Also known as: jus jurandum · jurisjurandi · oath
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A solemn declaration made under penalty of perjury or divine sanction that binds the declarant to truthfulness. The declaration must be administered in a form that impresses the duty of honesty on the declarant's conscience. It serves as a formal prerequisite for warrants, witness testimony, interrogatory answers, and certain official or judicial acts.
Justin Jarvis submitted an affidavit to a magistrate detailing observations of illegal activity at a warehouse. The magistrate reviewed the facts and issued a search warrant. Officers later executed the warrant and seized evidence that was admitted at trial because the affidavit supplied the required oath or affirmation.
Jillian James served interrogatories on Jha Pharmaceuticals asking for details of its manufacturing process. The company returned a single narrative drafted by counsel without any signature under oath. The court granted a motion to compel because each interrogatory required a separate written answer under oath signed by an authorized agent.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jasmine Jordan was called to testify about a contract negotiation. She declined the standard oath but offered to promise as a person of integrity that she would tell the truth. The court accepted the affirmation after determining that the chosen words impressed the duty of honesty on her conscience.
June Jiang and her spouse each filed a petition stating under oath that their marriage was irretrievably broken. After a hearing the court made the required finding because the sworn statements satisfied the statutory condition for dissolution.
Judy Jacobs applied for admission to the bar and signed an oath to support the federal and state constitutions. The reviewing board accepted the oath as a valid commitment to uphold constitutional processes without finding it vague or overbroad.
Jacqueline Juarez was elected President and took the oath of office before assuming executive authority. The ceremony satisfied the constitutional requirement that the President swear or affirm to faithfully execute the duties of the office.
An oath invokes divine sanction while an affirmation relies on a solemn promise without religious reference. Both forms are legally equivalent when they impress the duty of truthfulness on the declarant's conscience.
Supporting sources
Yes. To the extent an interrogatory is not objected to, the responding party must answer separately and fully in writing under oath. An unsworn narrative or attorney-drafted response fails this requirement.
Supporting sources
The affidavit must be supported by oath or affirmation and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Probable cause is judged from the facts presented under that oath.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule requires only that the affirmation be in a form designed to impress the duty of truthfulness on the witness's conscience. Courts evaluate the chosen language by its subjective effect on the individual witness.
Supporting sources
…and laws of the United States. If judges were to be used to give effect to legislative acts repugnant to the Constitution the oath they take would be mockery. The particular phraseology of the Constitution confirms the principle that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that courts as well as other…