Good question. The answer is an absolute NO. That person cannot be charged with perjury. However, if that person gets on the stand, under oath, and lies, then it is possible s/he could be charged, though it is rarely done. Defendants lie on the stand about their involvement in a crime every day. If the prosecutor gets a conviction, they're not usually interested in pursuing a perjury charge. They probably could. But, it doesn't make economical sense, and the penalty would likely be submerged within the sentence already being served. Sometimes, it may be that the Prosecutor, during the sentencing phase of the case, will point out the perjury, arguing that the Defendant did not and has not owned up to his crime and has no remorse. But even that is not often done.

__________________

• Respect The Ordinary Citizen: Sarah Palin The Dems are in for a surprise
  
• Protecting Your Church Against Sexual Predators Coming soon to your church: a sexual predator
  
• Value of a Housewife: Wrongful Death in Indiana The value of an ordinary housewife is extraordinary
  
• THE OLD WEST "Stories of the Old West -- free"
  

It actually puts the defense counsel in an awkward position. If counsel knows that his client is going to lie on the stand he or she can not assist the defendant in perpetrating that lie upon the court. This of course butts up directly with the right of the defendant to testify in his own self-defense. To avoid violating either rule what happens is that the defense counsel will ask the defendant to explain to the trier of fact why he is not guilty and then sit down. There will not be a series of questions asked by defense counsel, just the first and only...."Please tell the jury why you are not guilty."

Of course defense counsel should never ask his client whether he committed the crime charged or not. Frankly, a review of the evidence and his client's story is going to tell him all he needs to know about guilt or innocence. Further, to ask that question is to force, most likely, your client to lie to you. Not a good thing.

The most pressure for a defense attorney, especially if his client is looking at major time, is to believe that your client is, in fact, innocent. That'll cause your attention to focus.

The protection against self-incrimination under American law is found in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Emphasis added to indicate relevant portion.) An accused person thus cannot be required to take the witness stand, nor can refusal to do so be considered evidence of guilt. If however an accused person were to take the stand, and confess the crime in court, that confession would stand as evidence.

No, they can't.

Your suggestion would, then, be that people are never wrongly convicted...

Makes sense to me.

You aren't under oath when you enter your plea. Perjury only applies to lying under oath. Furthermore, there is an iron clad constitutional right against self incrimination, so you are entitled to a trial, which means the Constitution says it's OK if you lie at your arraignment.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

Absolutely right!

Absolutely WRONG. The right against self-incrimination is merely a right to say NOTHING, it is not a right to affirmatively lie.

The reason that entering a plea of "not guilty" is not chargeable as perjury if you're convicted (and found guilty by the jury) is twofold:

1. For the reason you gave above, it is not testimony
2. There is a fundamental distinction between a declation of "not guilty" (which is a legal standard) as opposed to "innocent" (which is a matter of fact). That is why nobody is ever found "innocent". A finding (or pleading for that matter) of "not guilty" is not a finding or delcaration of actual innocence, but merely a finding (or declaration) that there is a belief the state did not (or can/will not) establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

No...ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. The right against self incrimination only applies at trial, not before a grand jury, or at arraignment; Arraignment being the place where you enter your plea.

My reasoning was that because the Constitution doesn't say anything about arraignment, it actually permits you to lie to take advantage of your trial right.

In the future please consider reading my entires more carefully before attempting to chastise me with all capitals.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

The right against self incrimination is a right to say NOTHING, it is not an affirmative right to engage in lying. The plea of "not guilty" is not--under the law--a declaration of innocence, THAT (along with the fact that it is not under oath) is the reason it is not chargeable as perjury. You are making the common mistake of confusing the term "not guilty" which has a precise legal meaning with the idea of innocence. They are not synonymous in a legal proceeding. When you plead "not guilty" even if you committed the crime, you are not actually lying because as a legal term "not guilty" is not the same as 'innocent'. Your basic error is in assuming that a "not guilty" pleading represents a lie in the first place.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

I don't think you understood what I wrote earlier.
I never said the right against self incrimination is an affirmative right to engage in lying, however, that right has nothing whatsoever to do with a pleading of guilty or not guilty. Because the Constitution is completely silent on what conduct is permitted when an accused person enters a plea it neither prohibits nor promotes lying, hence, lying is permissible. Often times defendants not guilty of the crimes with which they have been charged enter guilty pleas because they will get lenient sentences in favor of rolling the dice that lands them symbolically in front of a firing squad.

Thanks for telling me this. I'm a lawyer. All pleading "not guilty" is, is a statement that the accused did not commit the crime s/he is being charged with. Because prosecutors must charge people with specific crimes, if the accused had a different mental state, or was less culpable for an act, a not guilty plea is appropriate. Sometimes however, it is a statement on the part of the defendant that they want to try to get off.

No I'm not, I don't know where you are getting this from.

If you are 100% guilty of the crime with which you have been charged, and you roll the dice (like O.J.) to try to get off the hook, you are indeed lying when you plead not guilty. But you still have the same right to do so as the person who is 100% innocent of that same crime. The not guilty plea for the first person is therefore a lie, while it is the truth for the second.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

Let's start with the later, where do I get the ideas that you are incorrectly equating the legal term "not guilty" as synonymous with "innocent"? Well, from your own words: "All pleading "not guilty" is, is a statement that the accused did not commit the crime s/he is being charged with." This is simply not true legally, for the same reason that jury's render verdicts of guilty, or not guilty as opposed to guilty or innocent. As a legal term, "not guilty" is not synonymous with either "innocent" or "did not commit the crime", it is a declaration concerning the defense (or jury's) view of the case to be or made by the prosecution failing to meet its burden.

Are you still going to try and maintain that you are not equating the legal term "not guilty" with innocent? You just did it again! "not guilty" is a legal standard, not a declaration of innocence under the law. Please explain, with your legal education, why juries do not render rulings of "innocence" rather than "not guilty"?

You may want to send a note to the Massachusetts Bar Association, which has a decidedly different take on the meaning of "not guilty"

Or from your colleagues at the ABA:
Wherever you went to law school, I would consider suing to get my tuition back if I were you (but I wouldn't handle the case myself if I were you...) *grin*

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

You clearly don't understand the words I wrote before, and I really don't want to hold your hand through my explanation. Go back, and read them carefully, it turns out that reading skills actually do pay off in life...

Just because I used the terms "not guilty" and "innocent" in the same sentence, doesn't mean I equated the terms as you incorrectly think.

Let me see if I can explain this one with a hypothetical: Your argument is the equivalent of saying that I'm incoorectly asserting that 2+2=4 and that 4 and x can both be true at the same time (not equal as you insist). Your argument in response to mine is completely unrelated, kind of like an assertion that the real answer to 2+2 is "avocado". I wasn't arguing what the answert to 2+2 was however, merely showing the relationship between 4 and x. You on the other hand are incorrect on multiple bases.

Furthermore, it is clear that you have no idea as to how a criminal proceeding occurs, or the elements of crimes in American states. Since you hold yourself out as this big legal expert, I'll let you figure those thing out for yourself.

You clearly have a history of self righteousness on USPOL and a major chip on your shoulder, so you have to try to take cheap shots at someone you don't even know. That's really mature of you.

I on the other hand was just trying to inform someone who had a legitimate question about legal procceding, when you rudely butted in. I have thus far had an enjoyable fulfilling career as a lawyer, and could really care less about defending my reputation against the false accusations of an internet bully. So keep on telling yourself you're right at all times, I could really care less about conversing with you.

Cheers.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

I clearly have a far better grasp of criminal proceedings and the specific connotations of specific legal terms if you maintain that a declaration of "not guilty" represents a "lie". It is not a lie as it neither as a legal matter asserts innocence of or even that one did not commit the crime they are charged with, but rather an assertion that the state does not have sufficient evidence to establish legal guilt.

But again, take it up with the ABA and the MASSBAR

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane

You're changing what I said. If you actually committed the crime and you plead "not guilty," you are in essence lying, as there is an element of untruthfulness to your pleading. Whether or not this lie has any legal significance is another matter that you brought up, not me. It doesn't assert innocence altogether, but it does claim that you are innocent of the crime with which you are being charged. That means that the defendant is asserting that the government does not have enough evidence to convict you on one of the elements of the crime with which you have been charged. You are correct in stating that the way a person charged with a crime asserts innocence at an arraignment is by uttering the words "not guilty," but this does not take away from my original point. I was using the term "innocence" literally and not in the legal sense, and you failed to grasp the fact that I was doing that and continued to try to pick a fight.

But as I said before, I continue to maintain that the Constitution is silent on an arraignment proceeding and your rights therein , so once again: 1) I'm correct, and 2) you either failed to read or understand what I wrote earlier. The Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination does not attach to arraignment proceedings, and that's why the Court forces you to utter the words "not guilty," whereas any similar compulsion at the actual trial would be unconstitutional.

Have you ever represented defendants in arraignments or any other criminal proceding for that matter? I doubt it.

It's clear to me that you are talking out of your ass and arguing for argument's sake.

Have a nice day.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

There is NOT, because as a legal term, "not guilty" is not synonymous with not having committed the act, or being "innocent" of it, it is a legal distinction where you are asserting that you do not believe you are LEGALLY guilty of the act or that the state has insufficient evidence to establish LEGAL guilt.

The ONLY way that there is "an element of untruthfulness to your pleading" is if you equate the legal standard of "not guilty" with actual innocence. They are not synonymous

Now who can't read what the other wrote. Not only did I NOT state that uttering the words "not guilty" was the way a person charged with a crime asserts "innocence" I said EXACTLY the opposite, that neither the plea of "not guilty" or the verdict of "not guilty" as a legal term has any aspect of actual innocence attached to it, it is a term referring to a specific legal standard and not to actual innocence.

And here again you equate "not guilty" with "innocence" by asserting (by way of agreeing with something you incorrectly thought I had said) that uttering "not guilty" is a way of saying "innocence" (and no matter how you cut it, that means you are treating "not guilty" with "innocent" as I have been saying you have all along despite your denials)

There have been actual examples of people trying to plead "innocent" and not a court in the land will allow them to. They may either plead "guilty" or "not guilty", and the reason the courts do not allow a pleading of innocent is because it is NOT in any way shape or form equivalent in meaning legally to the term "not guilty".

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

----Denny Crane