2007-03-22 10:11:02 · 9 answers · asked by howlettlogan 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If it's not under oath, then it isn't testimony.
2007-03-22 10:15:13 · answer #1 · answered by Teekno 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Testimony MUST be given under oath in court.
On writings to appear before the court the letter must state that the writer's information is given under penalty of perjury...
2007-03-22 10:16:48 · answer #2 · answered by Real Estate Para Legal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Perjury is only lying under oath.
But other charges may apply, such as Obstruction of Justice if the person lies during a criminal investigation, or providing false testimony to Congress (18 USC 1001) if during a Congressional hearing.
2007-03-22 10:32:54 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Technically, in a legal proceeding, it's not "testimony" if not under oath. For the purposes of Congressional "testimony", generally they do not swear speakers under oath as they hold hearings all the time for things not criminal or ethical in nature. Also, it is a crime to lie to Congress in and of itself, regardless of oath.
2007-03-22 10:17:55 · answer #4 · answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is being said and its a lie can't be held against the person if its not under oath. To make it legal, its gotta be under oath.
2007-03-22 10:16:41 · answer #5 · answered by Debs 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think that perjury exists unless it happens under oath.
2007-03-22 10:15:54 · answer #6 · answered by supressdesires 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yet yet another step in this long, and costly, slog in the direction of one very final public mudbath throughout Bonds, which will end, so as of hazard, with (a) acquittal, (b) dismissal of all fees, or (c) conviction with some slap-on-the-wrist penalty. damn, this has been one foul witchhunt. regarding the sole upside is that curiously to in basic terms approximately be over. This, particularly the criminal case formerly the courtroom, isn't approximately what Bonds used. the fees are perjury and obstruction of justice, and as because of immensely sloppy grand jury thinking, Bonds is likely to stroll. nicely, he's the occupation checklist-holder at doing that. specific, the courtroom of public opinion, consistently witless for the prosecution, needs Bonds got here upon to blame to blame to blame of applying "steriods". recover from yourselves, bumpkins -- he did. you obtain your pound of flesh years in the past. initiate handling it. that may not a center venture in this intending. The guvvermint has made a critically botched interest of its case, and it probably (in no way have faith a jury) will bypass down the drain. Geez, merely permit it end. ---------- As for the "movie star has its privileges" meme -- hellfire, if this indictment became filed against Joe Doofus and not Barry Bonds, the full mess could have been dropped years in the past. It probably in no way might have reached indictment. The DOJ and Agent Novitzky have been drooling on the potential for nailing Bonds, and have performed very practically as many incorrect issues as conceivable with out thoroughly derailing the courtroom cases. have been it not Bonds, it in no way might have come this some distance.
2016-11-27 23:17:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well... A court under the incorporated municipal states of america, or a court of law under the United States of America? Yes there is a MAJOR difference. Wake up.
2007-03-22 10:16:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
to give a testomy you have to be under oath
2007-03-29 05:51:52 · answer #9 · answered by bigma 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋