-fifty in the 14th century, when witnesses started appearing earlier the jury to evidence, perjury by them was not made a punishable offence. The maxim then was that every witness's show on oath was true.[22] Perjury by witnesses began to be punished before the end of the 15th century by the Star Chamber.

The amnesty enjoyed by witnesses began also to be whittled downwards or interfered with past the Parliament in England in 1540 with subornation of perjury[22] and, in 1562, with perjury proper. The penalisation for the offence and then was in the nature of monetary penalty, recoverable in a civil action and non by penal sanction. In 1613, the Star Chamber alleged perjury by a witness to be a punishable offence at mutual law.

Prior to the 1911 Act, perjury was governed by section three of the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1540 5 Eliz 1 c. 9 ( An Act for the Punyshement of suche persones as shall procure or comit any wyllful Perjurye ; repealed 1967) and the Perjury Human activity 1728.

Materiality [edit]

The requirement that the argument exist cloth tin can exist traced dorsum to[23] and has been credited to[24] Edward Coke, who said:

For if it be not material, then though it be false, still it is no perjury, because it concerneth not the bespeak in accommodate, and therefore in effect it is extra-judicial. Also this human action giveth remedy to the party grieved, and if the deposition exist not cloth, he cannot be grieved thereby.[25]

Northern Republic of ireland [edit]

Perjury is a statutory offence in Northern Ireland. It is created by commodity iii(ane) of the Perjury (Northern Republic of ireland) Order 1979 (Due south.I. 1979/1714 (Northward.I. xix)). This replaces the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 (c. 13) (Due north.I.).

United States [edit]

Perjury operates in American law as an inherited principle of the common constabulary of England, which defined the human activity as the "willful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in whatever form allowed past law to be substituted for an adjuration, in a judicial proceeding or form of justice, of a imitation testimony material to the upshot or matter of inquiry".[26]

William Blackstone touched on the subject in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, establishing perjury as "a criminal offense committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, admittedly, and falsely, in a matter material to the outcome or point in question".[27] The punishment for perjury under the common police has varied from death to banishment and has included such grotesque penalties every bit severing the tongue of the perjurer.[28] The definitional construction of perjury provides an important framework for legal proceedings, as the component parts of this definition have permeated jurisdictional lines, finding a home in American legal constructs. Every bit such, the primary tenets of perjury, including mens rea, a lawful oath, occurring during a judicial proceeding, a fake testimony have remained necessary pieces of perjury's definition in the U.s.a..[29]

Statutory definitions [edit]

Perjury's current position in the American legal organisation takes the form of state and federal statutes. Most notably, the U.s. Code prohibits perjury, which is defined in ii senses for federal purposes as someone who:

(1) Having taken an adjuration before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an adjuration to exist administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, degradation, or document by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes whatsoever material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, document, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of championship 28, The states Code, willfully subscribes as truthful any textile affair which he does not believe to be true[thirty]

The above statute provides for a fine and/or upwardly to five years in prison as punishment. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two wide categories of judicial proceedings may qualify as perjurious: 1) Federal official proceedings, and 2) Federal Court or Yard Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person.[28] More than generally, the argument must occur in the "grade of justice," just this definition leaves room open up for interpretation.[31]

One specially precarious aspect of the phrasing is that information technology entails cognition of the accused person's perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. Information technology is of import to notation the distinction hither, between giving a imitation argument under oath and just misstating a fact accidentally, but the distinction tin be especially difficult to discern in courtroom of law.[32] [33]

Precedents [edit]

The evolution of perjury law in the United States centers on United states of america v. Dunnigan, a seminal example that set out the parameters of perjury within United states law. The court uses the Dunnigan-based legal standard to determine if an accused person: "testifying under oath or affirmation violates this section if she gives faux testimony concerning a cloth matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of defoliation, mistake, or faulty retentivity."[34] However, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution.[35]

Dunnigan distinction manifests its importance with regard to the relation betwixt two component parts of perjury'south definition: in willfully giving a false argument, a person must understand that she is giving a false statement to be considered a perjurer nether the Dunnigan framework. Deliberation on the office of the defendant is required for a argument to constitute perjury.[36] Jurisprudential developments in the American law of perjury take revolved around the facilitation of "perjury prosecutions and thereby raise the reliability of testimony earlier federal courts and grand juries".[37]

With that goal in listen, Congress has sometimes expanded the grounds on which an individual may be prosecuted for perjury, with section 1623 of the United States Code recognizing the utterance of two mutually incompatible statements as grounds for perjury indictment fifty-fifty if neither can unequivocally be proven false.[38] However, the two statements must be so mutually incompatible that at least one must necessarily be simulated; information technology is irrelevant whether the false statement can be specifically identified from among the ii.[39] It thus falls on the authorities to show that a defendant (a) knowingly fabricated a (b) false (c) material statement (d) nether oath (eastward) in a legal proceeding.[forty] The proceedings can exist ancillary to normal court proceedings, and thus, fifty-fifty such menial interactions every bit bail hearings can qualify as protected proceedings under this statute.[41]

Wilfulness is an element of the crime. The mere existence of ii mutually-exclusive factual statements is non sufficient to prove perjury; the prosecutor nonetheless has the duty to plead and prove that the statement was willfully made. Mere contradiction volition not sustain the charge; there must exist strong corroborative evidence of the contradiction.[42]

Ane significant legal stardom lies in the specific realm of knowledge necessarily possessed by a accused for her statements to exist properly chosen perjury. Though the accused must knowingly return a faux argument in a legal proceeding or nether federal jurisdiction, the defendant need not know that they are speaking under such conditions for the statement to constitute perjury.[43] All tenets of perjury qualification persist: the "knowingly" aspect of telling the faux statement simply does not apply to the defendant's noesis about the person whose charade is intended.

Materiality [edit]

The development of United States perjury law has experienced the near debate with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the ground for a perjury accuse[44] (as they do non meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot institute perjury.[45] However, such central truths of perjury law go muddled when discerning the materiality of a given argument and the way in which information technology was textile to the given case. In Usa v. Brown, the court defined material statements every bit those with "a natural trend to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the controlling body to be addressed," such as a jury or one thousand jury.[46]

While courts have specifically made articulate certain instances that accept succeeded or failed to meet the nebulous threshold for materiality, the topic remains unresolved in large part, except in sure legal areas where intent manifests itself in an abundantly clear fashion, such as with the so-chosen perjury trap, a specific state of affairs in which a prosecutor calls a person to testify before a grand jury with the intent of drawing a perjurious statement from the person being questioned.[47]

Defense of recantation [edit]

Despite a tendency of US perjury law toward broad prosecutory power under perjury statutes, American perjury law has afforded potential defendants a new form of defense not plant in the British Common Law. This defence requires that an private admit to making a perjurious statement during that aforementioned proceeding and recanting the statement.[48] Though this defensive loophole slightly narrows the types of cases which may exist prosecuted for perjury, the effect of this statutory defense is to promote a truthful retelling of facts by witnesses, thus helping to ensure the reliability of American court proceedings merely as broadened perjury statutes aimed to do.

Subornation of perjury [edit]

Subornation of perjury stands equally a subset of US perjury laws and prohibits an individual from inducing another to commit perjury.[49] Subornation of perjury entails equivalent possible punishments every bit perjury on the federal level. The crime requires an actress level of satisfactory proof, every bit prosecutors must show not simply that perjury occurred simply also that the defendant positively induced said perjury. Furthermore, the inducing accused must know that the suborned statement is a false, perjurious argument.[50]

Notable bedevilled perjurers [edit]

  • Jonathan Aitken, British politician, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment in 1999 for perjury.[51]
  • Jeffrey Archer, British novelist and politician, was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment for perjury in 2001.[52]
  • Kwame Kilpatrick, Detroit mayor was convicted of perjury in 2008.[53] [54]
  • Marion Jones, American runway and field athlete, was sentenced to half-dozen months' imprisonment after being institute guilty of ii counts of perjury in 2008.[55]
  • Mark Fuhrman, Los Angeles Constabulary Department detective, entered a no contest plea to a perjury charge relating to his testimony in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson.[56] This was one of the seminal occurrences of perjury by a police officer.[57]
  • Alger Hiss, American government official who was defendant of beingness a Soviet spy in 1948 and convicted of perjury in connection with this charge in 1950.
  • Lil' Kim, American rapper was bedevilled of perjury in 2005 after lying to a thou jury in 2003 about a February 2001 shooting. She was sentenced to i year and one day of imprisonment.[58]
  • Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted in 2007 of two counts of perjury in connectedness with the Plame affair.[59]
  • Bernie Madoff, the onetime Chairman of the NASDAQ stock substitution, in 2009 was plant guilty of perjury in relation to investment fraud arising from his operating a Ponzi scheme.[60]
  • Michele Sindona, convicted of perjury related to a artificial kidnapping in August 1979.[61]
  • Tommy Sheridan, Scottish politician, found guilty of lying on affirmation in a trial in 2010.[62]
  • John Waller, British highwayman, known for his death while being pilloried for perjury in 1732

Allegations of perjury [edit]

Notable people who have been accused of perjury include:

  • Barry Bonds was indicted past a federal grand jury for allegedly perjuring himself in testimony denying the use of performance-enhancing drugs.[63] The perjury charges were later dropped after a deadlock by the trial jury.[64]
  • Former U.Due south. President Neb Clinton was accused of perjury and every bit a result was impeached past the House of Representatives on xix December 1998.[65] No criminal charges were ever brought and upon leaving office he accepted immunity.[66]
  • Andy Coulson, British journalist and political aide, was cleared of perjury charges in the News International phone hacking scandal, considering his questioned testimony was ruled immaterial.[67]
  • Michael Hayden, the former director of the Cardinal Intelligence Agency (CIA), has been accused of lying to Congress during his 2007 testimony about the CIA'south 'enhanced interrogation techniques.[68] [69]
  • Keith B. Alexander, the old director of the National Security Agency (NSA), had told Congress in 2012 that "we don't concord data on U.s. citizens".[70] [71]
  • James R. Clapper, the quondam Director of National Intelligence, was accused of perjury for telling a congressional commission in March 2013, that the National Security Agency does not collect any type of information at all on millions of Americans.[72] [73] [74]

See besides [edit]

  • Brady textile
  • Imitation confession
  • Forced confession
  • Horkos
  • Lies (evidence)
  • Making false statements
  • Obstruction of justice
  • Performativity
  • Pitchess motion
  • Statutory declaration
  • Testilying

References [edit]

  1. ^ "Perjury The act or an case of a person's deliberately making cloth simulated or misleading statements while under oath. – Also termed imitation swearing; false oath; (archaically forswearing." Garner, Bryan A. (1999). Black'southward Law Dictionary (seventh ed.). St. Paul MN: West Grouping. p. 1160.

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ a b Criminal Code, s 132, as amended by RSC 1985, c 27 (1st Supp), s 17 and SC 1998, c 35, southward 119.
  2. ^ a b The Perjury Deed 1911, section 1(i); the Criminal Justice Human action 1948, sections 1(one) and (2)
  3. ^ See: eighteen United statesC. § 1621; 28 United statesC. § 1746.
  4. ^ "Perjury". Criminal Law Lawyer Source. Archived from the original on eight February 2019. Retrieved eight April 2010.
  5. ^ Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 131, as amended by RSC 1985, c 27 (1st Supp.), s 17, and SC 1999, c xviii, south. 92.
  6. ^ The Court of Justice of the European Communities (Perjury) Act 1975, section i
  7. ^ The Courtroom of Justice of the European Communities (Perjury) Human action 1975, section 2
  8. ^ "Case police force showing how seriously perjury is taken in Republic of india".
  9. ^ "Perjury Act 1911". legislation.gov.u.k. . Retrieved 24 July 2015.
  10. ^ The European Communities Act 1972, department eleven(one)(a)
  11. ^ The Evidence (European Court) Society 1976 (S.I. 1976/428), article three, as read with article 2
  12. ^ The Patents Human action 1977, department 92(v)
  13. ^ The Criminal Justice Act 1988, department 32(iii)
  14. ^ The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, section 29(7)
  15. ^ The Youth Justice and Criminal Show Human activity 1999, section 31(6)
  16. ^ a b Archbold Criminal Pleading, Show and Practice. 1999. Paragraph 28-159 at page 2303.
  17. ^ Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law. Thirteenth Edition. Oxford University Printing. 2011. Section iv.1.4 at page 49.
  18. ^ Smith, J. C. and Hogan, Brian. Criminal Law. Second Edition. Sugariness & Maxwell. 1965. p. 509 footnote 12.
  19. ^ Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan's Criminal Law. Thirteenth Edition. Oxford Academy Press. 2011. Section 4.1.5.2 at page l.
  20. ^ The Perjury Human activity 1911, section one(1); the Magistrates' Courts Human activity 1980, section 17(i) and Schedule 1, paragraph fourteen(a)
  21. ^ "Perjury". cps.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 24 July 2015.
  22. ^ a b c Turner, J. W. C. Kenny Outlines on Criminal Law (London: Cambridge Academy Press, 1964) (18th edition), p.421.
  23. ^ Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice. 1999. Paragraph 28-160 at folio 2303. They cite 3 Inst 167.
  24. ^ Smith, J. C, and Hogan, Brian. Criminal Law. Sweet & Maxwell. 1965. Second Edition. Page 506.
  25. ^ 3 Inst 167. This passage is quoted by Smith, J. C, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Police (Sweet & Maxwell, 1965) (2nd Edition), p. 506.
  26. ^ Clark, William (1894). Paw-Book of Criminal Police. West Publishing Company.
  27. ^ Blackstone, William (1765). Commentaries on the Law of England. Oxford Printed at the Clarendon Printing.
  28. ^ a b Doyle, Charles (2010). "Perjury Under Federal Law: A Brief Overview". Congressional Inquiry Service.
  29. ^ Livingston, Edward (1828). A System of Penal Law for the United States of America.
  30. ^ United States Code, Title eighteen, Role 1, Section 1621.
  31. ^ Clark, William (1894). Manus-Book of Criminal Law. West Publishing Co.
  32. ^ Shuy, Roger (2011). The Linguistic communication of Perjury Cases. Oxford University Printing.
  33. ^ Doyle, Charles (eleven May 2018). False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal Police force (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Enquiry Service. Retrieved 2 December 2018.
  34. ^ U.s.a. five. Dunnigan 507 U.Due south. 87 (1993).
  35. ^ U.s.a. v. Fawley (1998).
  36. ^ cLARK, William (1894). Hand-Book of Criminal Police. W Publishing Co.
  37. ^ Dunn v. United states 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
  38. ^ United States Lawmaking, Title 18, Function 1, Section 1623 (c).
  39. ^ United States v. McAfee 971 F.2d 755 (1992).
  40. ^ United states of america five. Gorman.
  41. ^ United States 5. Greene 355 U.S. 184 (1957).
  42. ^ People v Greenbacks, 388 Michigan Reports 153 (1972). Encounter People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71 (1998), rev'd on other grounds 461 Mich 147 (1999).
  43. ^ United States v. Yermian 468 U.S. 63 (1984).
  44. ^ Bronston five. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973).
  45. ^ U.s.a. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).
  46. ^ U.s.a. v. Chocolate-brown, 381 U.Southward. 437 (1965).
  47. ^ Gershman, Bennett (1981). "The "Perjury Trap"". Footstep Police Kinesthesia Publications.
  48. ^ United States Lawmaking, Championship 18, Part 1, Section 1623 (d).
  49. ^ United States Code, Championship 18, Role 1, Section 1622.
  50. ^ Rosen v. N.L.R.B. 735 F.2d 564 (1984).
  51. ^ "U.k. Politics: Aitken'south downfall consummate". BBC News Online. BBC. 8 June 1999. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  52. ^ "Archer jailed for perjury". BBC News Online. BBC. 19 July 2001. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  53. ^ Chris Lawrence (24 March 2008). "Detroit mayor faces felony charges". CNN. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  54. ^ "Mayor: 'I lied nether oath'". Retrieved 4 September 2008.
  55. ^ Lynn Zinser (12 January 2008). "Judge Sentences Jones to 6 Months in Prison house". The New York Times . Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  56. ^ "Mark Fuhrman'southward perjury probation ends". CNN.
  57. ^ Slobogin, Christopher (Fall 1996). "Reform The Police: TESTILYING: POLICE PERJURY AND WHAT TO Practise Nigh IT". Academy of Colorado Law Review. Boulder, Colorado: University of Colorado Constabulary School. 67: 1037. Retrieved 28 Dec 2012.
  58. ^ "Lil' Kim Sentenced To Jail". NME. 8 July 2005. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  59. ^ Dowd, Maureen. "Lewis "Scooter" Libby confidence". The New York Times . Retrieved 21 March 2010.
  60. ^ Brockman, Joshua (17 Dec 2008). "Q&A: Madoff Case Puts Spotlight on SEC". National Public Radio. Retrieved 26 May 2009.
  61. ^ "Nation: Account Settled". Time. Time. 7 April 1980. Archived from the original on 13 March 2007. Retrieved 21 March 2010.
  62. ^ "Tommy Sheridan found guilty of perjury". BBC. 23 December 2010. Retrieved 23 December 2010.
  63. ^ "Barry Bonds indicted on perjury, obstacle charges". ESPN. 19 November 2007. Retrieved twenty March 2010.
  64. ^ Mintz, Howard (18 September 2014). "Barry Bonds case: Courtroom to rehear home-run king's appeal". San Jose Mercury News . Retrieved ane October 2015.
  65. ^ Alison Mitchell (20 December 1998). "Impeachment: the overview -- Clinton impeached; he faces a senate trial, 2d in history; vows to do job till term's 'last hour'". The New York Times . Retrieved 10 April 2010.
  66. ^ Neil A Lewis (20 January 2000). "Exiting Job, Clinton Accepts Amnesty Bargain". The New York Times . Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  67. ^ "Andy Coulson cleared of perjury every bit trial collapses". BBC News. 3 June 2015. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  68. ^ "What Happens When You Prevarication To Congress?" Time. 10 December 2014.
  69. ^ "Michael Hayden: The Nation's Biggest Liar, or Unassailable Patriot?". Bloomberg. ten December 2014.
  70. ^ "To reform the NSA, burn officials who lie". The Guardian. 25 September 2013.
  71. ^ "Put the NSA on trial". Salon. eleven June 2013.
  72. ^ "Has James Clapper been indicted for perjury yet?". Retrieved 18 July 2017.
  73. ^ "Lawmakers to Obama: Fire your intelligence chief for lying". MSNBC. 27 February 2014.
  74. ^ "Lock Him Up? Lawmakers Renew Calls for James Clapper Perjury Charges". U.S. News. 17 November 2016.

External links [edit]

  • Bryan Druzin, and Jessica Li, The Criminalization of Lying: Under what Circumstances, if whatsoever, should Lies exist made Criminal?, 101 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (Northwestern University) (forthcoming 2011).
  • Gabriel J. Mentum and Scott Wells, The "Blue Wall of Silence" equally Evidence of Bias and Motive to Lie: A New Approach to Police force Perjury, 59 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 233 (1998).
  • Perjury Under Federal Constabulary: A Brief Overview Congressional Research Service

inglealcon1985.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury

0 Response to "What Is It Called When You Lie to the Judge."

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel