Also known as: penalties of perjury · under penalty of perjury
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A formal attestation by which a declarant affirms the truth of a written or oral statement, exposing the declarant to criminal prosecution for perjury upon a knowing falsehood.
Preston Pratt testifies at a federal products liability trial that a safety guard had worked properly for weeks. Garcia offers Pratt's earlier deposition transcript in which he admitted the guard had been removed under penalty of perjury. Because Pratt is on the stand and subject to cross-examination, the deposition statement qualifies for substantive use.
Pierce Patterson submits a genetic testing report in a parentage action. The laboratory designee signed the report in a record under penalty of perjury. The court treats the report as self-authenticating and admits it without further testimony from the lab.
Priya Prasad testifies at trial inconsistently with an earlier sworn statement given at a formal hearing under penalty of perjury. The court notes that her current testimony allows the jury to assess both accounts, restoring the safeguards lost when the prior statement was made.
Paula Pierce signs a tax return containing a material falsehood under penalty of perjury. The government charges her with making a false statement. The court examines whether the certification exposes her to perjury liability.
Pablo Perez gives a statement to investigators after being told it would not be used against him. The court examines whether the statement was made under circumstances equivalent to an oath subject to the penalty of perjury and suppresses it for lack of that formal assurance.
A prior inconsistent statement is not hearsay when the declarant testifies at the current trial, is subject to cross-examination about the statement, and the statement was given under penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition.
Supporting sources
A report of genetic testing is self-authenticating when it is in a record and signed under penalty of perjury by a designee of the testing laboratory.
Supporting sources
No. The requirement also applies to unsworn declarations, verifications, and statements made outside court when a federal law or rule permits their use in place of a sworn affidavit, provided they follow the statutory form.
Supporting sources
A prior inconsistent statement not given under penalty of perjury at a qualifying proceeding remains hearsay and is admissible only for impeachment, not for its truth.
Supporting sources
…Thus, as far as the oath is concerned, the witness must now affirm, deny, or qualify the truth of the prior statement under the penalty of perjury; indeed, the very fact that the prior statement was not given under a similar circumstance may become the witness' explanation for its inaccuracy—an explanation a jury may be expected to…