A real example: Someone robbed a nearby bank in the town I reside in, a few weeks ago. They have him on video tape, positively identified. Witnesses saw him run out of the bank and get on, of all things, a bus with a video camera. The bus driver, and other passengers, remember where he got off the bus. They watched him go up a driveway into a house. Later the police got him to surrender and took him into custody, from that same house. They retrieved the money and it's pretty much a done deal that he's the robber.
Now. That's all kind of moot, just a few facts in the case pointing to the conclusion that this guy is going to be found guilty. However...I just read in the news that he is going to plead Not Guilty. Ok, so now the prosecution has to prove it was really him, etc. etc. All fine and dandy.
So when he's found guilty, why isn't he going to get in trouble for lying in court? Why won't he be additionally charged with perjury (or does that only apply to witnesses under oath?) or the equivalent of intentionally lying to the court? This is no small thing, I shouldn't think. Nearly every criminal who actually committed the crime pleads Not Guilty, costing the courts and taxpayers ridiculous amounts of time and money to prove he is lying. Where's the justice here...or am I missing something?|||The quick answer is his plea isn't made under oath. Connecticut law holds that perjury occurs where the person "in any official proceeding, he intentionally, under oath, makes a false statement, swears, affirms or testifies falsely, to a material statement which he does not believe to be true." If he went on the stand and lied then he could be tried for perjury (though no one would bother).
The more involved answer is that I'm not sure a plea counts as a material statement. Pleading Not Guilty isn't the same as pleading innocent. A person could commit a crime and still be Not Guilty by reason of any number of things, such as coercion or entrapment or insanity. Material statements are those which are relevant to either a fact or circumstance on which the decision may hinge. The plea doesn't relate to any of those. Rather, it just identifies the legal standing of the defendant.|||Quote:
Pleading Not Guilty isn't the same as pleading innocent.
But...I see what you're saying...nevertheless. His plea of Not Guilty is typically in answer to the charges. Isn't he therefore, essentially saying 'No, I did not commit those crimes I am being charged with' which actually is tantamount to pleading innocent?
Still, he is not under oath when he states this claim, which I suspect as you pointed out, is the crux of the matter. So, another question then: Why aren't suspects put under oath when they are required to answer to the charges?|||Quote:
But...I see what you're saying...nevertheless. His plea of Not Guilty is typically in answer to the charges. Isn't he therefore, essentially saying 'No, I did not commit those crimes I am being charged with' which actually is tantamount to pleading innocent?
Not exactly. It's more like he's saying "I contend that you do not have the right to punish me." That may be because he did not commit the act, but it may also be because he did commit the act but has an affirmative defense like I mentioned, or even that he thinks the government doesn't have enough evidence to meet the burden of proof.
Quote:
So, another question then: Why aren't suspects put under oath when they are required to answer to the charges?
Perjurs are lies. If someone asks his plea, he can happily say "I plead Not Guilty" without having uttered a lie. It is true that his plea is Not Guilty. Besides that point, how could the court make sure? The only way to get the accuracy of such a statement is to pierce 5th and possibly 6th amendment protections.|||Technically, if he takes the stand (which defendants don't always do), he can easily perjure himself in defense of his Not Guilty plea. If he's asked point blank if he robbed the store and he said no, then, yeah, that'd be perjury. That doesn't mean he'd be prosecuted for it, though.
Perjury is rarely prosecuted. I think it's meant to be more of a threat to keep you honest these days. Since it doesn't work, they probably just don't bother because most people are just straight liars.|||You're innocent until proven guilty. So at the start of the trial, you're not guilty.
Now, they could just say "did you do it", but you also have the right not to incriminate yourself so you'd be perfectly justified in refusing to answer. (And it would be illegal to assume that anyone who refused to answer was guilty.)
If it was punishable to claim innocence when you actually did it, then lawyers would just instruct their clients to plead the fifth, and we'd be in the same place.|||If you enter a guilty plea, it goes directly to sentencing, doesn't it? Pleading not guilty is, logically, the only way to get a trial at all.
So "I plead not guilty" is another way of saying "I invoke my right to a trial, and to offer a defense."
If he's found guilty after all, you can't add on that he lied about it. That would almost be entrapment. You can't punish someone for asking for a trial and to be heard, even if he's guilty as the day is long.
The twit that shot those poor people in Tuscon also pled not guilty. That's his right.|||Isn't it the case thought that if he pleaded guilty to begin with, he could get his sentence reduced by quite a bit? I mean, it's plain stupidity to plead not guilty if you know you're gonna get convicted anyway.
Then again, how dumb must you be to fail so blatantly to cover your tracks after robbing a bank?
The main point though is that he's already getting a longer sentence by trying to plead not guilty.|||Quote:
Technically, if he takes the stand (which defendants don't always do), he can easily perjure himself in defense of his Not Guilty plea. If he's asked point blank if he robbed the store and he said no, then, yeah, that'd be perjury.
Does he even have to answer that though?|||Quote:
Does he even have to answer that though?
"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns.."
No comments:
Post a Comment