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!
Need Help With Your Case?
Don't face criminal charges alone. Our experienced defense attorneys are ready to fight for your rights and freedom.
- 100% Confidential
- Response Within 1 Hour
- No Obligation Consultation
Or call us directly:
(212) 300-5196But 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!
Todd Spodek
Lead Attorney & Founder
Featured on Netflix's "Inventing Anna," Todd Spodek brings decades of high-stakes criminal defense experience. His aggressive approach has secured dismissals and acquittals in cases others deemed unwinnable.
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!
You testified before a federal grand jury investigating your former employer's financial dealings, and now prosecutors say your sworn statements about when you first learned of the scheme directly contradict emails they recovered from your work account. You've just received a target letter indicating you may be indicted for perjury under 18 USC 1623.
Can I really be charged with perjury if I honestly didn't remember the details correctly when I testified?
Perjury under 18 USC 1621 and 1623 requires proof that you willfully made a false statement about a material fact while under oath — a faulty memory or genuinely mistaken recollection is not the same as intentional lying. However, prosecutors will use documents like those emails to argue your testimony couldn't have been an honest mistake, so the distinction between a poor memory and a deliberate falsehood often comes down to what corroborating evidence exists. One important tool under Section 1623 is the recantation defense, which allows you to correct false testimony before it substantially affects the proceeding and before it becomes clear you'll be exposed. We would immediately review the grand jury transcript against the documentary evidence to build the strongest possible defense and explore every avenue, including whether a recantation or a challenge to the materiality of the statements applies in your case.
This is general information only. Contact us for advice specific to your situation.
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!
