Also known as: faux-serement · faux serements · false serement · false oath · perjury
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A false oath.
Fiona Foster testified at trial that she never saw the loose planks. Defense counsel confronted her with a prior deposition in which she had sworn under penalty of perjury that she had warned the superintendent about them. The court admitted the deposition as substantive evidence because it was inconsistent with her testimony and given under oath in a prior proceeding.
Felix Franco testified for the defense in a fraud trial. The prosecutor cross-examined him about his membership in an organization whose rules required members to lie under oath for fellow members. The court permitted the questions because evidence of bias is always admissible to attack credibility even when the bias involves willingness to commit perjury.
Frank Fisher submitted a genetic testing report in a parentage action. The report was signed under penalty of perjury by the laboratory designee and met the statutory form requirements. The court treated the report as self-authenticating without further testimony.
Francesca Fiore was charged with attempt to suborn perjury after she tried to induce a witness to swear to a fact that would not have been material even if believed. The court dismissed the attempt count because an essential element of perjury would have been missing even if the plan had succeeded.
Fumiko Fujimoto told her lawyer she intended to testify falsely at trial. The lawyer refused to present the testimony and informed the court after attempting to dissuade her. The court held that the lawyer's actions did not violate the right to effective assistance because counsel has no duty to assist in presenting a false oath.
Farah Fox appeared before a grand jury under subpoena and gave false testimony under oath. She later argued that the statements could not support a perjury prosecution because she had not received Miranda warnings. The court rejected the argument because Miranda does not apply to grand jury questioning of uncharged witnesses.
In March 1963 Ernesto Miranda was arrested at his home in Phoenix and taken to the police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then questioned by two officers in Interrogation Room No. 2 for two hours. The officers did not advise him of any right to counsel. Miranda signed a typed confession that was introduced at his trial for kidnapping and rape. On October 14 1960 Michael Vignera was arrested in connection with a Brooklyn robbery. He was taken first to the 17th Detective Squad headquarters in Manhattan and later to the 66th Detective Squad. A detective questioned him for several hours without any advice concerning counsel. Vignera made an oral admission. He was then questioned by an assistant district attorney whose transcribed statement was also introduced at his trial for first-degree robbery. On March 20 1963 Carl Calvin Westover was arrested by Kansas City police as a suspect in two local robberies. Kansas City police interrogated Westover on the night of his arrest. The next day local officers interrogated him again throughout the morning. Westover was then turned over to FBI agents who questioned him for two to two-and-a-half hours about California robberies and obtained signed confessions. At the time the FBI agents began questioning Westover he had been in custody for over fourteen hours. On January 31 1963 Roy Allen Stewart was arrested at his home in connection with a series of purse-snatch robberies. During the next five days police interrogated Stewart on nine different occasions without any advice of rights. On the ninth session Stewart confessed. Transcripts of the interrogations were introduced at his trial for kidnapping rape and murder. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Miranda's conviction. The New York courts affirmed Vignera's conviction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed Westover's conviction. The California Supreme Court reversed Stewart's conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the four cases and consolidated them for argument.
View caseIt refers to a false oath, the core conduct punished as perjury when made willfully and corruptly concerning a material matter in a judicial proceeding.
A prior inconsistent statement given under penalty of perjury at a deposition or other proceeding is not hearsay when the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination at trial.
No. Counsel's duty of loyalty does not extend to assisting perjury. Counsel must first attempt to dissuade the client and may disclose the perjury if necessary.
…"the struggle for the right-to-vote," and the legal defense of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., leader of the movement, against a perjury indictment then pending in Montgomery. The text appeared over the names of 64 persons, many widely known for their activities in public affairs, religion, trade unions, and the performing…