Perjury

• Author: Isabel Wigley/Charlotte Greaney/Abigail Van Buren
• Pages: 1127-1150

PERJURY

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1127

A. Section 1621: False Testimony Generally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1128

B. Section 1622: Subornation of Perjury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129

C. Section 1623: False Testimony to Court or Grand Jury . . . . . . 1130

II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131

A. Oath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1131

B. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132

C. Falsity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1134

D. Materiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137

E. Key Distinctions between §§ 1621 and 1623. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139

1. Two-Witness Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1140

2. Use of False Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1142

3. Inconsistent Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143

III. DEFENSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143

A. Recantation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1144

B. Assistance of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1145

C. Double Jeopardy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1146

D. Perjury Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1147

E. Fifth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1148

IV. SENTENCING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1149

I. INTRODUCTION

Perjury occurs when an individual makes a false statement under oath before a

federal tribunal or official.

1

Every branch and level of government relies on sworn

testimony, so the integrity of governmental processes depends in large part on the

truthfulness of statements made under oath.

2

Thus, perjury threatens to subvert the

fair administration of justice and the proper functioning of government.

To free courts of the “pollution of perjury”

3

by deterring and punishing

false testimony,

4

Congress has enacted three statutes criminalizing

1. See Charles Doyle, Cong. Rsch. Serv., False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal

Law 1 (2018).

2. See United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 720–21 (2012) (“Perjury undermines the function and province

of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments that are the basis of the legal system.”); ABF Freight Sys., Inc.

v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 323 (1994) (“False testimony in a formal proceeding is intolerable. We must neither

reward nor condone such a ‘flagrant affront’ to the truth-seeking function of adversary proceedings.” (quoting

United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 576–77 (1976))); Day v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 907 F.3d

766, 773 (4th Cir. 2018); United States v. Norris, 217 F.3d 262, 274 (5th Cir. 2000).

3. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 357 (1973).

4. See Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 107 (1979) (finding § 1623’s purpose is “to facilitate perjury

prosecutions and thereby enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries”); United

1127

perjury:

5

18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, the general perjury statute;

6

1622, the suborna-

tion of perjury statute;

7

and 1623, the statute concerning perjury before a

grand jury or court.

8

The remainder of this Section provides an overview of

the three perjury statutes. Section II examines the elements of §§ 1621 and

1623. Section III discusses defenses. Section IV addresses sentencing.

A. Section 1621: False Testimony Generally

Section 1621 is the broadest of the three federal perjury statutes.

9

This statute

applies to all material statements or information provided under oath to “a compe-

tent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States

authorizes an oath to be administered,”

10

including statements provided outside the

United States.

11

Section 1621 also extends to unsworn declarations prepared under

penalty of perjury.

12

Section 1621 has repeatedly withstood constitutional chal-

lenges

13

in a wide variety of contexts.

14

Courts have construed the “competent tribunal, officer, or person”

15

clause of

§ 1621 to reach statements made before a wide range of entities, so long as the

States v. Sherman, 150 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 1998) (finding § 1623’s purpose is “to encourage truthful

testimony by witnesses appearing before federal courts and grand juries”); United States v. Snyder, 428 F.2d 520,

522 (9th Cir. 1970) (explaining § 1621 “is designed to forestall perjury” and “provid[e] for punishment . . . to

deter similar conduct by others”). Section 1623 is also designed to correct “perceived evidentiary problems in

demonstrating perjury under [§ 1621].” See Dunn, 442 U.S. at 108.

5. Congress’s power to enact the three statutes is “in furtherance of [its] power to constitute federal tribunals.”

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 136 (2010) (citing Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456, 462 n.2

(2003)).

6. 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

7. Id. § 1622.

8. Id. § 1623(a).

9. However, § 1621 is not to be “loosely construed.” Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 360 (1973)

(“[T]he statute [should not be] invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner—so

long as the witness speaks the literal truth.”).

10. 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1); see infra Section II.B and accompanying notes (discussing contexts in which § 1621

applies as restricted by the intent element). However, the statement need not be made in a judicial proceeding.

See Ho Sang Yim v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1069, 1081 (9th Cir. 2020).

11. 18 U.S.C. § 1621.

12. Id. § 1621(2).

13. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 720 (2012); United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 97

(1993) (finding perjury statutes necessary “to uphold the integrity of [the] trial system”).

14. See, e.g., United States v. Polichemi, 219 F.3d 698, 710 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming a perjury conviction for

false statements made during an SEC deposition); United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 133 (2d Cir. 2000)

(upholding a perjury conviction where the defendant submitted a false affidavit in a bail revocation hearing);

United States v. Weissman, 195 F.3d 96, 98–99 (2d Cir. 1999) (affirming a § 1621 conviction where the

defendant submitted false information to a Senate committee); United States v. Jenkins, 130 F. Supp. 3d 700, 702

(N.D.N.Y. 2015) (reviewing the sentence of a defendant convicted under § 1621 for false statements contained in

a Criminal Justice Act Form 23 used to request counsel); see also infra Section II.A and accompanying notes

(discussing the variety of contexts under which the oath element is satisfied).

15. 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1).

1128 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:1127