Free Consultations & We're Available 24/7
WE'RE A BOUTIQUE LAW FIRM.
TRUST 50 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.
WE SERVICE CLIENTS NATIONWIDE.
So your probably wondering what exactly constitutes perjury when testifying to a grand jury and whether that white lie you told counts, or maybe your trying to understand if “forgetting” details could be considered perjury, or worse – you already testified and your now terrified that something you said might be considered perjurious. Maybe you think perjury only means outright lies. Maybe your hoping technicalities or mistakes don’t count. Or maybe you believe prosecutors need absolute proof to charge perjury. Look, let me tell you something – your desperately trying to understand where the line is between truth and federal prison. But heres the FRIGHTENING reality – perjury before a grand jury is ANY knowingly false statement about ANY material fact while under oath, and prosecutors can prove it easier than you think thanks to 18 U.S.C. § 1623 which was specifically designed to make convictions simple!
Perjury before a grand jury isn’t just lying about major facts – its making ANY false statement about ANY material matter while under oath. Material doesn’t mean important in your opinion; it means anything that COULD influence the grand jury’s investigation in any way. That throwaway comment about not knowing someone? If its false and could affect the investigation, that’s perjury.
The legal definition requires five elements: you made a statement under oath, the statement was false, you KNEW it was false when you said it, the false statement was material to the investigation, and you acted willfully. Sounds straightforward, but each element is interpreted broadly to make prosecutions easier.
“Knowingly false” doesn’t require premeditation or planning. If you know something is untrue the moment you say it, that’s enough. You don’t need to have planned the lie in advance. That spontaneous denial when surprised by a question? If you knew it was false when you said it, your guilty of perjury.
Material is defined as having “a natural tendency to influence” the grand jury’s decision-making. This is incredibly broad. Even lies about seemingly minor details qualify if they could theoretically affect how the grand jury views evidence or witnesses. Prosecutors argue everything is material – and judges usually agree.
Congress created 18 U.S.C. § 1623 specifically to make perjury prosecutions easier by eliminating traditional defenses and technical requirements. They wanted to “enhance the reliability of testimony before federal courts and grand juries” by making it simpler to convict liars. Mission accomplished – this statute is a prosecutor’s dream.
Under old perjury laws, prosecutors needed two witnesses or corroborating evidence to prove perjury. Section 1623 eliminated this “two-witness rule.” Now they can convict you based on documents alone, or one witness plus some evidence, or really any proof that shows you lied. The barriers to conviction were deliberately removed.
Here’s the killer feature: if you make two contradictory statements under oath, prosecutors can charge you with perjury for BOTH statements without proving which one is false! They just need to prove the statements are mutually exclusive and material. You’ve perjured yourself somewhere, and that’s enough for conviction.
A “perjury trap” happens when prosecutors call you before the grand jury primarily to get you to lie under oath. They already know the truth from other evidence and are basically setting you up to commit perjury. While defense attorneys complain about this tactic, courts almost always allow it because prosecutors can identify some legitimate investigative purpose.
Prosecutors love perjury traps because there so effective. They ask questions they already know the answers to, hoping you’ll lie. When you do, BOOM – new federal charges that are easy to prove. The original investigation might be weak, but now they’ve got you for perjury with clear evidence.
The trap often works like this: they have emails proving you met with someone, but they ask if you know them. You panic and deny it. Now they’ve got you for perjury, and they use that charge as leverage to force cooperation on the original investigation. Your lie becomes there weapon.
Courts rarely find perjury traps improper because prosecutors can almost always articulate some valid reason for asking questions. “We were testing the witness’s credibility” or “We needed to confirm our evidence” are usually enough. The trap snaps shut, and your caught.
Think claiming memory failure protects you? Think again! If prosecutors can prove you DO remember, saying “I don’t recall” is perjury. That email you sent describing the events proves you remember. That conversation someone recorded shows your lying. “I don’t recall” is only safe if its actually true.
Prosecutors are experts at proving fake memory problems. They’ll show patterns – you remember favorable facts perfectly but forget anything incriminating. They’ll demonstrate your memory was fine in other contexts. They’ll present evidence that the events were so significant you couldn’t possibly forget.
The standard isn’t whether you have perfect recall – its whether you’re lying about not remembering. If you genuinely have some memory of events but claim total amnesia, that’s perjury. If you remember the gist but claim to recall nothing, that’s perjury. Any knowing falsity about your memory state qualifies.
Partial memory claims are especially dangerous. “I don’t recall the details” when you remember them perfectly is perjury. “I vaguely remember” when you have clear recollection is perjury. These hedging statements feel safer but are still lies if untrue.
You might think that if your statement is technically true, you can’t be charged with perjury. WRONG! If your literally true statement is designed to mislead the grand jury, prosecutors can still nail you. The test isn’t just literal truth – its whether you intended to deceive.
Example: They ask “Did you meet with John on Tuesday?” You say “No” because you met Monday night at 11:45 PM and it became Tuesday at midnight during the meeting. Technically true? Maybe. Perjury? Absolutely, because you knew what they were asking and intentionally misled them.
Prosecutors and judges look at the context and clear meaning of questions. Word games don’t protect you. If a reasonable person would understand the question one way and you answer based on a twisted interpretation to avoid the truth, that’s perjury. Courts have no patience for semantic gymnastics.
Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” became infamous precisely because courts reject such gamesmanship. His technically parsed statements still led to perjury charges. Literal truth isn’t a defense when you’re intentionally deceiving the grand jury.
Section 1623 has a devastating provision: if you make two irreconcilably contradictory statements under oath, prosecutors can charge perjury without proving which statement is false! They just need to show the statements can’t both be true and are material. One of them must be perjury, and that’s enough.
This means if you testify one way to the grand jury, then differently at trial, your toast. If you give inconsistent statements in two grand jury appearances, your done. Even inconsistencies within the same testimony session can trigger charges. Prosecutors love this because it removes there burden of proving which specific statement was false.
The contradiction doesn’t need to be absolute. If the statements are fundamentally inconsistent on material points, that’s enough. “I never met him” versus “I met him once” are obviously contradictory. But so are “I don’t remember meeting him” versus “We met briefly” if prosecutors can show you did remember.
This is why consistency is crucial but also dangerous. Stick to a false story consistently and its perjury. Change your story and its also perjury. Tell the truth partially then more fully later? Prosecutors argue the partial truth was deliberately misleading, which is perjury. Your trapped either way once you start lying.
Traditional perjury defenses don’t work under Section 1623. Ambiguous questions? Doesn’t matter if you understood what they meant. Confused or mistaken? Only works if prosecutors can’t prove you knew the truth. Correcting your testimony later? The recantation defense is so narrow its almost useless.
The recantation defense requires you to correct your false statement in the same proceeding, before it substantially affects the proceeding, and before it becomes manifest that the falsity would be exposed. In practice, this means you have minutes, maybe hours to fix your lie. Wait until the next day? Too late.
Good faith belief in your statement’s truth is a defense, but proving good faith is nearly impossible when evidence contradicts you. Prosecutors argue the evidence is so clear you must have known the truth. Juries believe documentary evidence over claims of good faith belief.
Entrapment defenses fail because courts say the government can test witness credibility. Coercion defenses fail because you chose to testify. Mental state defenses require expert testimony that you literally couldn’t form intent. The statute was designed to eliminate defenses, and it succeeded.
Call us RIGHT NOW at 212-300-5196
Perjury charges are EASY for prosecutors – you need protection before testifying!
Available 24/7 to prepare you for truthful testimony that avoids perjury traps!
The bottom line is perjury before a grand jury is ANY knowingly false statement about ANY material fact, and Section 1623 was specifically designed to make convictions easy by eliminating traditional defenses! Material is interpreted broadly, the two-witness rule is gone, contradictory statements are automatic perjury, and even “I don’t recall” can be perjury if you do remember. Literally true but misleading statements still qualify. Defenses are nearly impossible. Congress deliberately made this statute prosecutor-friendly to force truthful testimony. Call us IMMEDIATELY – we’ll prepare you to testify truthfully while protecting your rights and avoiding the countless perjury traps prosecutors set!
This is attorney advertising. Prior results dont guarantee nothing. Perjury laws are deliberately broad and strictly enforced.
Very diligent, organized associates; got my case dismissed. Hard working attorneys who can put up with your anxiousness. I was accused of robbing a gemstone dealer. Definitely A law group that lays out all possible options and best alternative routes. Recommended for sure.
- ROBIN, GUN CHARGES ROBIN
NJ CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEYS