PERJURY
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 931
A. Section 1621: False Testimony Generally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 932
B. Section 1622: Subornation of Perjury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933
C. Section 1623: False Testimony to Court or Grand Jury . . . . . . 934
II. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 934
A. Oath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
B. Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 935
C. Falsity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937
D. Materiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 939
E. Key Distinctions between §§ 1621 and 1623. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940
1. Two-Witness Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942
2. Use of False Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
3. Inconsistent Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943
III. DEFENSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944
A. Recantation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
B. Assistance of Counsel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 945
C. Double Jeopardy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946
D. Perjury Trap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
E. Fifth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 947
IV. SENTENCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 948
I. INTRODUCTION
Perjury occurs when an individual makes a false statement under oath before a
federal tribunal or official.
1
Every branch and level of government relies on sworn
testimony, so the integrity of governmental processes depends in large part on the
truthfulness of statements made under oath.
2
Thus, perjury threatens to subvert the
fair administration of justice and the proper functioning of government.
To free courts of the “pollution of perjury”
3
by deterring and punishing false
testimony,
4
Congress has enacted three statutes criminalizing perjury:
5
18 U.S.C.
1. See Charles Doyle, Cong. Rsch. Serv., False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal
Law 1 (2018).
2. See United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 720–21 (2012) (“Perjury undermines the function and province
of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments that are the basis of the legal system.”); ABF Freight Sys., Inc.
v. NLRB, 510 U.S. 317, 323 (1994).
3. Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 357 (1973) (quoting United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58, 68
(1951).
4. See Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100, 107 (1979).
5. Congress’s power to enact the three statutes is “in furtherance of [its] power to constitute federal tribunals.”
United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126, 136 (2010) (citing Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456, 462 n.2
(2003)).
931
§§ 1621, the general perjury statute;
6
1622, the subornation of perjury statute;
7
and
1623, the statute concerning perjury before a grand jury or court.
8
The remainder
of this Section provides an overview of the three perjury statutes. Section II exam-
ines the elements of §§ 1621 and 1623. Section III discusses defenses. Section IV
addresses sentencing.
A. Section 1621: False Testimony Generally
Section 1621 is the broadest of the three federal perjury statutes.
9
This statute
applies to all material statements or information provided under oath to “a compe-
tent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States
authorizes an oath to be administered,”
10
including statements provided outside the
United States.
11
Section 1621 also extends to unsworn declarations prepared under
penalty of perjury.
12
Section 1621 has repeatedly withstood constitutional chal-
lenges
13
in a wide variety of contexts.
14
Courts have construed the “competent tribunal, officer, or person”
15
clause of
§ 1621 to reach statements made before a wide range of entities, so long as the en-
tity is acting within its legal authority.
16
For example, a grand jury acting within its
6. 18 U.S.C. § 1621.
7. Id. § 1622.
8. Id. § 1623(a). Section 1623(a) was amended in 2024 to criminalize perjury in any proceeding “before or
ancillary to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
established by section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.” Reforming Intelligence and
Securing America Act, Pub. L. No. 118-49, § 13(d), 138 Stat. 882 (2024) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C.
§ 1623).
9. However, § 1621 is not to be “loosely construed.” Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352, 360 (1973)
(“[T]he statute [should not be] invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner—so
long as the witness speaks the literal truth.”).
10. 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1); see infra Section II.B and accompanying notes (discussing contexts in which § 1621
applies as restricted by the intent element). However, the statement need not be made in a judicial proceeding.
See Ho Sang Yim v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1069, 1081 (9th Cir. 2020).
11. 18 U.S.C. § 1621.
12. Id. § 1621(2).
13. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 96 (1993) (“[W]e have held on a number of occasions that a
defendant’s [constitutional] right to testify does not include a right to commit perjury.”).
14. See, e.g., United States v. Polichemi, 219 F.3d 698, 710 (7th Cir. 2000) (affirming a perjury conviction for
false statements made during an SEC deposition); United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 133 (2d Cir. 2000)
(upholding a perjury conviction where the defendant submitted a false affidavit in a bail revocation hearing);
United States v. Weissman, 195 F.3d 96, 98–99 (2d Cir. 1999) (affirming a § 1621 conviction where the
defendant submitted false information to a Senate committee); see also infra Section II.A and accompanying
notes (discussing the variety of contexts under which the oath element is satisfied).
15. 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1).
16. For circumstances in which the forum was held to be a competent tribunal under § 1621, see infra Section
II.B and its footnotes (listing various contexts to which courts have applied § 1621). For circumstances in which
the forum was held to be incompetent under § 1621, see United States v. Tamura, 694 F.2d 591, 602 (9th Cir.
1982) (filing of a false tax return); see also United States v. Cross, 170 F. Supp. 303, 309–10 (D.D.C. 1959)
(determining that a congressional subcommittee constituted an incompetent tribunal when the purpose of the
tribunal was to put the witness in a position to commit perjury).
932 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 62:931
