Under federal law, perjury is committed when a person “knowingly” attests to or subscribes to statements he or she does not believe are true. Perjured testimony is not protected by the First

Amendment, because it undermines the ability of courts to obtain truthful testimony and to effectively administer justice.

Perjury must be knowingly committed and influence a proceeding’s outcome to be punished

Perjury charges may be brought against individuals who swear or affirm that they will tell the truth and then lie instead. If, however, witnesses were unaware that the stated facts had changed or were different, they merely supplied mistaken observations rather than perjured testimony.

Under perjury law, not only must the speaker make a false statement, but the statement must be of such magnitude that it influences an official proceeding’s outcome. A false statement given under oath relating to a minor or an immaterial matter is not perjury, even though the statement could be deemed a lie, because perjury law is centered on protecting the credibility of official proceedings. Punishing everyone who makes a misstatement would be time-consuming and would not serve the purpose of upholding the integrity of legal processes.

Misleading and evasive statements alone do not meet the false statement requirement

Bronston v. United States (1973) illustrated the complexity of meeting the “false statement” requirement. At issue was whether perjury occurs when witnesses under oath state literal truths but are unresponsive or misleading in response to questions.

In this case, businessman Samuel Bronston was asked whether he currently had bank accounts in Swiss banks; he replied “no.” Then, when asked if he had ever had any bank accounts there, he stated that the company had had an account for six months in Zurich. The literal truth was that Bronston had had a personal Swiss bank account for five years, but Bronston addressed his company’s assets, not his own. Technically his answer to the first question was true because he previously had held a Swiss bank account, but at the time of questioning he did not. Later he was tried and convicted for perjury.

However, in a decision written by Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger, the Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that although Bronston may have knowingly misled, his statements were literally true. If a line of questioning is ambiguous, the answers given will not support a perjury conviction. Although Bronston made misleading and evasive statements, this alone is not sufficient to meet the false statement requirement.

Clinton Administration shows difficulty of justifying perjury prosecution

A 1998 perjury charge related to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton further demonstrates how difficult it is to justify a perjury prosecution. Experts argue over whether President Clinton perjured himself when testifying before the grand jury about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The law draws a line between lying and perjury.

Ultimately whether the president had “sexual relations” with Lewinsky became the center of Paula Jones’s sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton. Clinton’s denial that he had had “sexual relations” with Lewinsky gave rise to accusations that he lied under oath and obstructed justice. He was ultimately impeached in the U.S. House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones case but was not convicted in the U.S. Senate.

Many claim that he was prosecuted for perjury for political reasons and that most citizens would rarely be charged with perjury over matters such as this. The evidence shows, however, that ordinary citizens are prosecuted for “small lies,” and a number have been convicted of perjury for lying about sexual affairs. Still, many high-profile cases demonstrate that prosecuting perjury is not easy because of the legal standards imposed in the Bronston case.

This article was originally published in 2009. Ruth Ann Strickland was a professor at Appalachian State University.

cited https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1007/perjury

Can Police Lye on Affidavits  – Short Answer, NO!

Not if they Value their Career & Freedom and Don’t want civil responsibility

Police have no expectation of privacy on phone calls.  Police lines are recorded expectations end there!

California Penal Code 134 PC makes it a crime to prepare false evidence with the intent to use it fraudulently in a legal proceeding. This offense is a felony that carries a penalty of up to 3 years in jail or state prison.

This is considered to be an obstruction of justice crime in California.

The language of 134 PC states that “every person guilty of preparing any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing, with intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, upon any trial, proceeding, or inquiry whatever, authorized by law, is guilty of a felony.”

Examples

• making a false receipt with the idea to introduce it at a personal injury trial.
• creating an inaccurate picture of an intersection to give to law enforcement officers investigating a hit and run case.
• altering a will with the intent to use it in probate court.

Defenses

An accused can beat a preparing false evidence charge with a legal defense. Common defenses include:

• no intent to produce,
• no intent to deceive, and/or
• entrapment.

Penalties

A violation of this statute is charged as a felony offense. This is opposed to a misdemeanor or an infraction.

The crime is punishable by:

• imprisonment in the state prison for up to three years, or
• felony (or formal) probation.

Our California criminal defense attorneys will address the following in this article:

• 1. When is preparing false evidence a crime?
  • 1.1. Intent to produce
  • 1.2. Intent to deceive
• 2. Are there legal defenses to Penal Code 134?
  • 2.1. No intent to produce
  • 2.2. No intent to deceive
  • 2.3. Entrapment
• 3. What are the penalties?
• 4. Are there immigration consequences?
• 5. Can a person get a conviction expunged?
• 6. Does a conviction affect gun rights?
• 7. Are there related offenses?
  • 7.1. Offering false evidence – PC 132
  • 7.2. Perjury – PC 118
  • 7.3. Destroying evidence or concealing evidence – PC 135

1. When is preparing false evidence a crime?

A prosecutor must prove the following to convict a defendant of Penal Code 134:

1. the defendant prepared a false or forged “matter or thing,”
2. he did so with the intent to produce it as evidence in a legal proceeding, and
3. the accused did so with the intent to deceive.¹

Note that this statute lists some examples of evidence that a defendant could falsify. These are:

“any false or ante-dated book, paper, record, instrument in writing, or other matter or thing.”²

By including the wording, “matter or thing,” the law makes it a crime for someone to:

• prepare any kind,
• of false evidence.

A “matter or thing” could include such evidence as:

• photos,
• weapons,
• maps, and
• clothing items.

Note that a legal proceeding includes:

• civil and criminal trials,
• hearings,
• inquiries, and
• investigations.

Questions often arise under this statute on the meaning of:

1. intent to produce, and
2. intent to deceive.

1.1. Intent to produce

A defendant is only guilty under this statute if he:

1. prepares false evidence, and
2. does so with the intent to produce it in a legal proceeding.³

Note that it is not necessary for the evidence actually to be produced.

This means someone can be accused of this crime if the evidence was:

• never used in a legal matter, or
• was introduced into court but by someone else.

Example: Scott is in a nasty divorce with his wife. As their trial nears, Scott alters several emails to show that his wife is an alcoholic and should not get custody of their son. He wants to use them as evidence during the court proceeding. The spouses end up settling their case two days before the trial.

Here, Scott is guilty of preparing false evidence because he altered emails. While the emails were never introduced into evidence, Scott intended to produce them during trial.

1.2. Intent to deceive

A defendant is only guilty under PC 134 if:

• he intended to produce false evidence,
• for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose.⁴

“For a fraudulent purpose” means that an accused must have acted:

• with the intent to deceive, or fool, someone
• with the false evidence.⁵

Example: Mary is the plaintiff in a personal injury case. She completes a document (late one night) that shows the total amount of money she has spent on rehabbing her injury. Unbeknownst to her, Mary makes several calculation errors because she is tired and careless. Mary brings the document to court the next morning intending to give it to the judge.

Here, Mary is not guilty of preparing false evidence. The document is technically false because it includes erroneous figures and rehab charges. But Mary did not have an intent to deceive in making her document. She merely “falsified” the document out of carelessness and mistake.

2. Are there legal defenses to Penal Code 134?

A defendant can challenge an accusation under this statute with a legal defense.

Three common defenses are:

1. no intent to produce,
2. no intent to deceive, and/or
3. entrapment.

2.1. No intent to produce (“lack of intent”)

Recall that a person is only guilty under this statute if he:

1. prepares false evidence, and
2. does so with the intent to produce it in a legal proceeding.

This means it is a defense for an accused to say that he did not act with this requisite intent.

2.2. No intent to deceive

A defendant is only guilty under Penal Code 134 if he:

• prepared false evidence, and
• did so with the intent to deceive or fool someone else.

Therefore, it is a valid defense for a defendant to say that he did not act with this intent. Perhaps, for example, a piece of evidence was falsified by mistake or accident.

2.3. Entrapment

Police officers cannot lure suspects into committing a crime. This “luring” is known as entrapment. It applies to overbearing official conduct like pressure, harassment, fraud, or threats. Entrapment is an acceptable legal defense provided that the accused shows he only committed the crime because of the entrapment.

(Note that in some cases, defense attorneys uncover evidence that corrupt cops were planting evidence.)

3. What are the penalties?

A violation of these laws is charged as a felony.

The crime is punishable by:

• custody in state prison for up to three years, or
• felony (or formal) probation.⁶

4. Are there immigration consequences?

A preparing false evidence conviction will have negative immigration consequences.

A California court has ruled that an offense involving false evidence is a crime involving moral turpitude.⁷

“Crimes involving moral turpitude” can result in a non-citizen being either:

• deported, or
• marked as inadmissible.

This means an offense under PC 134 will have detrimental immigration results.

5. Can a person get a conviction expunged?

A person might be able to get a conviction expunged.

Defendants cannot get an expungement for a crime if they get sentenced to state prison.⁸ This means a defendant will not be able to get an expungement:

• for a preparing false evidence offense
• if they get a prison sentence.

But they might be able to get an expungement of the criminal case if they get awarded felony probation in lieu of prison time.

6. Does a conviction affect gun rights?

A defendant will lose his gun rights if he gets convicted under this statute.

A convicted felon is prohibited from buying or owning a gun under California law.

Since preparing false evidence is a felony, a conviction of this crime will result in a loss of gun rights.

7. Are there related offenses?

There are three crimes related to preparing false evidence. These are:

1. offering false evidence – PC 132,
2. perjury – PC 118, and
3. destroying or concealing evidence – PC 135.

7.1. Offering false evidence – PC 132

Penal Code 132 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a person to offer false written evidence in a legal proceeding.

This is a much narrower law than Penal Code 134 and it only applies to written evidence/false documents.

7.2. Perjury – PC 118

Per Penal Code 118 PC, perjury is the California crime of deliberately giving false information while under oath.

Unlike PC 134, this law applies to actual testimony given in a legal proceeding.

7.3. Destroying evidence or concealing false evidence – PC 135

Penal Code 135 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a person to:

• willfully destroy or hide any evidence,
• in a legal proceeding.

“Legal proceeding” here has the same meaning as used with preparing false evidence.

For additional help…

For legal advice and to discuss your case with a DUI/criminal defense attorney, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. Our Los Angeles, California criminal defense lawyers serve clients throughout the state, including San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, Newport Beach, and more.

---

Legal References:

1. California Penal Code section 134 PC. See, for example: People v. Shah (Cal. App. 3d Dist., 2019), 251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477; People v. Morrison (Cal. App. 2d Dist., 2011), 191 Cal. App. 4th 1551.
2. See same.
3. See same. See also People v. Brown (1887) 74 Cal. 306; and, People v. Horowitz (1945) 70 Cal. App. 2d 675.
4. California Penal Code 134 PC.
5. See People v. Brown, supra; and People v. Horowitz, supra.
6. California Penal Code 132 PC. See also California Penal Code 1170h.
7. In re Jones (1971), 5 Cal. 3d 390.
8. California Penal Code 1203.4 PC.

https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/134/