Does she have to go to jail?

February 18, 2012 3:47 AM

Lying under oath: what would a likely penalty be for a plaintiff who commits perjury?

I'm almost done with a large writing project I've been working on, but there's a hole in it that I need to fill.

I need to know what might happen to someone who, during a trial, intentionally identifies an innocent person as guilty and then later recants the testimony. Would the person get automatic jail time? Community service? Assigned a parole officer? Pay a big fine? The person in question is an upright citizen with no prior involvement in the criminal justice system. This situation takes place in California. (I've asked a couple of related questions in the past and the responses have been incredibly helpful--so thank you in advance!)

posted by aimeedee to Law & Government (10 answers total)

I'm not sure why Google can't help you out here. Here is some information on the penalty range for perjury in California. The Mark Furhman case shows that a felony perjury conviction won't get you the worst case scenario, though:

On July 5, 1996, Lungren announced that he would file perjury charges against Fuhrman and soon thereafter offered Fuhrman a plea bargain. On October 2, Fuhrman accepted the deal and pleaded no contest to the charges. He was sentenced to three years' probation and fined $200. As a result, Fuhrman is a convicted felon.

You can read the actual plea agreement here. For more, here's another sentencing. In contrast, Adelyn Lee was sentenced to a year in jail, four years probation and $100,000 in fines. These are all in California.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:42 AM on February 18, 2012

In most US jurisdictions, perjury is a felony, punishable by a maximum of 5yrs in the clinker. In practice, nearly no one is sentenced to harshly - but in a particularly bad case, it could involve some jail time.
posted by Flood at 4:57 AM on February 18, 2012

In Britain perjury is treated much more harshly. See here. Several well known politicians have had some serious jail time over the years
posted by derbs at 5:21 AM on February 18, 2012

If they could credibly claim to have been mistaken, the odds that she would even be charged are very low. Perjured testimony is incredibly commonplace, I've seen some in every trial I've ever witnessed. Despite that, perjury charges are quite uncommon. I recently saw a trial where the judge essentially flatly declared that they believed the plaintiff's star witness was lying through and through and there is almost no chance that perjury charges will follow. The exceptions would tend to come in high profile murder cases and the like, where the prosecutor is more likely to get bent out of shape about it. In the overcrowded California prison system, it is pretty unlikely that actual jail time would result anyhow -- probably a combination probation/fine.
posted by Lame_username at 7:57 AM on February 18, 2012

To my knowledge, this actually isn't a simple question of "Jail, yes? No?" Perjury charges are brought rarely, prosecuted even more rarely, and in many places a conviction depends on proving that the person knew what they were saying was false and intended to mislead. Very pointed criteria, difficult to prove.

So, you have several questions: what if a witness identifies the wrong person (on purpose or no), how would a prosecutor find out, would they be charged with perjury, and, if they were convicted, what would the penalty be? It's not just "lie, perjury charge, sentence."
posted by rhizome at 8:26 AM on February 18, 2012

Like rhizome says, perjury charges are brought rarely. They are, in a lot of ways, mostly political.

My clients routinely want to lie under oath no matter how much I try to convince them not to. I'm pretty happy when I've convinced clients not to try to set up conspiracies to perjure themselves. 95% of this is in the family law and criminal defense context.

I don't think I've seen a single trial where someone didn't lie under oath. Police lying is a
posted by bswinburn at 10:07 AM on February 18, 2012

Uh...hit the wrong button there.

Well, police lying is a wide spread problem and you'll rarely see a perjury case brought against them. It's telling that what a lot of people are asking for, in regards to police lying, is an exclusionary rule, not prosecutions.

My personal feeling is that the best way to think about perjury cases, in the criminal context, is political, kind of like tax evasion cases. When a prosecutor is being pressed to bring charges against some person, and they can't get the underlying case, then perjury starts to look good. It's a charge that a prosecutor can "build" by asking appropriate questions during the original, failed, case.

Therefore, for the purpose of your fiction (it sounds like you're asking about a fictional scenario), I'd focus on giving the prosecution sufficient motivation to push the charge. Make it hard for them to bring any other charges. Then you'll have a believable scenario for a real perjury charge.
posted by bswinburn at 10:14 AM on February 18, 2012

Yes, the most likely outcome of committing perjury in a routine case is nothing. It happens all the time.
posted by steinwald at 2:52 PM on February 18, 2012

Are you only interested in the criminal consequences to the plaintiff? Because the other part is that it would affect the plaintiff's civil trial too - the defendant's attorney would probably point out the jury that the plaintiff's testimony wasn't very credible anymore, which could have a real impact on the case.
posted by insectosaurus at 9:45 PM on February 18, 2012

Response by poster: Thank you, everyone. The reminder about social/civic costs was very helpful, as were all the responses about perjury prosecution often being a political tool. Bswinburn, thanks for the CA-specific info. Do you mind if I send you a memail with a very particular question?

And this is for a fictional project, yes. Getting very close to completion after a very long time...thanks again for helping!
posted by aimeedee at 3:57 AM on February 22, 2012