Also known as: false statement · false statement of fact
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statement that is untrue. In legal contexts the falsity must often be knowing or material to trigger consequences such as professional discipline, impeachment, civil liability, or criminal sanctions.
Francesca Fiore represents a client before a federal judge and cites only favorable authority while omitting a controlling adverse decision she discovered the week before. The judge relies on the incomplete presentation and issues a ruling that would have gone the other way had the precedent been disclosed. The omission constitutes a false statement of law to the tribunal.
Fernando Farrell testifies in a civil contract dispute. The opposing party offers his three-year-old conviction for submitting false information in official documents. The court admits the conviction because the elements of the crime required proof of a false statement, directly attacking his character for truthfulness.
Faith Fitzgerald, a private citizen, sues a newspaper for publishing an article that incorrectly states she was fired for embezzlement. She proves the statement was false and made with negligence. Because she is not a public figure she recovers actual damages without showing actual malice.
Francois Fortier tells opposing counsel during settlement talks that his client has no insurance coverage when he knows a policy exists. The misrepresentation leads the other side to accept a lower settlement. The statement violates the duty not to make a false statement of material fact to a third person.
Fumiko Fujimoto applies for admission to the bar and answers no to a question asking whether she has ever been subject to professional discipline in another jurisdiction. She had received a public reprimand two years earlier. The knowing omission is a false statement of material fact in a bar admission matter.
A city police chief sues a newspaper for an editorial that contains inaccuracies about his handling of a high-profile case. The court requires him to prove that the false statements were made with actual malice because he is a public official.
L. B. Sullivan is one of three elected Commissioners of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. He has duties including supervision of the Police Department. He brought this civil libel action against the New York Times Company and four individual petitioners who were Alabama clergymen. The suit sought $500,000 in damages based on a full-page advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that appeared in the New York Times on March 29, 1960. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County awarded Sullivan the full amount claimed against all petitioners. The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment. The advertisement was signed by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the South. It described widespread non-violent demonstrations by Southern Negro students and an unprecedented wave of terror against them. Two paragraphs formed the basis of the claim. One alleged that after students sang on the State Capitol steps their leaders were expelled, truckloads of police ringed the Alabama State College Campus, and the dining hall was padlocked to starve students into submission. The other stated that Southern violators had bombed Dr. King's home, assaulted him, arrested him seven times, and charged him with perjury. The text appeared over the names of 64 persons. It was endorsed by the individual petitioners among others. Sullivan contended that the references to police referred to him in his supervisory capacity. Six Montgomery residents testified that they read the statements as referring to him. However, several statements were inaccurate. The students sang the National Anthem rather than "My Country, 'Tis of Thee." The expulsions were for a different incident. The dining hall was not padlocked. Dr. King had been arrested only four times. The bombings occurred before Sullivan's tenure with police efforts to apprehend the perpetrators. The Times published the advertisement for approximately $4800. It acted upon an order from a New York advertising agency. The agency provided a letter from A. Philip Randolph certifying authorization. The Times made no efforts to confirm its accuracy against its own news files. Sullivan served written demands for retraction on the petitioners pursuant to Alabama law. None of the individual petitioners responded as they had not authorized use of their names. The Times did not retract. It published a retraction only upon demand by Governor John Patterson after learning more facts. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to the separate petitions of the individual petitioners and the Times due to the importance of the constitutional issues involved.
View caseA conviction is automatically admissible under Rule 609(a)(2) when the court can readily determine that its elements required proof or admission of a dishonest act or false statement, regardless of the punishment authorized.
Supporting sources
Private plaintiffs need not prove actual malice. States may set the liability standard so long as they do not impose liability without fault, but presumed or punitive damages still require a showing of actual malice.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule prohibits both making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal and failing to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made by the lawyer.
Supporting sources
…the liberties which are embodied in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It may be urged that deliberately and maliciously false statements have no conceivable value as free speech. That argument, however, is not responsive to the real issue presented by this case, which is whether that freedom of speech which all agree is…