DOCSLIB.ORG

The Consequences of Perjury and Related Crimes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE CONSEQUENCES OF PERJURY AND RELATED CRIMES HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF PERJURY AND RELATED CRIMES DECEMBER 1, 1998 Serial No. 67 ( Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 53±247 WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan Wisconsin BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts BILL McCOLLUM, Florida CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York GEORGE W. GEKAS, Pennsylvania HOWARD L. BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERROLD NADLER, New York ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia CHARLES T. CANADY, Florida MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina BOB INGLIS, South Carolina ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California ED BRYANT, Tennessee MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts BOB BARR, Georgia ROBERT WEXLER, Florida WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin EDWARD A. PEASE, Indiana CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON, Utah JAMES E. ROGAN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina MARY BONO, California (II) MAJORITY STAFF THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., General Counsel-Chief of Staff JON W. DUDAS, Deputy General Counsel-Staff Director DIANA L. SCHACHT, Deputy Staff Director-Chief Counsel DANIEL M. FREEMAN, Parliamentarian-Counsel PAUL J. MCNULTY, Director of Communications-Chief Counsel JOSEPH H. GIBSON, Chief Counsel RICK FILKINS, Counsel SHAREE M. FREEMAN, Counsel PETER J. LEVINSON, Counsel JOHN F. MAUTZ, IV, Counsel WILLIAM E. MOSCHELLA, Counsel STEPHEN PINKOS, Counsel GEORGE M. FISHMAN, Chief Counsel DAVID P. SCHIPPERS, Chief Investigative MITCH GLAZIER, Chief Counsel Counsel JOHN H. LADD, Chief Counsel RAYMOND V. SMIETANKA, Chief Counsel SUSAN BOGART, Investigative Counsel LAURA ANN BAXTER, Counsel ROBERT S. HOOVER, Counsel DANIEL J. BRYANT, Counsel JOHN C. KOCORAS, Counsel CATHLEEN A. CLEAVER, Counsel BERLE S. LITTMANN, Investigator VINCE GARLOCK, Counsel STEPHEN P. LYNCH, Professional Staff JAMES W. HARPER, Counsel Member SUSAN JENSEN±CONKLIN, Counsel CHARLES F. MARINO, Counsel DEBRA K. LAMAN, Counsel JEFFREY J. PAVLETIC, Investigative Counsel BLAINE S. MERRITT, Counsel THOMAS M. SCHIPPERS, Investigative Counsel NICOLE R. NASON, Counsel ALBERT F. TRACY, Investigator GLENN R. SCHMITT, Counsel PETER J. WACKS, Investigator JIM Y. WILON, Counsel DIANA L. WOZNICKI, Investigator MINORITY STAFF JULIAN EPSTEIN, Minority Chief Counsel-Staff Director PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority General ABBE D. LOWELL, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel Counsel DAVID G. LACHMANN, Counsel SAMPAK P. GARG, Investigative Counsel CYNTHIA A. R. MARTIN, Counsel STEVEN F. REICH, Investigative Counsel HENRY MONIZ, Counsel DEBORAH L. RHODE, Investigative Counsel STEPHANIE J. PETERS, Counsel KEVIN M. SIMPSON, Investigative Counsel SAMARA T. RYDER, Counsel LIS W. WIEHL, Investigative Counsel BRIAN P. WOOLFOLK, Counsel (III) C O N T E N T S HEARING Page December 1, 1998 ..................................................................................................... 1 OPENING STATEMENT Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................................... 2 WITNESSES Battalino, Barbara, Los Osos, California ............................................................... 7 Carney, Thomas P., Lieutenant General, USA (Ret.) ........................................... 81 Dershowitz, Alan M., Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School .................................................................................................................... 84 Edney, Leon A., Admiral, USN (Ret.) .................................................................... 76 Higginbotham, Hon. A. Leon Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 66 Parsons, Pam, Atlanta, Georgia ............................................................................. 6 Richardson, Hon. Elliot L., Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Washington, DC .......................................................................................................................... 74 Rosen, Jeffrey, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School ............................................................................................................ 97 Saltzburg, Stephen A., Howrey Professor of Trial Advocacy, Litigation, and Professional Responsibility, George Washington University Law School ....... 90 Tjoflat, Hon. Gerald B., U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Jacksonville, FL ..................................................................... 60 Wiggins, Hon. Charles E., Senior U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Las Vegas, NV ................................................................. 62 LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING Battalino, Barbara, Los Osos, California: Prepared statement 9 Carney, Thomas P., Lieutenant General, USA (Ret.): Prepared statement ....... 83 Dershowitz, Alan M., Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School: Prepared statement ................................................................................. 87 Edney, Leon A., Admiral, USN (Ret.): Prepared statement ................................. 78 Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, A Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia: Article from The New York Times dated Nov. 17, 1998 ................................... 36 Higginbotham, Hon. A. Leon Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Washington, DC: Prepared statement ................................................................ 69 Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary: Prepared statement .................. 3 Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas: Prepared statement .................................................................................. 173 Moorer, Thomas H., Admiral, USN (Ret.), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: Prepared statement ................................................................... 149 Richardson, Hon. Elliot L., Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, Washington, DC: Prepared statement ...................................................................................... 75 Rosen, Jeffrey, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School: Prepared statement ........................................................................ 98 Saltzburg, Stephen A., Howrey Professor of Trial Advocacy, Litigation, and Professional Responsibility, George Washington University Law School: Prepared statement .............................................................................................. 93 (V) VI Page Scott, Hon. Robert C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Vir- ginia: Rule 6(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure ................................................. 119 United States v. Hvass ..................................................................................... 123 United States v. Debrow ................................................................................... 128 Weinburg, Robert L., The Fatal Flaw in Starr's Case for Grand Jury Perjury: An Essential Element is Missing .................................................. 119 Starr, Hon. Kenneth W., Office of the Independent Counsel, Responses to Questions Posed by Members of the Committee on the Judiciary ................... 176 Wiggins, Hon. Charles E., Senior U.S. Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Las Vegas, NV: Prepared statement ............................. 63 APPENDIX Material submitted for the hearing ........................................................................ 173 THE CONSEQUENCES OF PERJURY AND RELATED CRIMES TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1998 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde [chair- man of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Henry J. Hyde, Bill McCollum, George W. Gekas, Howard Coble, Lamar S. Smith, Elton Gallegly, Charles T. Canady, Bob Inglis, Bob Goodlatte, Stephen E. Buyer, Ed Bry- ant, Steve Chabot, Bob Barr, William L. Jenkins, Asa Hutchinson, Edward A. Pease, Christopher B. Cannon, James E. Rogan, Lindsey O. Graham, Mary Bono, John Conyers, Jr., Barney Frank, Charles E. Schumer, Howard L. Boucher, Jerrold Nadler, Robert C. Scott, Melvin L. Watt, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Martin T. Meehan, William D. Delahunt, Robert Wexler, Steven R. Rothman, and Thomas M. Barrett. Majority Staff Present: Thomas E. Mooney, Sr., general counsel- chief of staff; Jon W. Dudas, deputy general counsel-staff director; Diana L. Schacht, deputy staff director-chief counsel; Daniel M. Freeman, parliamentarian-counsel; Joseph H. Gibson, chief coun- sel; Rick Filkins, counsel; Sharee
Recommended publications
  • INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General

    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General

    INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Lori Torres, Inspector General OFFICE: INDIANA BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES TITLE: FORGERY; PERJURY; THEFT CASE ID: 2017-12-0293 DATE: August 30, 2018 Inspector General Staff Attorney Kelly Elliott, after an investigation by Special Agent Mark Mitchell, reports as follows: The Indiana General Assembly charged the Office of Inspector General (OIG) with addressing fraud, waste, abuse, and wrongdoing in the executive branch of state government. IC 4-2-7-2(b). The OIG also investigates criminal activity and ethics violations by state workers. IC 4-2-7-3. The OIG may recommend policies and carry out other activities designed to deter, detect, and eradicate fraud, waste, abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct in state government. IC 4-2- 7-3(2). On March 23, 2017, the OIG received a complaint from the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) that alleged a former BMV employee, Richard Pringle, submitted false information to the BMV on personal certificate of title applications. OIG Special Agent Mark Mitchell conducted an investigation into this matter. Through the course of his investigation, Special Agent Mitchell interviewed Pringle and reviewed documentation received from BMV, including their internal investigation report on this matter. According to BMV’s investigative report of the allegations against Pringle, BMV found that Pringle submitted an application for a 1997 GMC Yukon in October 2016 that listed a sale price 1 that was different from the price the seller of the vehicle stated they sold it. At the conclusion of their investigation, BMV terminated Pringle’s employment in or around March 2017. Special Agent Mitchell reviewed the BMV certificate of title application for the 1997 GMC Yukon.
  • Summary and Policy Impucations

    Summary and Policy Impucations

    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS VOLUME I: SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPUCATIONS PREPARED UNDER A GRANT FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENfORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, LEAA., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PETER W. GREENWOOD R-1776-DOJ JOAN PETERSIUA OcrDBER 1975 .. '1.0' ~ . ';., --,' ........ ,---- " . .;~ , , . CD , ., ' • I,' •• -------- ~ - .to. _! I ~ . .1 ... u" J. 1. The research described in this report was prepared for the Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Institute of Law Enfprcement and Criminal Justice, under Grant 73-NI-99-0037-G. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 148116 U S Department of Justice N~tionallnstitute of Justice duced exactly as received from the This document has been ~epr? 't points of view or opinions stated person or organization ongmaung I. thors and do not necessanly in this document are tho.~.e of the ~u. s of the Nationat Institute of represent the official pOSI.lon or po ICle Justice, . duce this copyrighted material In 101- Permission to repro cl0fiche only has been granted ~y Rand corporatlon to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). , t 'd of the NCJRS system requires permis- Further reproduction ou Sl e sion of the copyright owner. Copyright © 1975 The Rand Corporation Published by The Rand Corporation THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS VOLUME I: SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPUCATIONS PREPARED UNDER A GRANT FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, LEA.A., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PffER W.
  • The Personal Account of an American Revolutionary and Member Ofthe Weather Underground

    The Personal Account of an American Revolutionary and Member Ofthe Weather Underground

    The Personal Account of an American Revolutionary and Member ofthe Weather Underground Mattie Greenwood U.S. in the 20th Century World February, 10"'2006 Mr. Brandt OH GRE 2006 1^u St-Andrew's EPISCOPAL SCHOOL American Century Oral History Project Interviewee Release Form I, I-0\ V 3'CoVXJV 'C\V-\f^Vi\ {\ , hereby give and grant to St. Andrew's (inter\'iewee) Episcopal School the absolute and unqualified right to the use ofmy oral histoiy memoir conducted by VA'^^X'^ -Cx^^V^^ Aon 1/1 lOip . I understand that (student interviewer) (date) the purpose ofthis project is to collect audio- and video-taped oral histories of fust-hand memories ofa particular period or event in history as part ofa classroom project (The American Century Projeci), I understand that these interviews (tapes and transcripts) will be deposited in the Saint Andrew's Episcopal School library and archives for the use by future students, educators and researchers. Responsibility for the creation of derivative works will be at the discretion ofthe librarian, archivist and/or project coordinator. 1 also understand that the tapes and transcripts may be used in public presentations including, but not limited to, books, audio or video documentaries, slide-tape presentations, exhibits, articles, public performance, or presentation on the World Wide Web at the project's web site www.americancenturyproject.org or successor technologies. In making this contract I understand that J am sharing with St. Andrew's Episcopal School librai"y and archives all legal title and literar)' property rights which J have or may be deemed to have in my interview as well as my right, title and interest in any copyright related to this oral history interview which may be secured under the laws now or later in force and effect in the United Slates of America.
  • Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty

    Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty

    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of Spring 2007 Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty Amy Manning Rowland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd Recommended Citation Rowland, Amy Manning, "Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty" (2007). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 215. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/215 This dissertation (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY by AMY MANNING ROWLAND (Under the Direction of Walter Polka) ABSTRACT This research study was conducted with the assistance of Georgia high school teachers for the purpose of examining teachers’ perceptions of academic dishonesty during the 2006-2007 school year. Data were gathered to establish teachers’ perceptions of academic dishonesty by exploring what behaviors teachers felt to be academically dishonest, how teachers addressed such occurrences, whether teachers felt any internal conflict regarding academic dishonesty, whether any external pressures were involved in instances of academic dishonesty, and how these experiences affected teachers’ attitudes toward their profession. Results of the study indicated that high school teachers in Georgia consider academic dishonesty to be a prevalent problem. Teachers consider some types of academic dishonesty to be more serious than other types of academic dishonesty.
  • Educator Cheating 1

    Educator Cheating 1

    Educator Cheating 1 Thesis Equivalency Project -- Educator Cheating: Classification, Explanation, and Detection Brad Thiessen Educator Cheating 2 Tests are only useful if they provide accurate information. To ensure the scores obtained from a test will be accurate, test developers spend considerable time, effort, and money to carefully develop test specifications, test items, and administration and scoring procedures. This effort is wasted if examinees cheat on the test. Cheating invalidates the decisions made on the basis of test scores. In general, cheating is defined as: Cheating: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraudulent means to violate rules dishonestly (Merriam-Webster online dictionary) Gregory Cizek, author of the book Cheating on Tests: How To Do It, Detect It, and Prevent It , provides a definition of cheating specific to educational testing. Cizek defines cheating as: Cheating: an attempt, by deception or fraudulent means, to represent oneself as possessing knowledge that one does not actually possess (Cizek, 1999, p.3) Student Cheating Research in cheating on educational tests (the prevalence of cheating, reasons for cheating, and techniques to prevent cheating) has typically focused on the examinees – the students. This research usually takes one of the five following forms: 1. Confession Surveys: Students are asked to confess to cheating they have done in the past. Obviously, it may be difficult to get accurate information from these surveys (even if randomized response techniques are used to encourage students to tell the truth). 2. Accusation Surveys: Students are asked about the behaviors of their peers in regards to cheating. 3. Observations: Student behaviors are observed during test-taking.
  • Criminal Liability of Corporations

    Criminal Liability of Corporations

    THE LAW COMMISSION WORKING PAPER NO. 44 SECOND PROGRAMME, ITEM XVIII CODIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW \ GENERAL PRINCIPLES CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF CORPORATIONS LAW COhlMISSION INTRODUCTION 1. This Paper is the third in a series prepared by the Working Party' assisting the Law Commission in the examination of the general principles of the criminal law which is designed as a basis upon which to seek the views of those concerned with the criminal law. It is being issued for con- sultation simultaneously with Working Paper No. 43. 2 2. As the introduction to Working Paper No. 43 explains, extended consideration of the liability of corporations outside the context of criminal liability for another's acts was thought necessary because of particular problems in the field of the criminal law to which corporations give rise. Those problems also dictated the form which the present Paper takes. Unlike the two previous Papers in this series, it contains, not a series of propositions with illustrations and commentary, but in the first place an exposition of the present state of the law and its development togetver with a survey of the current position abroad and, secondly, an examination of the various possible bases of corporate liability followed by a discussion of the social and policy factors which may favour the choice of one or other of these bases for the future. - -- 1. For membership; see p. (3). 2, "Parties, complicity and liability for the acts of nnothrr". 3. The Law Commission agrees with the views expressed by the Working Party that the subject of corporate criminal liability requires treatment separate from that accorded to the subject of complicity in general and that such treatment may best take the form of an exposition of the problems such as the present Paper adopts, The Commission therefore welcomes the Paper for purposes of consultation and, in accordance with its usual policy, is publishing it with an invitation to com- mcnt upon its generai approach and conclusions.
  • Legal Term for Cheating on Wife

    Legal Term for Cheating on Wife

    Legal Term For Cheating On Wife Is Vassili regular or crackpot after concupiscent Noe generate so awhile? Affordable Gordie untidies very round while Spike remains unbreeched and inspired. How peristomatic is Preston when hard-fisted and prepubescent Wit cackle some underbridge? The unsatisfied spouse cheated on discrimination is attorney for worry, wife on incurable insanity of up until they help When your spouse must be responsible for me at times, the terms favorable settlement. Cultural factors are legal questions are legal term. The intensity that in the outcome of the obligation. You from your letter, on legal term for cheating wife was the dependent spouse wins! We are legal action for legal cheating on wife. Child custody of legal term adultery is something to have terms you ask for you from voluntarily engages in this url into account. Focusing on your spouse cheats does not carry out. This is for spousal support. Imagine your reality, but a number of a petition seeking a person other. To legal term for my wife must show his. If you cheated with someone cheating wife cheats his legal term for adultery, is natural to you and think about outside in terms of. He finishes the similarities between a divorce case law may change their own home to a cheating on wife for legal term relationship to one of trust and pay in the original concept. If one does adultery laws that, it makes people cheat on your marital property. This cheating wife cheats his affection is termed in terms have. That one of. Our sleeves and harmony with your wife cheated with a relationship, emotional infidelity is.
  • Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory

    Competing Theories of Blackmail: an Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory

    Competing Theories of Blackmail: An Empirical Research Critique of Criminal Law Theory Paul H. Robinson,* Michael T. Cahill** & Daniel M. Bartels*** The crime of blackmail has risen to national media attention because of the David Letterman case, but this wonderfully curious offense has long been the favorite of clever criminal law theorists. It criminalizes the threat to do something that would not be criminal if one did it. There exists a rich liter- ature on the issue, with many prominent legal scholars offering their accounts. Each theorist has his own explanation as to why the blackmail offense exists. Most theories seek to justify the position that blackmail is a moral wrong and claim to offer an account that reflects widely shared moral intuitions. But the theories make widely varying assertions about what those shared intuitions are, while also lacking any evidence to support the assertions. This Article summarizes the results of an empirical study designed to test the competing theories of blackmail to see which best accords with pre- vailing sentiment. Using a variety of scenarios designed to isolate and test the various criteria different theorists have put forth as “the” key to blackmail, this study reveals which (if any) of the various theories of blackmail proposed to date truly reflects laypeople’s moral judgment. Blackmail is not only a common subject of scholarly theorizing but also a common object of criminal prohibition. Every American jurisdiction criminalizes blackmail, although there is considerable variation in its formulation. The Article reviews the American statutes and describes the three general approaches these provisions reflect.
  • Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE V

    Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE V

    Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/29/2021 03:25 PM CDT - 415 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STABLER Cite as 305 Neb. 415 State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Eddy D. Stabler, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 27, 2020. No. S-19-360. 1. Jury Instructions. Whether the jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law. 2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the lower court. 3. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favor- ably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. 4. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen- tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 5. Jury Instructions: Proof: Appeal and Error. To establish reversible error from a court’s refusal to give a requested instruction, an appel- lant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to give the tendered instruction.
  • False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law

    False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law

    False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-807 False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
  • Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey

    Police Perjury: a Factorial Survey

    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey Author(s): Michael Oliver Foley Document No.: 181241 Date Received: 04/14/2000 Award Number: 98-IJ-CX-0032 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL-FINAL TO NCJRS Police Perjury: A Factorial Survey h4ichael Oliver Foley A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Criminal Justice in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The City University of New York. 2000 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. I... I... , ii 02000 Michael Oliver Foley All Rights Reserved This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
  • Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial

    Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial

    William & Mary Law Review Volume 37 (1995-1996) Issue 1 Article 10 October 1995 Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial Alan L. Adlestein Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Repository Citation Alan L. Adlestein, Conflict of the Criminal Statute of Limitations with Lesser Offenses at Trial, 37 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 199 (1995), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol37/iss1/10 Copyright c 1995 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr CONFLICT OF THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WITH LESSER OFFENSES AT TRIAL ALAN L. ADLESTEIN I. INTRODUCTION ............................... 200 II. THE CRIMINAL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LESSER OFFENSES-DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONFLICT ........ 206 A. Prelude: The Problem of JurisdictionalLabels ..... 206 B. The JurisdictionalLabel and the CriminalStatute of Limitations ................ 207 C. The JurisdictionalLabel and the Lesser Offense .... 209 D. Challenges to the Jurisdictional Label-In re Winship, Keeble v. United States, and United States v. Wild ..................... 211 E. Lesser Offenses and the Supreme Court's Capital Cases- Beck v. Alabama, Spaziano v. Florida, and Schad v. Arizona ........................... 217 1. Beck v. Alabama-LegislativePreclusion of Lesser Offenses ................................ 217 2. Spaziano v. Florida-Does the Due Process Clause Require Waivability? ....................... 222 3. Schad v. Arizona-The Single Non-Capital Option ....................... 228 F. The Conflict Illustrated in the Federal Circuits and the States ....................... 230 1. The Conflict in the Federal Circuits ........... 232 2. The Conflict in the States .................. 234 III.