Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bambi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!bellcore!petrus!magic!science!bambi!steve
From: steve@bambi.UUCP (Steve Miller)
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Very curious
Message-ID: <339@bambi.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 22-Mar-86 16:59:58 EST
Article-I.D.: bambi.339
Posted: Sat Mar 22 16:59:58 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 03:03:18 EST
References: <1062@whuxl.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bell Communications Research Inc., Morristown, NJ
Lines: 21

> If an individual swears "to tell the truth, the whole truth and
> nothing but..." and then proceeds to perjure him/herself, what
> are the legal implications if that individual claimed they 
> weren't telling the truth when they swore to tell the truth?
> Just curious.

Jack Moore (still a New Jersey criminal attorney) says:

Practically, the jury would be instructed on the definition of perjury
and would disregard this defense.  In an ideal court, he might be found
not guilty of perjury, but subsequently cited for contempt.  The interesting
question then becomes:  Can his courtroom admission that he lied to the judge
when swearing to tell the truth be used against him absent warnings that he
might be incriminating himself?

Though the substance and the gravity of the perjured testimony would be
a factor in determining punishment, it is very likely that the contempt
citation would carry a more severe punishment.


	-Steve Miller ihnp4!bambi!steve