Hubbry Logo
PerjuryPerjuryMain
Open search
Perjury
Community hub
Perjury
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Perjury
Perjury
Perjury
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Criminal law
Elements
Scope of criminal liability
Severity of offense
Inchoate offenses
Offense against the person
Sexual offenses
Crimes against property
Crimes against justice
Crimes against the public
Crimes against animals
Crimes against the state
Defenses to liability
Other common-law areas
Portals

Perjury (also known as forswearing) 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 most other crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had the intention (mens rea) to commit the act and have actually committed the act (actus reus).[1] Further, statements that are facts cannot be considered perjury, even if they might arguably constitute an omission, and it is not perjury to lie about matters that are immaterial to the legal proceeding.[2][3] 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 have 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 crime 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 outcome of the proceeding. It is not perjury, for example, to lie about one's age except if age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

Perjury is considered a serious offence, as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In Canada, those who commit perjury are guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.[4] 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.[5] In the United States, the general perjury statute under federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.[6] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital 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 as murder or attempted murder, and is normally itself punishable by execution in countries that retain the death penalty. Perjury is considered a felony in most U.S. states. However, prosecutions for perjury are rare.[7]

The rules for perjury also apply when a person has made a statement under penalty of perjury even if the person has not been sworn or affirmed as a witness before an appropriate official. An example is the US income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury (see 26 U.S.C. § 6065). Federal tax law provides criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for violation of the tax return perjury statute (see 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)).

In the United States, 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 crime.

Perjury law by jurisdiction

[edit]

Australia

[edit]

Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in various states and territories of Australia. In several jurisdictions, longer prison sentences are possible if perjury was committed with the intent of convicting or acquitting a person charged with a serious offence.

  • Australian Capital Territory: Perjury is punishable by a fine of up to AU$112,000 or 7 years imprisonment or both.[8][9] If perjury was committed with the intent of convicting or acquitting someone of an offence which carries a prison sentence, the maximum penalty is AU$224,000 or 14 years imprisonment or both.[10]
  • New South Wales: Under Section 327 of the Crimes Act 1900, perjury is punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years.[11] Under Section 328, if a person commits perjury with the aim of convicting or acquitting a person charged with an offence that carries a prison sentence of 5 years or more, perjury is punishable by imprisonment of up to 14 years.[12]
  • Northern Territory: Perjury is punishable by imprisonment of up to 14 years. If perjury was committed to convict someone of an offence that carries life imprisonment, the perjurer can be imprisoned for life.[13]
  • Queensland: Perjury is punishable by imprisonment of up to 14 years. If perjury was committed to convict someone of an offence that carries life imprisonment, the perjurer can be imprisoned for life.[14]
  • Tasmania: Perjury is a crime in Tasmania.[16]
  • Western Australia: Under Section 125 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act 1913, perjury is punishable by imprisonment of up to 14 years. If perjury was committed to convict someone of an offence that carries life imprisonment, the perjurer can be imprisoned for life.[18]

Canada

[edit]

The offence of perjury is codified by section 132 of the Criminal Code. It is defined 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 by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under 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 Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false 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 outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.
(2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.

(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.[19]

As to corroboration, see section 133.

Everyone who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.[4]

European Union

[edit]

A person who, before the Court of Justice of the European Union, swears anything which they know to be false or do not believe to be true are, whatever their nationality, guilty of perjury.[20] 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.[21]

India

[edit]

"The offence of perjury finds its place in law 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"). Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. restricts any court to take cognisance of an offence of perjury unless the same is by way of a complaint in writing by the court before which the offence is committed or by a superior court."[22]

New Zealand

[edit]

Punishment for perjury is defined under Section 109 of the Crimes Act 1961.[23] A person who commits perjury may be imprisoned for up to 7 years. If a person commits perjury to procure the conviction of someone charged with an offence that carries a maximum sentence of not less than 3 years' imprisonment, the perjurer may be imprisoned for up to 14 years.

Nigeria

[edit]
Main article: Perjury in Nigeria

United Kingdom

[edit]

England and Wales

[edit]

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

  • (1) If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding, which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding seven 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.
  • (2) The expression "judicial proceeding" includes a proceeding before any court, tribunal, or person having by law power to hear, receive, and examine evidence on oath.
  • (3) Where a statement made for the purposes of a judicial proceeding is not made before the tribunal itself, but is made on oath before a person authorised by law to administer an oath to the person who makes the statement, and to record or authenticate the statement, it shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as having been made in a judicial proceeding.
  • (4) A statement made by a person lawfully sworn in England for the purposes of a judicial proceeding—
    • (a) in another part of His Majesty’s dominions; or
    • (b) in a British tribunal lawfully constituted in any place by sea or land outside His Majesty’s dominions; or
    • (c) in a tribunal of any foreign state,
    shall, for the purposes of this section, 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 part of His Majesty’s dominions; or
    • (b) before a British tribunal or a British officer in a foreign country, or within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England;
    a statement made by such person so sworn as aforesaid (unless the Act of Parliament under which it 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.
  • (6) The question whether a statement on which perjury is assigned was material is a question of law to be determined by the court of trial.[24]

The words omitted from section 1(1) were repealed by section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. Section 1(1) of that Act also abolished penal servitude; such sentences are construed as sentences of imprisonment instead.

A person guilty of an offence under section 11(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 (i.e. perjury before the Court of Justice of the European Union) could be proceeded against and punished in England and Wales as for an offence under section 1(1).[25] Section 1(4) had effect in relation to proceedings in the Court of Justice of the European Union as it has effect in relation to a judicial proceeding in a tribunal of a foreign state.[26] Due to Brexit, the United Kingdom is no longer subject to that court's jurisdiction and the 1972 Act has been repealed in its entirety.

Section 1(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 foreign state.[27]

A statement made on oath by a witness outside the United Kingdom and given in evidence through a live television 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.[28]

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 as an intermediary in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 1, that proceeding must be taken to be part of the judicial proceeding in which the witness's evidence is given.[29]

Where any statement made by a person on oath in any proceeding which is not a judicial proceeding for the purposes of section 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 part of the judicial proceeding in which the statement is so received in evidence.[30]

"Judicial proceeding"
[edit]

The definition in section 1(2) is not "comprehensive".[31]

The book Archbold says that it appears to be immaterial whether the court before which the statement is made has jurisdiction in the particular cause in which the statement is made, because there is no express requirement in the Act that the court be one of "competent jurisdiction" and because the definition in section 1(2) does not appear to require this by implication either.[31]

Actus reus
[edit]

The actus reus of perjury might be considered to be the making of a statement, whether true or false, on oath in a judicial proceeding, where the person knows the statement to be false or believes it to be false.[32][33]

Perjury is a conduct crime.[34]

Mode of trial
[edit]

Perjury is triable only on indictment.[35]

Sentence
[edit]

A person convicted of perjury is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine, or to both.[5]

The following cases are relevant:

  • R v Hall (1982) 4 Cr App R (S) 153
  • R v Knight, 6 Cr App R (S) 31, [1984] Crim LR 304, CA
  • R v Healey (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 297
  • R v Dunlop [2001] 2 Cr App R (S) 27
  • R v Archer [2002] EWCA Crim 1996, [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 86
  • R v Adams [2004] 2 Cr App R (S) 15
  • R v Cunningham [2007] 2 Cr App R (S) 61

See also the Crown Prosecution Service sentencing manual.[36]

History
[edit]

In Anglo-Saxon legal procedure, the offence of perjury could only be committed by both jurors and by compurgators.[37] With time witnesses began to appear in court they were not so treated[incomprehensible] despite the fact that their functions were akin to that of modern witnesses. This was due to the fact that their role were not yet differentiated from those of the juror and so evidence or perjury by witnesses was not made a crime. Even in the 14th century, when witnesses started appearing before the jury to testify, perjury by them was not made a punishable offence. The maxim then was that every witness's evidence on oath was true.[37] Perjury by witnesses began to be punished before the end of the 15th century by the Star Chamber.

The immunity enjoyed by witnesses began also to be whittled down or interfered with by the Parliament in England in 1540 with subornation of perjury[37] and, in 1562, with perjury proper. The punishment for the offence then was in the nature of monetary penalty, recoverable in a civil action and not by penal sanction. In 1613, the Star Chamber declared perjury by a witness to be a punishable offence at common law.

Prior to the 1911 Act, perjury was governed by section 3 of the Maintenance and Embracery Act 1540, 32 Hen. 8 c. 9 (An Act for the Punyshement of suche persones as shall procure or comit any wyllful Perjurye; repealed 1967), and the Perjury Act 1728 (2 Geo. 2 c. 25).

Materiality
[edit]

The requirement that the statement be material can be traced back to[38] and has been credited to[39] Edward Coke, who said:

For if it be not material, then though it be false, yet it is no perjury, because it concerneth not the point in suit, and therefore in effect it is extra-judicial. Also this act giveth remedy to the party grieved, and if the deposition be not material, he cannot be grieved thereby.[40]

Northern Ireland

[edit]

Perjury is a statutory offence in Northern Ireland. It is created by article 3(1) of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1714 (N.I. 19)). This replaces the Perjury Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 (c. 13) (N.I.).

United States

[edit]
See also: United States free speech exceptions

Perjury operates in American law as an inherited principle of the common law of England, which defined the act as the "willful and corrupt giving, upon a lawful oath, or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath, in a judicial proceeding or course of justice, of a false testimony material to the issue or matter of inquiry".[41]

William Blackstone touched on the subject in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, establishing perjury as "a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely, and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question".[42] The punishment for perjury under the common law has varied from death to banishment and has included such grotesque penalties as severing the tongue of the perjurer.[43] The definitional structure 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. As such, the main tenets of perjury, including mens rea, a lawful oath, occurring during a judicial proceeding, a false testimony have remained necessary pieces of perjury's definition in the United States.[44]

Statutory definitions

[edit]

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

(1) Having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true[45]

The above statute provides for a fine and/or up to five years in prison as punishment. Within federal jurisdiction, statements made in two broad categories of judicial proceedings may qualify as perjurious: 1) Federal official proceedings, and 2) Federal Court or Grand Jury proceedings. A third type of perjury entails the procurement of perjurious statements from another person.[43] More generally, the statement must occur in the "course of justice", but this definition leaves room open for interpretation.[46]

One particularly precarious aspect of the phrasing is that it entails knowledge of the accused person's perception of the truthful nature of events and not necessarily the actual truth of those events. It is important to note the distinction here, between giving a false statement under oath and merely misstating a fact accidentally, but the distinction can be especially difficult to discern in court of law.[47][48]

Precedents

[edit]

The development of perjury law in the United States centers on United States v. Dunnigan, a seminal case 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 false testimony concerning a material matter with the willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than as a result of confusion, mistake, or faulty memory."[49] However, a defendant shown to be willfully ignorant may in fact be eligible for perjury prosecution.[50]

Dunnigan distinction manifests its importance with regard to the relation between two component parts of perjury's definition: in willfully giving a false statement, a person must understand that she is giving a false statement to be considered a perjurer under the Dunnigan framework. Deliberation on the part of the defendant is required for a statement to constitute perjury.[51] Jurisprudential developments in the American law of perjury have revolved around the facilitation of "perjury prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries".[52]

With that goal in mind, 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 even if neither can unequivocally be proven false.[53] However, the two statements must be so mutually incompatible that at least one must necessarily be false; it is irrelevant whether the false statement can be specifically identified from among the two.[54] It thus falls on the government to show that a defendant (a) knowingly made a (b) false (c) material statement (d) under oath (e) in a legal proceeding.[55] The proceedings can be ancillary to normal court proceedings, and thus, even such menial interactions as bail hearings can qualify as protected proceedings under this statute.[56]

Wilfulness is an element of the offense. The mere existence of two mutually-exclusive factual statements is not sufficient to prove perjury; the prosecutor nonetheless has the duty to plead and prove that the statement was willfully made. Mere contradiction will not sustain the charge; there must be strong corroborative evidence of the contradiction.[57]

One significant legal distinction lies in the specific realm of knowledge necessarily possessed by a defendant for her statements to be properly called perjury. Though the defendant must knowingly render a false statement in a legal proceeding or under federal jurisdiction, the defendant need not know that they are speaking under such conditions for the statement to constitute perjury.[58] All tenets of perjury qualification persist: the "knowingly" aspect of telling the false statement simply does not apply to the defendant's knowledge about the person whose deception is intended.

Materiality

[edit]

The evolution of United States perjury law has experienced the most debate with regards to the materiality requirement. Fundamentally, statements that are literally true cannot provide the basis for a perjury charge[59] (as they do not meet the falsehood requirement) just as answers to truly ambiguous statements cannot constitute perjury.[60] However, such fundamental truths of perjury law become muddled when discerning the materiality of a given statement and the way in which it was material to the given case. In United States v. Brown, the court defined material statements as those with "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to be addressed", such as a jury or grand jury.[61]

While courts have specifically made clear certain instances that have succeeded or failed to meet the nebulous threshold for materiality, the topic remains unresolved in large part, except in certain legal areas where intent manifests itself in an abundantly clear fashion, such as with the so-called perjury trap, a specific situation 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.[62]

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 found in the English common law. This defense requires that an individual admit to making a perjurious statement during that same proceeding and recanting the statement.[63] Though this defensive loophole slightly narrows the types of cases which may be 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 just as broadened perjury statutes aimed to do.

Subornation of perjury

[edit]

Subornation of perjury stands as a subset of US perjury laws and prohibits an individual from inducing another to commit perjury.[64] Subornation of perjury entails equivalent possible punishments as perjury on the federal level. The crime requires an extra level of satisfactory proof, as prosecutors must show not only that perjury occurred but also that the defendant positively induced said perjury. Furthermore, the inducing defendant must know that the suborned statement is a false, perjurious statement.[65]

Notable convicted perjurers

[edit]

Allegations of perjury

[edit]
Excerpt of James Clapper's testimony to Congress on NSA surveillance programs

Notable people who have been accused of perjury include:

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Perjury

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Perjury is the criminal offense of willfully making a false statement under oath or equivalent affirmation during an official proceeding, such as a trial or deposition, where the falsehood pertains to a material fact capable of influencing the outcome. To establish perjury, prosecutors must prove several elements: the defendant was duly sworn to tell the truth; the statement was knowingly and intentionally false; it contradicted the oath by being untrue; and it was material, meaning it had a natural tendency to affect the proceeding's decision. Under federal law, perjury constitutes a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, fines, or both, reflecting its threat to the administration of justice by undermining the reliability of sworn testimony essential to fair adjudication. State statutes similarly classify perjury as a felony, with penalties varying by jurisdiction but often including multi-year prison terms and substantial fines, though successful prosecutions remain challenging due to the high burden of proving intent and falsity beyond reasonable doubt. Historically rooted in common law traditions that viewed false swearing as a profound betrayal warranting severe sanctions like death or corporal punishment, modern perjury laws prioritize deterrence against testimony corruption while balancing evidentiary hurdles inherent to subjective knowledge of truthfulness.

Definition and Core Elements

Perjury constitutes the willful utterance or subscription of a under or equivalent affirmation, concerning a material matter, in an official proceeding where such is authorized . This offense undermines the integrity of judicial, administrative, or legislative processes by subverting the truth-finding function of oaths. At , perjury required a false oath in a judicial proceeding about a matter material to the inquiry, distinguishing it from mere falsehoods by the solemnity of the oath. In the United States, federal perjury is codified primarily in 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which applies to proceedings before competent tribunals, officers, or persons where U.S. law permits oaths. It penalizes any individual who, after taking such an oath to testify or certify truly, willfully states or subscribes a material falsehood they do not believe to be true, subjecting the offender to fines or imprisonment up to five years. A parallel statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, addresses false declarations specifically before federal grand juries or courts, broadening the scope to include unsworn statements under penalty of perjury but requiring proof of falsity by inconsistent subsequent statements in some cases. State definitions align closely, often classifying perjury as a felony when committed in official proceedings, such as trials or depositions, with materiality assessed by the statement's potential to influence the proceeding's outcome. Internationally, perjury equivalents exist in civil law systems, though terminology and elements vary; for instance, in the under the Perjury Act 1911, it involves willful false statements on in judicial proceedings, punishable by up to seven years' . These definitions emphasize and materiality to deter abuse while accommodating procedural nuances across jurisdictions.

Required Elements for Conviction

To a of perjury, prosecutors must prove beyond a that the accused made a while under or equivalent affirmation in a legally authorized proceeding. This element ensures the statement occurs in a context where truthfulness is formally compelled, such as before a , , or administrative body empowered to administer oaths under applicable . In federal proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, the must precede a "competent , officer, or person" in a case where U.S. authorizes it, distinguishing perjury from mere false statements outside sworn contexts. The statement itself must be demonstrably false, meaning it materially deviates from objective fact rather than mere opinion or ambiguity. Proof of falsity typically requires , such as contradictory from at least or one witness corroborated by independent evidence, particularly under traditional perjury statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1621, to guard against erroneous based on oath-against-oath disputes. In contrast, proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 1623—applicable to statements before federal grand juries or courts—allow via inherently inconsistent statements without the two-witness rule, provided both are material and the does not satisfactorily explain the inconsistency. Willfulness is a core element, requiring that the defendant acted with knowledge of the statement's falsity or reckless disregard for its truth, subscribing to it as true despite not believing it so. This distinguishes perjury from innocent mistakes or ; mere forgetfulness or does not suffice, as courts demand of deliberate . For instance, in , the defendant must "willfully and contrary to such state or subscribe any material matter which he does not believe to be true." Materiality further narrows the offense to statements with a natural tendency to influence the proceeding's outcome or inquiry, rather than trivial or collateral details. A is material if it could affect the decision-maker's judgment, even if it ultimately does not; this requirement, rooted in , prevents prosecution for inconsequential lies while targeting those undermining justice's integrity. Courts assess materiality objectively, based on the statement's context at the time, without hindsight from later developments. These elements derive from traditions emphasizing protection of sworn proceedings, codified in statutes like those in 18 U.S.C., where failure to establish any one—such as lack of proven or immateriality—defeats . Jurisdictional variations exist, but the core framework prioritizes verifiable and impact to balance deterrence against overreach in prosecuting .

Distinction from False Statements

Perjury requires a to be made under , affirmation, or subject to penalty of perjury, typically in judicial proceedings, testimony, or other official capacities where such sworn obligation applies. In , this is codified primarily under 18 U.S.C. § for general perjury and § for false declarations before a or , both demanding proof of willfully false testimony on a material matter. False statements, by contrast, criminalize knowingly or recklessly providing untrue information to federal officials in matters within their , without necessitating an , as outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 1001. This statutory framework reflects a deliberate separation: the elevates the gravity of deception in sworn contexts to protect judicial integrity, whereas § 1001 targets broader administrative or investigative deceit to safeguard government functions. The absence of an oath or penalty of perjury precludes a false statement from qualifying as perjury, even if it is material, intentional, and influences official proceedings. For instance, lying to an FBI agent during an unsworn constitutes a false statement under § 1001 but not perjury, punishable by up to five years in either case yet distinguished by procedural safeguards like the 's role in evidencing . Perjury convictions under § 1623 may also hinge on inherently inconsistent statements without direct proof of falsity in one, easing prosecutorial burdens in sworn settings, a provision absent from § 1001. Materiality—whether the falsehood could affect the proceeding's outcome—remains essential to both offenses, but perjury's sworn element underscores a heightened , often requiring evidence that the declarant did not believe the statement true at the time. This distinction prevents over-criminalization of casual or unsworn inaccuracies while reserving perjury's stigma for violations of the solemn duty imposed by , a principle rooted in traditions emphasizing testimonial veracity in adversarial processes. Courts have upheld that unsworn false reports to authorities, such as in regulatory filings or interviews, fall under false statements statutes rather than perjury, allowing flexibility in enforcement but demanding clear delineation to avoid prosecutorial overreach.

Historical Origins and Evolution

Ancient and Biblical Roots

The earliest codified prohibitions against false testimony appear in the ancient Near Eastern legal traditions, particularly the , promulgated around 1754 BC by the Babylonian king . This , inscribed with 282 laws, explicitly addresses perjury in its opening provisions: Law 1 imposes death on a who alters a after rendering it, while Law 3 mandates execution for a man who bears false witness in a capital case without substantiating his claim, and Law 4 requires him to suffer the penalty intended for the accused in civil matters involving bribes or false statements for gain. These rules reflect a causal emphasis on reciprocity and deterrence, where the perjurer incurs the precise harm he sought to inflict, underscoring the societal peril of undermining judicial truth through sworn deception. Similar principles appear in earlier Sumerian and Akkadian texts, such as the Laws of (c. 1934 BC), which penalize false accusations, though Hammurabi's code provides the most detailed surviving framework. In ancient Egyptian , oaths invoked to deter perjury, with texts from the Middle Kingdom (c. 2050–1710 BC) onward prescribing corporal punishments like flogging (up to 100 strokes) for false testimony or libel in judicial proceedings. The Book of the Dead and temple oaths further reinforced this by warning of postmortem retribution from gods like Ma'at, the embodiment of truth, for oath-breakers, integrating religious causality into legal enforcement rather than solely human penalties. Biblical law, as recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures, elevates prohibitions against false witness to a foundational moral imperative, rooted in the Decalogue's Ninth Commandment: "Thou shalt not bear against thy neighbour" (Exodus 20:16, KJV). This extends to explicit judicial penalties in Deuteronomy 19:16–19, where a proven false witness faces the he intended for the accused—such as for intended capital charges—enacting a strict retributive principle to preserve communal and deter fabrication. Leviticus 19:11–12 further bans deceit and profane oaths by one's name, linking perjury to violations of covenantal fidelity with God, while Zechariah 5:4 prophesies divine curses consuming the houses of perjurers and thieves alike. These texts, traditionally dated to the Mosaic era (c. 15th–13th century BC), prioritize empirical corroboration—requiring at least for convictions (Deuteronomy 19:15)—and attribute the offense's gravity to its assault on divine order and human testimony's reliability, influencing later Abrahamic . In classical antiquity, Greek and Roman traditions built on these foundations by criminalizing epior kia (perjury) as both a civic and religious crime, often invoking gods like Zeus or Jupiter for enforcement. Homeric epics (c. 8th century BC) depict perjurers suffering shipwrecks or exile as divine reprisal, while Athenian law under Draco (c. 621 BC) imposed atimia (loss of civic rights) or death for false oaths in courts. Roman jurists, per Cicero, deemed perjury the most detestable offense, punishable under the Twelve Tables (c. 450 BC) and later statutes with infamia (dishonor) or capital penalties, emphasizing its erosion of fides (trust) in oaths sworn before gods. These systems, while evolving toward secular sanctions, retained the ancient view of perjury as incurring supernatural as well as temporal consequences, preserving the core causal link between false swearing and societal destabilization.

Common Law Development

In English , perjury evolved from a primarily offense to a secular prosecuted in royal courts, reflecting the tension between spiritual and temporal jurisdictions during the era. Initially, false swearing under was treated as a against God, handled by church courts with penalties like or , as broadly encompassed any breach of , including non-judicial vows. By the early , conciliar bodies such as the began addressing perjury in civil disputes, imposing forfeitures or imprisonment for false testimony that undermined justice, though courts limited their role to cases involving parties rather than witnesses. The landmark shift occurred with the Perjury Act of 1563 (5 Eliz. c. 9), the first statute empowering courts to try and punish perjury committed by witnesses in , temporal, or civil proceedings, extending beyond prior restrictions to parties alone. This legislation addressed evidentiary abuses in expanding litigation, mandating indictments for willful false oaths on material facts, with penalties including fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of goods. The Act's influence embedded perjury as a at , requiring proof of falsity via the "two-witness rule"—either two independent witnesses to the falsity or one witness corroborated by strong —to overcome the difficulty of contradicting sworn testimony. By the mid-17th century, precedents refined perjury as the willful and corrupt utterance of a under in a judicial proceeding concerning a , excluding immaterial lies or non-judicial oaths. Courts emphasized to deceive, distinguishing perjury from mere error or , and viewed it as among the gravest offenses against public justice due to its erosion of testimonial reliability. Punishments moderated from ancient severities—such as death or —to fines, , and , though subornation (procuring perjury) carried equal liability. This framework persisted, influencing later statutes like the Perjury Act 1911, which consolidated but did not fundamentally alter the core elements.

Codification in Modern Statutes

In , perjury transitioned from a primarily and ecclesiastical offense to statutory codification through acts like the Perjury Act 1563 (5 Eliz. 1 c. 9), which first extended felony punishment to witnesses making under in courts, including and . Subsequent 18th-century measures, such as the Perjury Act 1728, intensified penalties for forgery-related perjury and subornation, treating them as capital offenses under the "." The Perjury Act 1911 consolidated these fragmented provisions, defining perjury in section 1 as wilfully making a under or affirmation in any judicial proceeding in the UK or certain overseas territories, punishable by up to seven years' or a fine, or both; it also covered in statutory declarations and affidavits. This act simplified proof requirements, eliminated some ambiguities, and extended liability to related offenses like in inquiries. In the United States, federal codification began with the Crimes Act of 1790, section 18 of which criminalized "wilful and corrupt perjury" in any court, imposing fines up to $800, imprisonment up to three years, and one hour in the , while easing indictment formalities to require only allegation of falsity and . This early statute, influenced by English , was incorporated into revised federal codes, culminating in 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (derived from the 1909 codification under ch. 321, § 125), which prohibits any person lawfully administered an from willfully and contrary to such oath stating or subscribing any material matter known to be false, with penalties of up to five years' or fine. States adopted analogous provisions in 19th-century penal codes, standardizing elements like , materiality, and intent while adapting penalties to local contexts. These modern codifications addressed common law limitations, such as evidentiary hurdles (e.g., the two-witness rule under § 1621), by clarifying jurisdictional scope and introducing procedural efficiencies; for instance, the federal False Statements Accountability Act of 1996 and 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (enacted 1970 via the Organized Crime Control Act) targeted grand jury and court testimony, permitting conviction on inconsistent statements without proving which was false and allowing recantation as a bar to prosecution if it negates prior falsity. Across common law jurisdictions, statutory frameworks thus prioritized deterrence in expanding administrative and legislative oaths, reflecting causal links between undefined falsity and undermined judicial integrity.

Materiality Requirement

In perjury law, the materiality requirement mandates that the false statement must concern a matter with the potential to influence the decision or outcome of the official proceeding in which it was made. This element ensures that only falsehoods capable of affecting the tribunal's judgment—such as a , , or administrative body—qualify as perjury, distinguishing the offense from mere inaccuracies or immaterial lies. Courts assess materiality objectively, based on whether the statement has a "natural tendency to influence" or is "capable of influencing" the proceeding, rather than requiring proof that it actually swayed the result. Rooted in English , materiality originally limited perjury to statements relating to "essential" issues central to the case, excluding collateral or trifling details that could not reasonably mislead the fact-finder. This principle persists in modern statutes, such as the U.S. federal perjury provision under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which criminalizes willfully subscribing as true any " matter" known to be false under . The scope is broad: a statement may be material even if indirectly related, such as that could corroborate or undermine key testimony, or information affecting witness credibility, provided it bears on the proceeding's substantive resolution. Materiality is a factual question for the in criminal trials, to be proven beyond a as an essential element of the offense. Indictments must allege facts supporting materiality, though courts may infer it from the context without exhaustive detail. Failure to meet this threshold bars conviction, protecting against overreach in prosecuting oaths given in peripheral contexts, while upholding the integrity of in adjudicative processes.

Willfulness and Intent

Willfulness and intent constitute the element of perjury, requiring that the false statement be made knowingly, with awareness of its falsity, and with a deliberate purpose to mislead or deceive. This specific intent elevates perjury beyond inadvertent falsehoods, such as those arising from memory lapses, honest mistakes, or ambiguous phrasing, which do not satisfy the threshold. In practice, prosecutors must demonstrate that the declarant did not believe the statement to be true at the time of utterance, often through like prior inconsistent statements or the implausibility of claimed ignorance. At common law, the intent requirement—termed a "corrupt" or "perverse" motive—demanded proof of deliberate falsity under oath, excluding negligence or recklessness as bases for liability. Modern statutes preserve this rigor; for instance, under U.S. federal law in 18 U.S.C. § 1621, the offender must "willfully" state or subscribe material matter not believed to be true, interpreted by courts as necessitating voluntary action with specific intent to violate the oath. This contrasts with the slightly lower "knowingly" standard in 18 U.S.C. § 1623 for false declarations before Congress or courts, though both demand awareness of falsity and exclude good-faith beliefs in truth. Jurisdictions like California codify similar elements under Penal Code § 118, punishing only willful falsehoods where the declarant lacks a reasonable belief in the statement's veracity. Failure to prove willfulness often defeats perjury charges, as seen in defenses emphasizing or literal truth evading deceptive . Reckless disregard for truth, without actual knowledge of falsity, typically falls short of the required , underscoring perjury's focus on culpable deceit rather than mere inaccuracy. This high bar reflects the offense's gravity, balancing protection of judicial integrity against over-penalizing testimonial errors in high-stakes proceedings.

Recantation as Defense

In United States federal law, recantation serves as a statutory defense to perjury charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1623, which applies to false declarations before federal courts or grand juries, provided the retraction occurs before the false statement substantially affects the proceeding and is made voluntarily in the same continuous proceeding. This provision, enacted in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act, explicitly states that "no prosecution for perjury... shall be instituted" if these conditions are met, distinguishing it from the general perjury statute under 18 U.S.C. § 1621, where recantation offers no such defense and the crime is complete upon the willful false statement. The defense requires three core elements: timeliness, whereby the recantation must precede any substantial influence on the proceeding's outcome; completeness, meaning the witness must fully correct the falsehood and provide truthful testimony; and lack of basic falsity, ensuring the original lie did not fundamentally undermine the inquiry's purpose. Courts have interpreted "substantially affected" narrowly, as in United States v. Gillette (1972), where recantation during the same hearing negated liability because the proceeding remained unimpaired. Failure to meet these thresholds, such as delayed retraction after influencing decisions, voids the defense, as affirmed in United States v. Dunn (1985), emphasizing that partial or post-proceeding corrections do not suffice. Rationale for the defense lies in promoting truthful disclosure without fear of irrevocable for initial errors, potentially mitigating perjury's deterrent effect on witnesses while ensuring no net harm to , per congressional intent to encourage self-correction in investigative contexts. Critics, however, argue it may incentivize strategic lying with a , undermining integrity, though empirical data on its application remains limited, with prosecutions rare post- absent aggravating factors like obstruction. At , no recantation defense existed, as established in United States v. Norris (1938), viewing perjury as consummated at utterance regardless of later remorse. Some states mirror the federal model, such as New York under Penal Law § 210.30, allowing if it does not affect the proceeding's integrity, but variations persist, with others adhering to the traditional no-defense rule. Overall, the defense's scope remains confined, applying only to § 1623-eligible proceedings and not extending to § 1621 or state oaths outside federal purview, reflecting a balance between truth-seeking and procedural finality.

Perjury Laws by Jurisdiction

United States

In the , perjury constitutes a under applicable to proceedings involving federal oaths or tribunals, as well as under statutes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia for state-level matters. Federal statutes require proof of a willful, material made under , with penalties including fines and up to five years. State laws similarly criminalize false or declarations under but exhibit variations in scope, such as coverage of non-judicial affidavits and differing penalties.

Federal Statutes and Precedents

The general federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621, prohibits any person who, under authorized by U.S. , willfully states or subscribes to known to be false. This applies broadly to oaths in judicial, administrative, or legislative contexts where permits oath administration. A companion provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, targets false declarations before federal grand juries or courts, uniquely permitting conviction upon proof of two inconsistent statements without identifying the false one, provided intent to deceive is shown. Both statutes mandate the falsity be —capable of influencing the proceeding—and willful, excluding mere errors or forgetfulness. Violations under either carry a maximum penalty of five years' , fines, or both, though enhancements apply in cases linked to or other felonies. Landmark precedents clarify these elements. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the reversed a perjury under § 1621, holding that a witness's literally true but evasive response—implying no assets when prior assets existed—does not qualify as perjury, as the statute demands an actual rather than misleading silence or implication. This decision underscores strict to avoid chilling truthful , placing the burden on questioners to seek clarification. Federal courts consistently require of falsity and willfulness, often proving the defendant's knowledge of truth via prior statements or extrinsic facts.

State-Level Variations

Each state maintains independent perjury statutes, typically felonies punishable by 1 to 10 years' imprisonment, fines, or , though some classify lesser false statements as misdemeanors. For example, California's Penal Code § 118 defines perjury as willfully stating falsehoods under oath in material matters, applicable to any testimony or affidavit, with penalties up to four years in state prison. New York Penal Law § 210.15 similarly treats first-degree perjury—false statements in judicial proceedings—as a Class D carrying up to seven years. Variations include broader state definitions encompassing false certifications in administrative filings (e.g., Penal Code § 37.02) or stricter materiality tests tied to potential case outcomes. Notable differences arise in defenses and prosecutorial thresholds; some states, like , recognize before verdict as a complete defense if it does not obstruct (Fla. Stat. § 837.021), while others limit it. Enforcement disparities reflect resource constraints, with urban states prosecuting more frequently than rural ones, though all require proof beyond of intent and materiality akin to federal standards. These laws evolved from but were codified in the 19th-20th centuries to deter courtroom deception, with ongoing refinements to address modern contexts like digital affidavits.

Federal Statutes and Precedents

The primary federal perjury statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which criminalizes willfully making a false statement under in any case where a authorizes an , with penalties including fines or for up to five years. This applies broadly to proceedings before legislative, administrative, or judicial bodies where oaths are authorized. To convict under § 1621, prosecutors must prove four elements: (1) the was under in a federal proceeding; (2) the made a ; (3) the statement was ; and (4) the acted willfully, meaning with of its falsity and intent to deceive. A related statute, 18 U.S.C. § , targets false declarations specifically before federal grand juries or courts, including ancillary proceedings, and punishes knowingly making a false material declaration under oath. Unlike § 1621, § permits as a defense if the false statement is corrected before the proceeding concludes and does not affect the proceeding's outcome, and it allows prosecution based on inconsistent statements where at least one is false without proving which. Penalties under § mirror § 1621 at up to five years , but increase to eight years if the offense involves or affects international or domestic terrorism. Key precedents shape the interpretation of these statutes. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the held that a literally true but unresponsive or misleading statement does not constitute perjury under § 1621, emphasizing that the statute requires a direct falsehood in the statement itself, not mere implication or evasion, to avoid chilling truthful . The Court reasoned that probing questions and powers suffice for misleading conduct, preserving the clarity of perjury's falsity requirement. Materiality, defined as having a natural tendency to influence the decision-maker, is an element for the to decide, as established in United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995), rejecting judicial determination to uphold rights. These rulings underscore the statutes' narrow application to proven, willful falsity while protecting against overbroad enforcement.

State-Level Variations

While the core elements of perjury—making a under or affirmation, with knowledge of its falsity and typically materiality to the proceeding—are consistent across U.S. states, statutory definitions and applications vary in scope, such as inclusion of unsworn falsifications in administrative contexts or distinctions between judicial and non-judicial proceedings. Most states require proof of willfulness and limit perjury to , excluding mere false reports to authorities without , though some broaden liability to include false affidavits or certifications in official matters. Materiality, defined as having a natural tendency to influence the or investigation, is an element in the majority of state statutes, mirroring federal standards, but a minority treat immaterial false swearing as a lesser offense rather than disqualifying the charge entirely. Penalties for perjury are uniformly serious, with all states classifying it as at least a and most as a punishable by exceeding one year, fines up to $10,000 or more, and ; however, maximum sentences range from 5 years in states like to 10 years in , often escalating with aggravating factors such as the proceeding's nature or prior convictions. Some states employ graduated penalties based on degrees of offense: New York distinguishes perjury in the first degree (material false statement in a felony proceeding) as a Class B (3–25 years ), second degree as a Class D (up to 7 years), and third degree (any false swearing) as a Class A (up to 1 year). treats general perjury under Penal Code §118 as a "wobbler" (2–4 years state ) but may reduce to for minor cases.
StateClassificationPenalty Range
1.5–3 years prison
2–4 years prison
Up to 5 years prison
New YorkVaries by degree (/Misdemeanor)Up to 25 years (1st degree); up to 1 year (3rd degree)
Up to 10 years prison
Defenses and evidentiary rules also differ; while many states retain the common-law "two-witness rule" requiring corroboration beyond the defendant's for conviction, others permit alone, easing prosecution compared to stricter federal judicial precedents under 18 U.S.C. §1621. may mitigate or bar charges in select states if timely and complete, but this is not uniform and often excludes cases impacting outcomes. States like extend perjury liability to false statements in official documents submitted to government agencies, broadening beyond testimony. These variations reflect local priorities, with denser urban states emphasizing procedural safeguards and others focusing on deterrence in high-stakes investigations.

United Kingdom and Commonwealth

England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

In , perjury is codified under the Perjury Act 1911, which consolidated prior and statutory provisions on false statements under oath. Section 1(1) establishes the offense as occurring when a person, lawfully sworn as a or interpreter in a judicial proceeding, wilfully makes a statement known to be false or not believed to be true in any material particular. The maximum penalty is for up to seven years. Conviction requires corroboration beyond a single alleging the falsity. The Act extends to statements in affidavits or depositions used in judicial proceedings. Northern Ireland maintains a parallel framework under the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, mirroring the Act's elements. Article 3(1) criminalizes wilful false statements under or affirmation in judicial proceedings that are material and known to be false or disbelieved by the speaker. Penalties align with those in , capped at seven years' imprisonment, emphasizing intent to deceive the court. Both jurisdictions require the false statement to pertain to judicial proceedings, excluding non-oath contexts like statutory declarations unless specified.

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

's perjury offense is defined in section 131 of , punishing individuals who, with intent to mislead, make a false statement under or solemn affirmation before an authorized person in a judicial proceeding. The statement must concern a material issue and be knowingly false. Section 132 imposes a maximum sentence of fourteen years' imprisonment as an indictable offense. Corroboration is mandated, prohibiting on one witness's uncorroborated of falsity, per section 133. In , perjury laws operate at both federal and state levels, drawing from traditions but codified variably. Federally, under the Criminal Code Act 1995, false statements under in Commonwealth judicial proceedings carry up to five years' . State provisions, such as section 327 of ' Crimes Act 1900, criminalize false statements on in judicial proceedings that are material and knowingly untrue, with penalties up to seven years; aggravated cases, like those inducing false against another, extend to fourteen years. Similar statutes apply across states, requiring wilful intent and materiality. New Zealand's Crimes Act 1961 outlines perjury in section 108 as a false assertion of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made under oath in judicial proceedings with knowledge of its falsity. Section 109 prescribes punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment, escalating to fourteen years if committed to procure a capital conviction, though capital punishment has been abolished. Conviction demands evidence beyond one witness, akin to Commonwealth precedents, and applies to sworn evidence or affidavits intended to mislead the tribunal.

England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

In England and Wales, perjury is defined under section 1(1) of the Perjury Act 1911 as the act of a person lawfully sworn as a witness or interpreter in judicial proceedings who wilfully makes a statement that they know to be false or do not believe to be true. The offence requires the false statement to be material, meaning it must have the potential to influence the proceedings' outcome, as established in case law such as R v. Oscar (a Court of Appeal decision interpreting the Act's scope). Judicial proceedings encompass courts, tribunals, arbitrations, and inquiries where oaths are administered. The element demands wilfulness, encompassing knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth, distinguishing perjury from mere errors or mistakes. Prosecution requires independent evidence of falsity beyond the perjured testimony itself, per section 13 of the Act, to prevent reliance solely on contradictory statements. The offence is indictable only, with a maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, reflecting its threat to judicial integrity. In , perjury is governed by the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which repealed earlier legislation and substantially replicates the 1911 Act's provisions. Article 3 mirrors section 1(1) by criminalizing wilfully false statements under in judicial proceedings, with equivalent requirements for materiality, of falsity, and independent corroboration of the lie. Penalties align closely, capping at seven years' imprisonment, though sentencing considers factors like the proceeding's gravity and the perjurer's intent. The Public Prosecution Service handles prosecutions, applying similar evidentiary thresholds to ensure convictions rest on robust proof rather than mere inconsistencies. Both jurisdictions extend perjury to related offences, such as false unsworn statements tendered as evidence (sections 4-5 of the 1911 Act; Articles 7-8 of the 1979 Order), but core perjury remains oath-bound and limited to sworn testimony. Enforcement emphasizes deterrence, though successful prosecutions demand clear demonstration of intent and impact, often challenged by the difficulty in proving subjective knowledge.

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

In , perjury is defined under section 131 of the Criminal Code as making a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, with intent to mislead, before a person authorized by law to receive it, such as in judicial proceedings or before certain officials. The statement must be to the proceeding, and conviction requires proof beyond that the accused knew the statement was false. It is an punishable by up to 14 years' imprisonment under section 132, with no summary conviction option. Section 133 mandates corroboration, prohibiting conviction based solely on one witness's unless corroborated in a material particular. Australia's perjury laws operate at both and state/ levels, reflecting federal structure. At the level, perjury involves wilfully making a under in federal judicial or administrative proceedings, punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment under the Crimes Act 1914. State laws vary: in , section 327 of the Crimes Act 1900 criminalizes false statements on in judicial proceedings that are material to the case, with a maximum penalty of 10 years' . In Victoria, perjury or statutory equivalents under the Crimes Act 1958 carry a maximum of 15 years' (). Queensland's Criminal Code Act 1899 (section 124) imposes up to 14 years for perjury intended to procure conviction of innocence or guilt. All jurisdictions require the false statement to be knowing and wilful, with materiality assessed against the proceeding's issues. In , perjury is outlined in sections 108 and 109 of the Crimes Act 1961, encompassing any false assertion of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made under in a judicial proceeding as part of . The offence demands intent to deceive and materiality to the case, with punishment up to 7 years' generally, escalating to 14 years if committed to procure or acquittal. Like , cannot rest on uncorroborated single-witness implicating the accused. These provisions align with traditions inherited from the , emphasizing protection of judicial integrity.

Other Jurisdictions

European Union Member States

Perjury laws across member states typically criminalize the provision of knowingly false testimony in judicial proceedings, often requiring an element of or affirmation, with penalties varying by country and severity. These provisions aim to safeguard the of judicial processes, though enforcement and definitions differ, reflecting civil law traditions where witness testimony is compelled and prosecutorial burdens emphasize proof of falsity over oath-breaking alone. In , false testimony by witnesses constitutes perjury under Article 434-13 of the Penal Code, punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and a fine of €75,000; however, defendants retain the right to provide unsworn statements without perjury liability, placing the onus on prosecutors to disprove falsehoods independently. This approach stems from inquisitorial principles prioritizing judicial inquiry over adversarial . In , Section 154 of the () defines perjury as falsely taking an before a court, carrying a minimum one-year term and up to fifteen years for severe cases; false unsworn is separately penalized under Section 153 with up to five years' , applying even without formal oath in civil or criminal hearings. Other EU states, such as and , similarly impose sanctions for false declarations under oath in proceedings, with Italy's Penal Code Article 372 prescribing two to six years' for ideological falsehoods in , emphasizing intent to deceive judicial . These frameworks underscore a common EU emphasis on evidentiary truthfulness, harmonized indirectly through mutual recognition directives, yet national variances persist without a unified perjury directive.

and

In , perjury falls under Chapter XI of the , 1860, with Section 191 defining it as intentionally giving false evidence under oath or solemn affirmation in judicial proceedings, and Section 193 prescribing punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine for such acts in court, or up to three years otherwise. Courts may initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the for deliberate falsehoods impeding , though prosecutions remain discretionary and often require proof of material impact. In Nigeria, perjury is codified in the Criminal Code Act (applicable in southern states), where Section 117 criminalizes knowingly giving false testimony touching any material matter in judicial proceedings or to procure such proceedings, and Section 118 imposes a penalty of up to fourteen years' imprisonment, escalating if intended to convict an innocent person of a capital offense. Northern states follow the Penal Code with analogous provisions under Sections 156-158, punishing false evidence with up to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, reflecting colonial-era influences adapted to local federalism. Enforcement challenges include evidentiary hurdles in proving knowledge of falsity, contributing to under-prosecution despite statutory severity.

European Union Member States

Perjury, defined as the willful provision of false under or affirmation in judicial proceedings, is addressed through national criminal codes in member states, as the EU lacks competence to harmonize substantive on this matter, leaving regulation to individual jurisdictions. Variations exist in definitions, requirements for oath-taking, and penalties, reflecting diverse legal traditions such as civil law systems predominant in . While some states require an explicit for the offense to constitute perjury, others penalize false statements in more broadly, even without formal swearing-in, to deter obstruction of justice. In , Article 434-13 of the Penal Code criminalizes false under before a , , or administrative authority exercising judicial functions, punishable by five years' and a €75,000 fine; aggravated forms, such as procured by gifts or rewards or concerning felonies, increase the penalty to seven years' and €100,000 fine. Defendants are prohibited from testifying under to avoid self-incrimination risks, limiting perjury charges to witnesses or experts. Prosecutions require proof of willfulness and materiality to the case, with rare convictions reflecting evidentiary challenges. Germany's Penal Code (§ 153) addresses false unsworn statements by as "falsche uneidliche Aussage," a punishable by up to one year's or a fine, since routine in civil and criminal trials typically occurs without an to streamline proceedings and reduce solemnity burdens. Perjury in the stricter sense applies only in exceptional cases mandating oaths, such as certain administrative hearings, with penalties under § 154 for false sworn statements reaching up to three years' if material to the proceedings. emphasizes deterrence through civil sanctions alongside criminal ones, though convictions remain infrequent due to the need to prove deliberate falsity beyond . In , Articles 372–384 of the Penal proscribe "falso testimonio" (false ) under in criminal or civil proceedings, carrying penalties of two to six years' depending on the proceeding's and the false statement's impact; subornation or self-perjury aggravates sentences. Spanish , under Article 458 of the Penal , punishes false under with from six months to three years, or fines, escalating for influencing judgments in serious cases; witnesses must affirm truthfulness, and prosecutorial discretion often prioritizes corroboration over isolated lies. Across these states, perjury prosecutions hinge on intent and harm, with EU mutual recognition directives facilitating cross-border but not standardizing offenses.

India and Nigeria

In India, perjury is governed by Sections 191 to 203 of the , 1860, which define giving as intentionally making a under or affirmation in a judicial proceeding, or fabricating with intent to use it in such proceedings. Section 193 prescribes punishment of up to seven years' imprisonment and a fine for intentionally giving in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricating for such purpose. Section 209 addresses dishonestly making a false claim in court, punishable by up to two years' imprisonment and a fine. Indian courts exercise caution in initiating perjury prosecutions, requiring a case of deliberate falsehood where conviction is reasonably probable, as clarified by the in James Kunjwal v. State of on July 26, 2024, to prevent misuse against witnesses who recant or err inadvertently. Historical precedent includes the 1904 conviction in Emperor v. Bankatram Lachiram under Section 193 for contradictory statements in deposition, establishing that material inconsistencies under can constitute perjury if proven intentional. A recent example is the March 19, 2025, sentencing by a court of Kotak Mahindra Bank's legal manager to three months' imprisonment for perjury in submitting falsified documents. In , perjury falls under Act (applicable in southern states), with Section 117 defining it as willfully giving under lawful or affirmation in judicial proceedings. Section 118 imposes punishment of up to fourteen years' imprisonment, escalating to if committed to procure conviction for a capital offense. The Penal Code, governing northern states, contains analogous provisions under Sections 156 to 160, emphasizing intent and materiality of the falsehood. , including knowledge of falsity, remains an essential element, as affirmed in Omoregie v. , where the court held that mere inconsistency without proven willful deceit does not suffice for conviction. Prosecutions often arise in or election-related cases, though enforcement is infrequent due to evidentiary challenges in proving intent amid systemic issues like intimidation. Guidelines from cases like Gesellschaft v. (re Biney) direct courts to assess perjury claims rigorously, prioritizing corroborative over uncorroborated accusations to avoid frivolous filings.

Enforcement and Prosecution

Prosecution Statistics and Rarity

In the United States, perjury prosecutions are markedly infrequent relative to the suspected incidence of the offense. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that perjury is suspected in approximately 8.85% of criminal trials, yet convictions arise in only about 1.2% of those suspected cases, highlighting a substantial enforcement gap. At the federal level, standalone prosecutions under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury generally) or § 1623 (perjury before Congress or courts) are limited, often numbering in the low hundreds annually at peak, with many integrated into larger fraud or obstruction cases rather than pursued independently. State-level data underscore greater rarity; for example, in Colorado, only 1 to 4 perjury cases involving sworn court testimony are prosecuted each year amid thousands of judicial proceedings. This scarcity persists despite perjury's status, punishable by up to five years' federally. Historical statistics reflect the , with perjury accounting for just 0.2% of inmates in earlier tallies, a figure attributed to prioritizing higher-impact crimes and the evidentiary burdens of proof. Conviction rates, when cases reach , benefit from high federal prevalence—over 90% of defendants plead guilty—but overall, perjury rarely results in independent sentencing events in U.S. Sentencing Commission data, frequently bundled under broader "" offenses. Internationally, analogous under-prosecution prevails. In , figures indicate fewer than 50 perjury convictions annually in recent years, despite oaths in thousands of proceedings. Similar trends hold in Commonwealth nations like , where reports administration-of-justice offenses (including perjury) yielding acquittals or stays in over 90% of completed cases, with convictions comprising a minuscule fraction. This pattern underscores systemic challenges in isolating and proving willful falsity amid resource constraints and alternative resolutions like contempt charges.

Challenges in Proving Perjury

Proving perjury demands establishing four core elements under : a made under , its materiality to the proceeding, the defendant's of its falsity, and willful intent to deceive. These requirements impose a stringent evidentiary burden, as prosecutors must demonstrate beyond that the testimony was not merely erroneous or ambiguous but deliberately misleading. Demonstrating falsity poses significant hurdles, as mere contradiction between prior and current statements insufficiently sustains a conviction without independent corroborative identifying the untrue version. For instance, courts reject prosecutions based solely on the defendant's own inconsistent sworn declarations, requiring extrinsic proof—such as documents, recordings, or third-party —to affirmatively establish the lie. Evasive responses, like professed memory failure, further complicate matters; while prosecutable if proven feigned, authorities must evidence the witness's actual recollection at the time, often relying on circumstantial indicators that rarely meet the criminal standard. Intent to deceive, encompassing both knowledge of falsity and purposeful misleading, remains elusive due to its subjective nature, demanding insight into the defendant's absent direct admissions. Prosecutors frequently falter here, as defenses invoke mistake, , or literal truth—per the Supreme Court's ruling in Bronston v. United States (1973), where unresponsive but technically accurate answers evade liability despite implying falsehood. This element's proof often hinges on contextual inferences, yet juries hesitate without overt evidence of mendacity, contributing to low conviction rates. Materiality adds another layer, necessitating that the lie possess a "natural tendency to influence, or [be] capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body" in the proceeding. Trivial or collateral falsehoods fail this test, narrowing prosecutable instances; for example, irrelevant personal details under oath do not qualify, even if knowingly false. Judicial interpretations vary, with some circuits adopting a strict "natural tendency" metric over broader "could have influenced" views, amplifying interpretive disputes and appellate reversals. These evidentiary rigors, compounded by resource constraints and favoring higher-impact cases, render perjury convictions rare despite its prevalence in trials. Federal data indicate fewer than 100 perjury indictments annually in recent years, underscoring systemic under-enforcement tied to proof difficulties rather than lack of incidents.

Sentencing and Penalties

In the United States, federal perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1621 carries a statutory maximum penalty of for up to five years, a fine, or both. Similarly, perjury in judicial proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 imposes the same five-year maximum term of . Fines for individuals can reach $250,000, with organizations facing up to twice the gain or loss caused by the offense. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines under §2J1.3 establish a base offense level of 14 for perjury, subornation of perjury, and related witness bribery offenses, corresponding to an advisory range of 15 to 21 months imprisonment for defendants with no prior criminal history. Enhancements apply if the perjury obstructs justice, causes substantial interference, or involves aggravating factors such as bodily injury or property damage exceeding $6,500, potentially increasing the offense level by up to 18 points. Cross-references to underlying offenses, including uncharged conduct, can further elevate sentences, leading to variability based on judicial discretion post-United States v. Booker (2005), which rendered guidelines advisory. State penalties for perjury vary widely, typically classified as a with imprisonment ranging from one to ten years depending on and severity; for instance, in , convictions under Penal Code § 37.02 can result in two to ten years confinement and fines up to $10,000. perjury in some states, such as certain false statements not under , may incur lesser terms like up to one year in jail. Federal prosecutors often pursue charges selectively, with actual imposed sentences influenced by plea agreements, where or reduced terms below guideline minimums occur in non-obstructive cases.

Impact on the Justice System

Role in Wrongful Convictions

Perjury, defined as the willful provision of false under , has been identified as a primary contributing factor in a substantial proportion of documented wrongful convictions. In cases where innocent individuals are exonerated, false statements by witnesses, informants, or officials often serve as the pivotal that convinces juries of guilt, overriding other exculpatory factors or . This distortion occurs because perjured directly fabricates incriminating narratives, such as eyewitness accounts or confessions attributed to the accused, which are difficult to rebut in real-time during trials due to the presumption of witness credibility. Data from the National Registry of Exonerations, which tracks verified exonerations since 1989, indicates that perjury or was present in 72% of the 147 exonerations recorded in , encompassing 106 cases. This figure aligns with prior years; for instance, in 2019 homicide exonerations, perjury or appeared in 70.6% of cases. These statistics highlight perjury's prevalence across types, particularly in non-DNA exonerations where is absent, and often intersects with official misconduct, such as prosecutors failing to disclose incentives given to lying witnesses. Mechanisms of perjury's influence include incentivized testimony, where jailhouse informants or accomplices receive sentence reductions or financial benefits in exchange for fabricated stories implicating the innocent, contributing to approximately 18% of DNA-based exonerations involving informant perjury. Coerced or incentivized civilian witnesses, as well as official perjury by law enforcement fabricating or trial evidence, further embed falsehoods into the judicial process. Such acts exploit the adversarial system's reliance on , where may fail to expose lies absent corroborative proof, leading to convictions upheld for years until post-conviction evidence like recantations or DNA testing emerges. The consequences extend beyond individual miscarriages, eroding in verdicts reliant on ; in over half of all cataloged by innocence organizations, perjury emerges as a detectable factor only after prolonged appeals, underscoring systemic vulnerabilities in verifying oath-bound statements. While prosecution rates for perjurers remain low, their role in sustaining wrongful convictions demonstrates a causal link between unpunished false and the incarceration of , with average timelines exceeding a decade.

Deterrence Value and Under-Enforcement

Despite statutory penalties of up to five years' and fines under (18 U.S.C. § 1621), the deterrent effect of perjury prohibitions appears limited by the low probability of detection and prosecution. Empirical assessments of general deterrence in emphasize that punishment certainty outweighs severity in influencing behavior; perjury's high evidentiary thresholds—requiring proof of willful falsity on a matter via or the traditional two-witness rule—result in infrequent convictions, thereby diminishing perceived risk. Prosecution statistics underscore this under-enforcement: federal authorities rarely pursue standalone perjury charges, often reserving them to enhance penalties in or cases rather than as primary offenses. In state jurisdictions, such as , only 1 to 4 perjury cases involving court testimony are prosecuted annually amid thousands of sworn statements, reflecting prosecutorial discretion prioritizing resource allocation toward violent or high-impact crimes over testimonial offenses. This scarcity persists despite perjury's role in undermining judicial integrity, as standalone pursuits demand reallocating investigative efforts post-trial without necessarily rectifying prior miscarriages of . Under-enforcement stems from multiple causal factors, including the challenge of corroborating amid conflicting narratives—mere contradictions in seldom suffice without extrinsic proof—and institutional reluctance to impeach proceedings reliant on cooperation. Prosecutors may forgo charges to avoid prolonging litigation or exposing systemic reliance on potentially flawed , particularly in civil matters where sanctions fall to courts rather than criminal enforcement. The resultant weak deterrence manifests in persistent perjurious conduct, evidenced by its contribution to wrongful convictions: analyses of U.S. exonerations indicate perjury or false accusations factored into approximately 70% of 2019 homicide reversals and over 79% of 2022 cases overall. In contexts like official or police testimony, under-enforcement exacerbates deterrence failures, as internal norms and reduce accountability, fostering patterns such as "testilying" where fabricated evidence evades scrutiny absent rigorous oversight. Reforms proposed, including relaxed evidentiary standards under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 for recantations or false declarations before grand juries, aim to bolster prosecutions but have not substantially increased conviction rates, suggesting entrenched barriers to effective deterrence. Overall, the disparity between nominal sanctions and enforcement reality implies perjury laws function more as symbolic safeguards than robust preventives against falsehoods in .

Effects of Official Perjury

Official perjury, involving false statements under oath by government actors such as officers, prosecutors, or witnesses in official capacities, directly contributes to wrongful convictions and systemic miscarriages of . Analysis of data indicates that official , encompassing perjury and related fabrications, played a role in 54% of cases where innocent defendants were convicted before later being cleared. In homicide exonerations specifically, official misconduct and perjury or remain among the primary causes, highlighting how such deceptions pervert trial outcomes and impose undue suffering on the wrongfully imprisoned. These acts erode public confidence in legal institutions by demonstrating vulnerabilities in the truth-finding mechanisms of courts. When officials engage in perjury, it not only denies defendants but also undermines access to factual , fostering broader skepticism toward and prosecutorial integrity. The resulting loss of trust weakens protections and diminishes the perceived legitimacy of the justice system, as evidenced by patterns in exonerations where fabricated official testimony led to prolonged miscarriages before rectification. Furthermore, unaddressed official perjury perpetuates a cycle of , deterring and amplifying disparities in enforcement against non-officials.

Notable Convictions and Cases

Historical Perjurers

One prominent example of historical perjury involved , an English cleric who fabricated the so-called in 1678, falsely testifying under oath before and judicial bodies that and Catholics were plotting to assassinate King Charles II and overthrow Protestant rule. This perjured testimony fueled anti-Catholic hysteria, resulting in the trials and executions of at least 35 individuals, including priests and nobles, between 1679 and 1681. After James II, a Catholic, ascended the throne in 1685, Oates faced prosecution for his fabrications; he was tried for perjury on May 8 and 9 at the King's Bench bar in Westminster, convicted on two counts for denying knowledge of specific events he had previously sworn to, and sentenced to , a £2,000 fine, annual appearances in the pillory, and public whipping from to on May 20 and 23, 1685. Oates was pardoned in 1689 following the but remained a symbol of the dangers posed by unchecked false oaths in politically charged proceedings. In early modern (circa 1550–1700), a class of professional perjurers known as "knights of the post" specialized in providing paid false testimony or acting as fraudulent sureties in courts, particularly around London's prisons and the , where they congregated to offer services for fees. These individuals earned notoriety for their willingness to swear falsely in civil and criminal matters, such as denying s or supporting alibis, often escaping severe punishment due to evidentiary challenges and the prevalence of oral testimony. The term derived from their posting as bail or witnesses, reflecting a systemic issue where perjury undermined wager of law procedures and enforcement, though convictions were rare without corroboration. Perjury convictions in antiquity and the medieval period were infrequent among named figures in preserved records, often treated more as religious sins invoking divine retribution than prosecutable crimes, with punishments like degradation of status in Roman law—such as stripping an eques (knight) of his horse for oath-breaking—serving as deterrents rather than frequent judicial outcomes. In early Tudor England, perjury encompassed broader violations of oaths, punishable by ecclesiastical courts or secular fines, but empirical cases highlight its moral gravity over routine enforcement.

Contemporary Examples

In March 2024, Allen Weisselberg, longtime chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree perjury in New York state court for providing false testimony under oath during a October 2023 deposition in the civil fraud lawsuit brought by Attorney General Letitia James against Donald Trump and his business entities. Weisselberg admitted to lying about his knowledge of inflated valuations for Trump's Trump Tower triplex apartment, specifically denying awareness that its square footage had been misrepresented from 30,000 to 10,996 square feet on financial statements between 2012 and 2017, despite having participated in the discussions. He faced a maximum sentence of seven years but received five months' incarceration, with credit for time served, and was released in July 2024 after agreeing to cooperate further in related probes. In September 2023, Tim Mapes, former chief of staff to House Speaker Michael for over two decades, was convicted by a federal jury on two counts of perjury and one count of attempted obstruction of justice stemming from his 2021 testimony before the House special investigative . Mapes falsely claimed under that he had no prior knowledge of sexual harassment allegations against Madigan aide Will Cous ins prior to 2013 disclosures, despite email evidence showing he was informed in 2002 and had warned Madigan of potential risks. The perjury charges carried a statutory maximum of five years per count; Mapes was sentenced to two months in prison in February 2024, reflecting judicial consideration of his long but underscoring the materiality of his lies to the probe into Madigan's alleged culture of favoritism and cover-ups. In May 2023, New York Police Department detective James pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree , which encompassed perjurious in at least 20 criminal trials between 2015 and 2019, primarily involving narcotics and gun possession cases. admitted to fabricating observations of drug sales and weapon recoveries to secure convictions, leading Manhattan District Attorney Alvin to vacate 46 related guilty pleas and dismiss charges against defendants in August 2024, with potential for more reviews. This case highlighted systemic risks in over-reliance on single-witness police , as 's misconduct affected outcomes in high-volume street-level prosecutions without initial corroboration.

Subornation Cases

Subornation of perjury, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1622 as willfully procuring another to commit perjury, carries penalties equivalent to perjury itself, including up to five years' . Prosecutions demand proof of the subornor's that the induced was false and intentional inducement, often requiring corroboration similar to perjury cases, which contributes to the offense's rarity. High-profile allegations have arisen in political scandals, such as the 1998 impeachment proceedings against President , where he was accused of suborning perjury by encouraging to submit a false denying their relationship in the civil suit and influencing her subsequent grand jury testimony. The House impeached on December 19, 1998, for perjury before the and obstruction of justice—charges encompassing subornation elements—but the acquitted him on February 12, 1999, with votes of 55-45 and 50-50, respectively, falling short of the two-thirds required. No criminal conviction followed, highlighting enforcement challenges even in prominent cases. Prosecutorial subornation allegations frequently emerge in wrongful conviction reviews, though convictions remain elusive due to immunity doctrines and evidentiary hurdles. In the Rolando Cruz capital murder trial in , prosecutors were accused in 1999 of suborning perjury by concealing and permitting false testimony from witnesses, contributing to Cruz's wrongful 1985 conviction for a 1983 killing; Cruz was exonerated in 1995 after DNA evidence implicated another. Charges against three prosecutors and four deputies ended in acquittals despite judicial findings of misconduct. Similarly, in Delma Banks Jr.'s 1980 capital trial, the prosecutor knowingly allowed perjured testimony from coached informants while withholding evidence, leading the U.S. to vacate Banks's death sentence in Banks v. Dretke on June 28, 2004 (540 U.S. 668), but without subornation convictions against officials. These instances underscore systemic under-prosecution, as prosecutorial discretion and under Briscoe v. LaHue (460 U.S. 325, 1983) often shield such conduct from criminal liability.

Controversies and Criticisms

Police Perjury and "Testilying"

The term "testilying" refers to the practice by police officers of committing perjury under oath, typically by embellishing or fabricating details in affidavits for search warrants or in trial testimony to establish for arrests, searches, or seizures that might otherwise violate constitutional protections such as the Fourth Amendment. This form of emerged as a response to strict judicial oversight of police conduct, particularly the , which suppresses evidence obtained through illegal means, prompting officers to "testilie" to ensure admissibility. The slang term "testilying"—a portmanteau of "testify" and "lying"—was coined by police officers themselves in precincts during the 1980s and early , reflecting an internalized acknowledgment of the behavior within culture. The 1994 Mollen Commission investigation into New York Police Department corruption formally documented its prevalence, describing "testilying" as a routine tactic in high-crime areas where officers falsified observations of criminal activity to justify stops or entries, with the practice so embedded that it warranted its own lexicon. Empirical assessments of testilying's frequency rely on surveys and indirect measures, as direct convictions are scarce due to investigative challenges and institutional reluctance to prosecute fellow officers. A 1992 survey of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges across jurisdictions estimated , including testilying, occurs in about 20% of criminal cases on average, with higher rates perceived in narcotics and enforcement. A 2000 factorial survey experiment involving 508 officers found that 20-30% of respondents indicated willingness to falsify testimony in scenarios involving minor procedural violations or weak evidence, such as exaggerating informant reliability or inventing observations to avoid case dismissal. These findings align with broader analyses showing testilying concentrated in street-level policing, where officers face pressure to generate arrests amid resource constraints and performance metrics. Prosecution rates underscore enforcement gaps: federal data from 1999-2004 recorded only 75-100 perjury convictions annually out of tens of thousands of federal sentences, with police offenders comprising a tiny fraction despite anecdotal and survey evidence of higher incidence. In New York, district attorney's records from 2010-2017 identified perjury in roughly 1% of testimonies reviewed, but pursued charges in under 2.4% of those instances, often due to prosecutorial dependence on police credibility for convictions. Such under-detection perpetuates the practice, as officers perceive minimal personal risk, though rare high-profile reversals—such as the vacating of hundreds of convictions in the after NYPD admissions—demonstrate its causal role in miscarriages of when exposed.

Perjury Trap Allegations

A perjury trap refers to an alleged where investigators summon a primarily to elicit false for a perjury charge, rather than to pursue material in a legitimate inquiry. Courts treat it as an entrapment-like defense requiring the defendant to prove government bad faith, a threshold seldom met in federal cases. The doctrine typically arises in contexts but has been invoked for interviews under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 prohibiting false statements to federal agents. Prominent allegations surfaced in investigations tied to former President . In the case of , then-national security advisor, FBI agents interviewed him on January 24, 2017, regarding conversations with Russian Ambassador . Internal FBI notes from chief Bill Priestap that day questioned the interview's objective: "What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" was charged in December 2017 with making false statements, pleading guilty amid reported pressure on family members, but the Department of Justice moved to dismiss in May 2020, citing withheld and questioning the interview's good-faith basis. described it as a perjury trap attempt. A federal appeals court permitted dismissal in November 2020, after which Trump pardoned on November 25, 2020. Similar claims arose during Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe, with Trump's legal team, including , warning in 2018 that an in-person could constitute a perjury trap by exploiting minor discrepancies. No such occurred; Trump submitted written responses instead. Critics, including former prosecutors, dismissed these as unfounded, arguing legitimate investigations inherently risk perjury exposure without amounting to . Such allegations highlight tensions between investigative tactics and but have rarely overturned convictions.

Debates on Enforcement Severity

Prosecutions for perjury in the remain infrequent despite its classification as a carrying potential penalties of up to five years' under 18 U.S.C. § 1621. Federal data indicate annual prosecutions ranging from approximately 250 to 645 cases, with the reporting 1,062 suspects investigated in fiscal year 2012, a figure dwarfed by the estimated volume of false in proceedings. This disparity has fueled debates over whether enforcement is unduly lenient, potentially undermining the deterrent effect of perjury laws and eroding in judicial oaths. Critics argue that —often limited to instances where falsehoods directly impede investigators—exacerbates under-enforcement, as prosecutors prioritize resource allocation toward substantive crimes over ancillary perjury charges. Advocates for heightened enforcement severity contend that perjury's role in miscarriages of necessitates stricter application of penalties to restore systemic . Empirical evidence from exoneration studies highlights perjury or false accusations as factors in over 70% of 2019 homicide wrongful convictions, suggesting that lax pursuit allows perjurers—particularly incentivized witnesses or officials—to evade accountability without proportional risk. Stricter measures, such as mandatory sentencing enhancements for trial perjury under federal guidelines or broader prosecutorial mandates, could establish precedents deterring habitual lying under , as false not only distorts verdicts but also burdens the state with reversal costs exceeding millions in aggregated cases. Opponents of escalation, however, emphasize evidentiary hurdles like the traditional two-witness rule or the need for direct proof of knowing falsity and materiality, which complicate convictions and may deter honest witnesses fearing retrospective scrutiny. These tensions manifest in policy discussions, where proposals for —such as lowering proof thresholds or integrating perjury audits in high-stakes trials—clash with concerns over prosecutorial overreach. For instance, while some legal scholars advocate automatic enhancements for perjury in capital or cases to align with harm, others note that rare convictions reflect not leniency but inherent , where immunity grants or plea deals render standalone perjury charges inefficient. Ultimately, the debate underscores a causal link between under-enforcement and persistent judicial vulnerabilities, yet empirical gaps in perjury incidence data hinder consensus on optimal severity.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/perjury
  2. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/perjury
  3. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1745-elements-perjury-federal-proceeding-under-oath
  4. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1748-elements-perjury-materiality
  5. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621
  6. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-808
  7. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/perjury.html
  8. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/title-2c/section-2c-28-1/
  9. https://academic.oup.com/book/5988/chapter/149365924
  10. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1743-perjury-overview-18-usc-1621-and-1623-violations
  11. https://law.jrank.org/pages/1632/Perjury-Perjury-at-common-law.html
  12. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1749-comparison-perjury-statutes-18-usc-1621-and-1623
  13. https://www.palegis.us/statutes/consolidated/view-statute?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chapter=49&section=2&subsctn=0
  14. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-1621/
  15. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/98-807
  16. https://www.mololamken.com/knowledge-When-Is-a-False-Statement-Perjury
  17. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/CIALeak/story?id=1259415
  18. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1623
  19. https://www.natecrowleylaw.com/practice-areas/federal-criminal-defense/common-federal-crimes/perjury-and-false-statements/
  20. https://leppardlaw.com/federal/fraud/federal-false-information-vs-perjury-how-do-they-differ/
  21. https://credohouse.org/blog/the-ancient-near-east-was-no-picnic-contrasting-the-mosaic-law-to-ancient-moral-codes
  22. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%253A2975092/view
  23. https://stfi.org/articles/perjury/
  24. https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2022/06/28/greek-and-latin-for-perjury-and-treason/
  25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09518967.2022.2052787
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-church-history/article/perjury-in-early-tudor-england/8590239D5E02E4EE894E0501BC105F36
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341421634_Perjury_in_Early_Tudor_England
  28. https://www.stjohns.edu/files/simons-perjury
  29. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/9780230358669_7
  30. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=facsch_lawrev
  31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/986245.pdf
  32. https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3948&context=flr
  33. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/enacted
  34. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6
  35. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/legislation/uk-parliament-acts/perjury-act-1911-c6
  36. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/rbc/rbpe/rbpe21/rbpe213/21301400/21301400.pdf
  37. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-911-materiality
  38. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3026&context=ilj
  39. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1755-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-charging
  40. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1747-elements-perjury-specific-intent
  41. https://jamescrawfordlaw.com/insights/blog/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/perjury-charges/what-is-perjury-from-lie-to-legal-issue
  42. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-910-knowingly-and-willfully
  43. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2828&context=jclc
  44. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20140128_98-807_2f860b227d1f91a311668537acc87d9ccf4e2269.pdf
  45. https://www.egattorneys.com/perjury-defenses-penal-code-118
  46. https://www.cronisraelsandstark.com/perjury-penal-code-118
  47. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/defending-perjury-charges
  48. https://www.williamweinberg.com/perjury.html
  49. https://federalcriminallawyerdefense.com/federal-perjury-charges-lawyer/
  50. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/law-lying-perjury-false-statements-and-obstruction
  51. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1751-comparison-perjury-statutes-18-usc-1621-and-1623
  52. https://www.agulnicklaw.com/articles/recantation.html
  53. https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/perjury.html
  54. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/409/352
  55. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1753-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-evasive-and
  56. https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/1173
  57. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=118.
  58. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.37.htm
  59. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/perjury-lawyers.html
  60. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/white-collar-crimes/perjury/
  61. https://www.federalcharges.com/perjury-laws-charges/
  62. https://www.findlaw.com/state/new-york-law/new-york-perjury-laws.html
  63. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1750-comparison-perjury-statutes-18-usc-1621-and-1623
  64. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/contents
  65. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/public-justice-offences
  66. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1979/1714/article/3
  67. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-131.html
  68. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-132.html
  69. https://www.gotocourt.com.au/criminal-law/vic/the-offence-of-perjury/
  70. https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s327.html
  71. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59ed047a-3f1d-4d4d-bb85-20870047e6c9
  72. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328793.html
  73. https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/consol_act/ca196182/s109.html
  74. https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/perjury
  75. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/nisi/1979/1714
  76. http://nilegalguide.co.uk/perjury/
  77. https://cjad.nottingham.ac.uk/en/legislation/694/keyword/418/
  78. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/6/section/4
  79. https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Perjury_%28Offence%29
  80. https://zamani-law.com/what-is-perjury/
  81. https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/vic/offences/false-reports/perjury/
  82. https://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/Find-legal-information/Criminal-justice/Offences/Perjury
  83. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM328796.html
  84. https://policepolicy.nz/policies/perjury/u-basod/perjury-280722.pdf
  85. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html
  86. https://devgan.in/ipc/section/193/
  87. https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-193-ipc-when-can-perjury-proceedings-be-initiated-against-a-litigant-supreme-court-explains-266668
  88. https://jurist.ng/criminal_code_act/sec-117
  89. https://jurist.ng/criminal_code_act/sec-118
  90. https://awjai.org/perjury-in-nigeria-legal-framework-implications-and-penalties/
  91. https://www.germancivilprocedure.com/perjury-what-perjury-german-witnesses-and-the-oath/
  92. https://cjad.nottingham.ac.uk/en/legislation/174/keyword/418/
  93. https://sandalawoffices.com/law-of-perjury/
  94. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00037_186045_1523266765688&sectionId=45948&sectionno=193&orderno=219
  95. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/perjury-false-claim-prosecution-case-section-209-ipc-340-dalmia
  96. https://betteringresults.in/prosecution-for-perjury-when-should-indian-courts-proceed/
  97. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/establishing-standards-for-perjury:-insights-from-emperor-v.-bankatram-lachiram-%281904%29/view
  98. https://www.livelaw.in/tags/perjury
  99. https://ng.vlex.com/vid/omoregie-v-d-p-914344634
  100. https://asu-ir.tdl.org/bitstreams/2fa2460a-ac2e-4552-ba78-08fb16c24131/download
  101. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/88440/how-common-actually-are-perjury-proceedings
  102. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1938&context=dlra
  103. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/annual-reports-and-sourcebooks/2023/2023_Sourcebook.pdf
  104. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14233-eng.htm
  105. https://nsuworks.nova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=law_facarticles
  106. https://stowellcrayk.com/how-is-perjury-proven-in-court/
  107. https://whitecollarattorney.net/dc-federal-perjury-lawyer/penalties/
  108. https://guidelines.ussc.gov/apex/r/ussc_apex/guidelinesapp/guidelines?APP_GL_ID=%25C2%25A72J1.3
  109. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1761-perjury-cases-sentencing-issues
  110. https://red.library.usd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=sdlrev
  111. https://www.brodenmickelsen.com/blog/penalty-for-perjury-in-texas/
  112. https://www.tsiglerlaw.com/blog/perjury-sentence-new-york/
  113. https://www.burnhamgorokhov.com/federal-perjury-charges-and-punishments/
  114. https://exonerationregistry.org/understanding-registry
  115. https://exonerationregistry.org/sites/exonerationregistry.org/files/documents/2024_Annual_Report.pdf
  116. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/2019-exoneration-report-official-misconduct-and-perjury-remain-leading-causes-of-wrongful-homicide-convictions
  117. https://wmich.edu/sociology/causes-wrongful-conviction
  118. https://socialecology.uci.edu/news/government-misconduct-cause-most-wrongful-convictions
  119. https://www.floridainnocence.org/contributing-factors
  120. https://innocenceproject.org/news/perjured-testimony-influences-wrongful-convictions/
  121. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1998/09/24/perjury-a-tough-case-to-make/7d5cdf95-523c-4766-ac26-37a2d55c3303/
  122. https://www.quora.com/Perjury-is-against-the-law-So-why-are-people-rarely-prosecuted-for-it
  123. https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/7gwjii/why_dont_people_get_charged_with_perjury/
  124. https://www.nealdavislaw.com/wrongful-convictions/
  125. https://www.chicagoappleseed.org/2020/11/09/testilying/
  126. https://www.karimilawoffice.com/perjury-rampant-in-courts-across-the-us-but-rarely-prosecuted
  127. https://repository.law.umich.edu/context/other/article/1165/viewcontent/Government_Misconduct_and_Convicting_the_Innocent.pdf
  128. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/perjury
  129. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/broken-trust
  130. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2367&context=student_scholarship
  131. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/titus-oates-and-popish-plot
  132. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A55940.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1%3Bview=fulltext
  133. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Titus-Oates-Popish-Plot/
  134. https://legalhistorymiscellany.com/2019/10/15/perjury-wager-of-law-and-debt-in-the-elizabethan-star-chamber/
  135. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789047407140/Bej.9789004143043.i-465_012.pdf
  136. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/04/nyregion/weisselberg-guilty-trump-business.html
  137. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/08/nyregion/convictions-vacated-nypd-detective.html
  138. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/606/
  139. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/impeachment/clinton-impeachment-and-its-fallout
  140. https://guides.loc.gov/federal-impeachment/bill-clinton
  141. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=clb
  142. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/460/325/
  143. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1955&context=lawreview
  144. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/181241.pdf
  145. https://www.vice.com/en/article/testilying-cops-are-liars-who-get-away-with-perjury/
  146. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2d4dd816-e4e5-49b2-9571-cf806a5d93fb/content
  147. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyregion/testilying-police-perjury-new-york.html
  148. https://law.emory.edu/_includes/documents/sections/faculty-and-scholarship/articles/cloud/1996-Judge-Testilying-and-the-Constitution.pdf
  149. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1299&context=faculty-publications
  150. https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2023/time-to-end-police-deception
  151. https://jlsp.law.columbia.edu/wp-content/blogs.dir/213/files/2017/03/47-Walkingshaw.pdf
  152. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/nyregion/police-lying-new-york.html
  153. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/police-perjury-factorial-survey
  154. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1756-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-perjury-trap
  155. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/29/fbi-michael-flynn-224311
  156. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/dropping-flynn-charges-right-call-by-barr-important-first-step-in-fbi-doj-cleanup/
  157. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_OeiKXr0WE
  158. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/10/637614730/what-is-a-perjury-trap-and-does-it-apply-to-the-special-counsels-investigation
  159. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45254374
  160. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/trap-giulianis-perjury-trap-argument
  161. https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-how-many-people-get-charged-with-perjury-in-a-typical-year-and-what-percentage-get-convicted
  162. https://brazilclark.com/blog/what-are-the-penalties-for-perjury/
  163. https://daily.jstor.org/why-is-perjury-so-rarely-prosecuted/
  164. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1121&context=lawfrp
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.