Free Consultations & We're Available 24/7
WE'RE A BOUTIQUE LAW FIRM.
TRUST 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
WE SERVICE CLIENTS NATIONWIDE.
So your probably sitting there realizing that your testimony before the grand jury or at trial is now being investigated as perjury. Maybe you gave inconsistent answers under oath. Maybe prosecutors claim you lied about material facts. Or maybe your just confused about what you said months ago and now there saying it was false. Look, we get it. Your ABSOLUTELY PANICKING about perjury charges. And you should be TERRIFIED! Because federal perjury under 18 USC 1621 carries 5 YEARS in prison and prosecutors use it to punish anyone who doesn’t give them the testimony they want!
Let me explain the testimonial trap your facing. Section 1621 punishes willfully making material false statements under oath in federal proceedings – incredibly broad statute turning memory lapses into federal crimes!
The elements seem straightforward but are twisted against defendants: (1) took oath before competent tribunal, (2) testified falsely, (3) testimony was material, (4) acted willfully! Each element is interpreted to maximize prosecutions!
Here’s what’s really scary – “false” doesn’t mean intentional lie! Includes mistakes, faulty memory, confusion, misunderstanding questions! We’ve seen defendants convicted for saying “I don’t recall” when prosecutors claim they SHOULD remember!
“Willfully” supposedly requires knowledge statement was false! But prosecutors argue circumstantial evidence proves you MUST have known! Can’t prove defendant believed statement false? Prosecutors claim “no reasonable person would believe that”!
Two federal perjury statutes with DIFFERENT requirements and defenses!
Section 1621 is traditional perjury statute applying to all federal proceedings – Congress, agencies, courts! Section 1623 applies ONLY to court and grand jury proceedings but has easier proof!
Under 1621, government must prove WHICH specific statement was false! Under 1623, government can just prove two contradictory statements – doesn’t need to show which one was lie! Both can’t be true so one MUST be false!
The “two witness rule” applies to 1621 but NOT 1623! Under 1621, can’t convict on uncorroborated testimony of single witness – need second witness or corroborating evidence! Under 1623, one witness’s contradiction suffices!
Recantation defense exists for 1623 but NOT 1621! If you correct false statement before it substantially affects proceeding, 1623 bars prosecution! But 1621 provides NO recantation defense! Once you testify falsely under 1621, stuck!
Prosecutors choose which statute based on what’s easier to prove! Grand jury or court testimony? Could charge either! They pick 1623 if want to avoid two-witness rule! Pick 1621 if recantation occurred!
Materiality is CRITICAL element but broadly interpreted!
Testimony is material if it has natural tendency to influence decision-maker OR is capable of influencing proceeding! Doesn’t need to actually influence – just CAPABLE of influencing! We’ve seen collateral lies deemed material!
Can relate to main issue, side issues, or even witness credibility! Lying about whether you talked to co-defendant? Material because affects credibility! Lying about irrelevant detail? Could be material if undermines overall testimony!
The question goes to JURY not judge! Supreme Court held materiality is fact question for jury in perjury cases! Judge instructs on definition but jury decides if testimony meets it!
Prosecutors always argue false statement was material! “Could have influenced grand jury’s decision to indict”! “Might have affected judge’s ruling”! Standard is SO low that almost everything deemed material! We’ve seen perjury for lies about defendant’s height and weight!
Only defense: statement was SO trivial or irrelevant that no reasonable person would consider it capable of influence! Incredibly high bar! We’ve won dismissals when lie was about completely unrelated topic but its rare!
This defense can work but requires PRECISE testimony!
Supreme Court held literally true but misleading statements aren’t perjury! If words used are technically accurate, not perjury even if intended to deceive!
Famous example: “Did you have sexual relations with that woman?” Answer: “No” – might be literally true under narrow definition of “sexual relations” even if misleading! Courts can’t convict for evasive but truthful answers!
But here’s the trap – statement must be LITERALLY true under any reasonable interpretation! If words are ambiguous and one meaning is false, that’s perjury! We’ve seen defendants convicted because “reasonable interpretation” made statement false!
The key is PRECISE language! “I don’t recall” versus “No” – huge difference! “Not to my knowledge” versus “Definitely not” – one protects you, other doesn’t! Skilled witnesses parse every word!
We’ve won cases where client gave technically accurate but incomplete answers! “Did you meet with him?” “Not at his office” – true even if met elsewhere! Prosecutor didn’t ask right question! But literal truth defense is dangerous – judges skeptical of “clever” answers!
YES – and that’s what Section 1623 specifically targets!
Under 1623(c), making two irreconcilably contradictory declarations under oath is perjury – government doesn’t need to prove which statement was false!
Example: Grand jury testimony “I never met with him” versus trial testimony “We met three times” – one MUST be false! Prosecutor can convict under 1623 without proving which occasion you lied!
This makes correction dangerous! Realizing you testified wrong and changing answer? Prosecutors charge 1623 for contradictory statements! You create your own perjury trap by being honest!
Under 1621, inconsistency alone isn’t enough – must prove WHICH statement was false! Government bears burden of showing specific false statement! But circumstantial evidence can prove falsity!
We’ve defended by explaining innocent reasons for inconsistencies – confusion about dates, misunderstanding questions, memory failure! If contradiction stems from honest mistake not willful lie, not perjury! But convincing jury of innocence is HARD!
Ancient protection that ONLY applies to Section 1621!
Two-witness rule means can’t convict under 1621 on uncorroborated testimony of one witness – need either two witnesses OR one witness plus corroborating evidence!
This protects against “swearing contests” where one person says you lied! Government must present more than victim’s word against yours! Documents, recordings, other testimony – something beyond single contradicting witness!
But rule has HUGE exception – doesn’t apply to Section 1623 prosecutions! Section 1623(e) expressly eliminates two-witness rule! One witness’s contradiction suffices for 1623 conviction!
This is why prosecutors prefer charging 1623 when possible! Avoids two-witness requirement! Grand jury testimony perfect for 1623 – prosecutor can charge based on single agent’s contrary testimony!
We’ve won 1621 cases by showing government had only one witness! Co-defendant said one thing, our client said another – that’s not enough under two-witness rule! But must be charged under 1621 not 1623!
Depends on which perjury statute applies!
Section 1623 allows recantation defense – if you correct false statement in same proceeding before it substantially affects case AND before falsity exposed, bars prosecution!
Requirements are STRICT! Must be in same “continuous” proceeding – can’t recant at trial for grand jury testimony! Must occur before statement “substantially affected” proceedings – if indictment already issued based on testimony, too late!
Can’t recant after “manifest that falsity has been or will be exposed”! If prosecutor already showed you documents proving you lied, recantation doesn’t help! Must be voluntary correction not forced admission!
Section 1621 provides NO recantation defense! Common law never recognized it! Once you commit perjury under 1621, correction doesn’t undo crime! We’ve seen defendants convicted under 1621 even though they corrected testimony within hours!
This creates charging decision strategic importance! If client recanted, we argue for 1623 charges where recantation is defense! If client didn’t recant, government charges 1621 to avoid recantation issue!
Both statutes carry 5 years maximum – but real punishment often greater!
18 USC 1621 and 1623 both punish with up to 5 years prison and fines! But if proceeding is before FISA court, maximum increases to 10 years!
Sentencing guidelines add enhancements! Obstruction of justice enhancement adds 2 levels – ironically, lying under oath gets obstruction enhancement! One lie becomes double punishment!
Perjury often charged alongside substantive offenses! Lying about fraud? Charged with fraud AND perjury! Each false statement is separate count – ten lies means ten perjury counts!
Collateral consequences include impeachment at trial! Prior perjury conviction can be used to attack credibility! Professional licenses revoked! Immigration consequences for non-citizens! We’ve seen deportations for perjury convictions!
The WORST penalty is losing ability to testify in own defense! Prior perjury makes you incredible witness! Prosecutors tell jury “he’s convicted liar – don’t believe anything he says”! Defense becomes nearly impossible!
Look, we’re not your typical lawyers who just accept perjury charges. We’re former federal prosecutors who CROSS-EXAMINED witnesses for inconsistencies and know EXACTLY how to defend perjury allegations!
We understand literal truth defense and how to prove statements were technically accurate! We know when two-witness rule applies and how to challenge single-witness evidence! We can establish recantation defense under 1623! Most importantly, we prove lack of willfulness – memory failures aren’t crimes!
Other lawyers don’t challenge materiality element thinking it’s automatic! They miss literal truth defenses! They don’t understand difference between 1621 and 1623! Their ignorance leads to convictions for innocent mistakes!
Call us RIGHT NOW at 212-300-5196
Perjury investigations start IMMEDIATELY after contradictory testimony!
Former federal prosecutors – Perjury defense specialists – Available 24/7!
Don’t give ANY testimony without experienced counsel! Every answer creates perjury risk! Prosecutors compare testimony line-by-line looking for inconsistencies! One wrong date, one forgotten detail, one misstatement becomes federal crime!
Remember – federal perjury charges aren’t about intentional lies, there about prosecutors’ interpretations of your testimony. One inconsistent answer, one memory lapse, one technically inaccurate statement can mean 5 years in federal prison plus career destruction. You need someone who understands perjury’s technical defenses and how to prove good faith mistakes. Call us NOW before testimony becomes indictment!
Very diligent, organized associates; got my case dismissed. Hard working attorneys who can put up with your anxiousness. I was accused of robbing a gemstone dealer. Definitely A law group that lays out all possible options and best alternative routes. Recommended for sure.
- ROBIN, GUN CHARGES ROBIN
NJ CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS