Federal Perjury Charges Under 18 USC 1621 and 1623: Lying Under Oath in Federal Court

Federal Perjury Charges Under 18 USC 1621 and 1623: Lying Under Oath in Federal Court

So your probably facing federal perjury charges and your ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED because you gave testimony under oath that prosecutors claim was false. Maybe you testified in federal trial and gave answer that wasn’t completely accurate. Maybe there’s allegations you lied to grand jury about your knowledge of events. Or maybe you made statements in deposition that prosecutors say contradict other evidence. Look, we get it. Your COMPLETELY OVERWHELMED by these charges. And you should be! Because perjury under 18 USC 1621 carries 5 YEARS in federal prison and prosecutors use two different perjury statutes with different proof requirements and different defenses – knowing which statute you’re charged under is CRITICAL!

What Is Federal Perjury Under 18 USC 1621 and 1623?

Let me explain the two federal perjury statutes with different elements and strategies. Section 1621 is traditional broadly-applicable perjury statute covering testimony before legislative, administrative, or judicial bodies! Section 1623 added in 1970 applies ONLY to federal courts and grand juries but eliminates some proof problems!

Here’s what’s really scary – perjury doesn’t require you knowingly lied! “Literally true but misleading” testimony can still be perjury if designed to deceive! Technically accurate answer that creates false impression? Prosecutors claim that’s perjury!

Critical difference from false statements statute (18 USC 1001): perjury requires oath or affirmation! False statement charge doesn’t need oath – covers lies to FBI agents in interviews! Perjury requires formal sworn testimony! If your testimony was under oath, perjury applies not false statements!

Penalties are SAME as false statements: 5 years maximum for standard perjury, 10 years maximum if perjury before FISA courts! Plus fines up to $250,000! Multiple false statements under oath? Multiple 5-year counts!

What’s the Difference Between Sections 1621 and 1623?

Critical distinction affecting proof requirements and available defenses!

Section 1621 applies to ANY oath before ANY federal, state, or local tribunal! Testimony in legislative hearings, administrative proceedings, depositions, affidavits, signed declarations – all covered by 1621! Broadly applicable statute!

Section 1623 applies ONLY to testimony before federal courts or federal grand juries! Testimony during federal criminal trial, testimony before federal grand jury, statements in federal civil proceedings – covered by 1623! Narrower scope but easier for prosecutors to prove!

Two-witness rule is CRITICAL difference! Conviction under 1621 requires corroboration from two witnesses OR one witness plus independent corroborating evidence! Can’t convict based solely on one witness contradicting defendant’s testimony! Historical protection against false accusations!

But 1623 ELIMINATES two-witness rule! Prosecutors can prove 1623 violation with single witness testimony contradicting defendant! Makes prosecution much easier! This is why prosecutors prefer charging 1623 when testimony was in federal court/grand jury!

Recantation defense exists under 1623 but NOT 1621! If you correct your false testimony in time, can avoid prosecution under 1623! Common law never recognized recantation defense so 1621 doesn’t include it! Under 1623, if you admit lie before proceedings substantially affected and before falsity exposed, prosecution barred!

What Must Government Prove for Perjury?

Elements vary slightly between statutes but materiality is always required!

For perjury under 1621: (1) defendant made statement under oath (2) statement was false (3) defendant knew statement was false when made (4) false statement was material to proceedings! All four elements required!

For false declarations under 1623: (1) defendant made declaration under penalty of perjury (2) in proceedings before federal court or grand jury (3) declaration was false (4) defendant knew it was false (5) declaration was material! Five elements but easier to prove because no two-witness requirement!

Materiality standard is SAME for both statutes! Statement must have natural tendency to influence or be capable of influencing decision of tribunal! Doesn’t need to actually influence outcome – just needs potential to affect decision-making!

Supreme Court in Bronston v. United States clarified that misleading but literally true statements aren’t perjury! If answer is technically accurate but evasive, questioner should follow up with more specific questions! Burden is on examiner to ask clear unambiguous questions! Clever evasion isn’t perjury if words are literally true!

But prosecutors argue “literally true but misleading” can still be perjury if calculated to deceive! We’ve seen cases where technically accurate testimony that created false impression was charged! Defense depends on showing answer was responsive to question asked!

What Is the Two-Witness Rule?

Historical protection that still applies to 1621 prosecutions!

Two-witness rule requires corroboration beyond single contradicting witness! Can’t convict defendant of perjury under 1621 based solely on one witness saying defendant lied! Must have second witness OR independent documentary evidence corroborating falsity!

This rule comes from common law protecting against false accusations! Recognizes that testimony often involves “he said/she said” disputes! Without corroboration, becomes credibility contest between defendant and accuser! Two-witness rule prevents perjury conviction when only evidence is one person contradicting defendant!

“Two witnesses” doesn’t mean two people testifying to same fact! Can be satisfied by one witness testifying to falsity PLUS independent evidence! Documents, recordings, physical evidence! One witness plus defendant’s own contradictory statements satisfies rule!

But remember: 1623 ELIMINATES this rule for federal court/grand jury testimony! Congress removed two-witness requirement to make perjury prosecutions easier in federal proceedings! Single witness contradiction can support 1623 conviction!

We use two-witness rule to challenge 1621 charges! If government’s case relies solely on one contradicting witness without corroboration, we move to dismiss for insufficient evidence! This defense doesn’t apply to 1623 charges in federal court!

What Is Materiality Requirement?

Critical element that government must prove beyond reasonable doubt!

Materiality means statement must be capable of influencing tribunal’s decision! Must have natural tendency to affect outcome of proceedings or matter being decided! Irrelevant statements, tangential details, collateral matters don’t satisfy materiality!

Government need NOT prove statement actually influenced decision! Only needs to show statement had potential to influence! Even if tribunal disregarded testimony or found for your side anyway, can still be material if capable of affecting decision!

Courts apply broad view of materiality! Statement material if it could affect tribunal’s investigation, deliberation, or decision! Lies about peripheral issues may still be material if related to matters tribunal considering!

But we challenge materiality aggressively! If false statement was about irrelevant detail with no connection to issues being decided, not material! Lies about your background, personal history, or unrelated matters may lack materiality!

Grand jury investigations have VERY broad materiality! Because grand jury investigating whether to indict, almost any statement related to subjects being investigated is material! Harder to challenge materiality in grand jury perjury cases because investigatory scope is wide!

What Is Recantation Defense Under 1623?

Important defense that ONLY applies to Section 1623 charges!

Recantation means admitting you lied before damage is done! If you admit false declaration in same continuous proceeding before it substantially affected proceedings and before falsity was exposed, prosecution barred! Complete defense if requirements met!

Must occur in SAME continuous proceeding! Can’t wait for trial to end then recant in separate hearing! Must correct false testimony while same grand jury or trial still ongoing! New proceeding or new tribunal? Too late to recant!

Must admit BEFORE false declaration substantially affected proceedings! If your false testimony already influenced jury verdict, grand jury indictment, or court ruling, recantation defense lost! Must catch it early before consequences occur!

Must recant BEFORE falsity becomes manifest! If prosecutor or other witness already exposed your lie, can’t recant to avoid prosecution! Must voluntarily admit falsity before it’s detected by others! Once caught, recantation won’t help!

Recantation must be CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS! Must explicitly admit prior statement was false! Can’t just give different answer – must affirmatively state earlier testimony was incorrect!

This defense gives witnesses opportunity to correct mistakes without criminal liability! Recognizes that witnesses may misremember, misunderstand questions, or panic under pressure! If they correct promptly, shouldn’t face prosecution!

What Are Common Perjury Scenarios?

Prosecutions cover WIDE range of testimony situations!

Grand jury testimony! Grand juries investigating federal crimes subpoena witnesses! You testify about your knowledge of events, your involvement, others’ conduct! False statements to grand jury are 1623 violations! Most common perjury prosecution scenario!

Trial testimony! Testifying as defendant, witness, or expert in federal criminal or civil trial! Lying about facts of case, your knowledge, what you observed! False testimony in federal court proceedings charged under 1623!

Depositions! Sworn testimony taken before trial in civil cases! You’re asked questions by opposing lawyers under oath! False answers during deposition? Can be charged under 1621 since depositions aren’t federal court proceedings!

Affidavits and declarations! Sworn written statements submitted to courts or agencies! Sign declaration under penalty of perjury that contents are true! False statements in affidavits can be charged as perjury under either statute!

Congressional testimony! Testifying before House or Senate committees under oath! False testimony before Congress is perjury under 1621! High-profile prosecutions of witnesses who lied to congressional investigations!

What Are Defenses to Perjury Charges?

Several defenses exist but must be pursued aggressively!

Literal truth defense from Bronston! If your testimony was literally accurate even if evasive, not perjury! Burden is on questioner to ask clear specific follow-up questions! Technically true answer that creates false impression isn’t perjury if words are accurate!

Two-witness rule for 1621 charges! If prosecution relies on single contradicting witness without corroboration, insufficient evidence! We challenge by showing government hasn’t met corroboration requirement! Only works for 1621 not 1623!

Lack of materiality! If false statement couldn’t have influenced tribunal’s decision, not material! Statement about irrelevant detail unrelated to matters being decided lacks materiality! We show statement had no tendency to affect outcome!

Recantation defense for 1623 charges! If you admitted falsity in same proceeding before substantial effect and before exposure, complete defense! Must meet strict timing and manner requirements!

No knowledge statement was false! If you believed your testimony was accurate when given, no perjury! Mistake, memory lapse, confusion about facts negates knowledge element! Must prove you KNEW statement was false!

Ambiguous question defense! If question was unclear or could be interpreted multiple ways, your answer may not be false! Questioner must ask clear unambiguous questions! If question was confusing, answer can’t be perjury!

How Is Perjury Different From False Statements?

Understanding distinction is critical for defense strategy!

Oath requirement distinguishes perjury from false statements! Perjury (1621/1623) requires sworn testimony or declaration under penalty of perjury! False statements (1001) covers unsworn lies to federal agents!

Scope differs dramatically! False statements statute applies to lies to ANY federal agency in ANY context! Perjury requires formal proceeding with oath! Lying to FBI agents in interview? False statements not perjury! Lying in sworn testimony? Perjury not false statements!

Proof requirements differ! Perjury under 1621 requires two-witness rule corroboration! False statements doesn’t require corroboration! Section 1623 eliminated two-witness rule to make it more like false statements!

Both carry same penalty: 5 years maximum! But perjury prosecutions are harder to prove because of materiality and corroboration requirements! Prosecutors prefer false statements charges when possible because lower proof burden!

Can be charged with BOTH for same conduct! If you lied to FBI agent during interview (false statements) then later lied in grand jury about same topic (perjury), that’s two separate federal crimes! Different elements, different proofs, different defenses!

Why Perjury Defense Requires Specialized Federal Criminal Attorneys

Look, we’re not your typical lawyers who don’t understand perjury’s complex proof requirements. We’re former federal prosecutors who CHARGED perjury cases and know EXACTLY when to challenge under two-witness rule versus when to pursue recantation defense!

We understand how to prove statements were literally true! We know when materiality is lacking! We can establish proper recantation under 1623! Most importantly, we prepare witnesses BEFORE testimony to avoid perjury traps!

Other lawyers don’t recognize literal truth defenses from Bronston! They miss two-witness rule challenges! Their ignorance leads to convictions for testimony that shouldn’t be prosecuted!

Call us RIGHT NOW at 212-300-5196
Subpoenaed to testify – prepare with counsel FIRST!
Former federal prosecutors – Perjury defense specialists – Available 24/7!

Don’t testify without preparation! We review your testimony strategy, identify perjury traps, ensure answers are literally true and responsive! If already charged, we challenge every element including materiality and corroboration!

Remember – federal perjury charges aren’t just about deliberate lies, there about prosecutors interpreting evasive but truthful testimony as criminal. One answer that creates false impression, one statement that contradicts documents, one testimony that differs from other witnesses can mean 5 years in federal prison. You need someone who understands both literal truth defense AND two-witness rule. Call us NOW before testimony becomes perjury charge!