I was having a thought last night, and was wondering if any members of the Forum who may have some expertise in law can provide an answer. If a person is charged with a crime and pleads "not guilty", then is found guilty at trial; can that person then be charged also with perjury for having lied to the Court that they were "not guilty" when in fact they knew that they were?

No, it doesn't work that way.
You have a right to plead your case, which would be meaningless if you could not plead not guilty.

__________________
“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine.”

Senator Thad Cochran, Mississippi (R)
on McCain

“I decided I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.”
Senator Pete Domenici, New Mexico (R)
on McCain

“My anger did not help my campaign ... People don’t like angry candidates very much.”

McCain on McCain

I'm not sure, but from what I recall, perjury is never applied to people engaging in their own defense. I think it only applies to witness testimony.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

As far as I know, the Fifth Admendment protects you from self imcrimination. So, pleading not guilty you should be protected, irrespective of guilt.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I pretty much figured that would be the case, but it certainly raises an interesting query when it basically means that under certain circumstances (ie your defence) a person is allowed to lie under oath. Anyway, it was just a random thought I had

The other part is that you don't make your plea under oath.

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

That is true; but what in the instance when a person takes the stand and presents a version of events that simply did not happen?

Absolutely not.

Every person has a right to a trial on a criminal charge and require, if they so choose, the government to plead and prove each element of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict them of each crime charged.

The plea of 'not guilty' doesn't even mean stating factual innocence although it may seem so literally speaking. It's actually customary for all charges to be entered with that plea--and for courts to refuse to accept a guilty plea--until the court can be assured than any guilty pleas are entered in a knowing, voluuntary and intelligent manner by defendants and that the defendants had their trial rights made available to them and had the opportunity to exercise them should they choose to do so.

It is common practice, though, for experienced counsellors (or at least those who know their stuff) to simply have client 'stand mute' with respect to entering a plea, in which case the court will automatically enter a plea of not guilty.

The reason for that is that entering a not guilty plea with counsel can be shown as a 'silent admission' of certain things.

For example, if insanity or diminished capacity might ever be a defence, entering a not guilty plea in front of a court--especially with counsel present--can be shown as an act showing the defendant's lucidity. If you ever saw the movie Primal Fear, the defence counsel, played by Richard Gere, took the Fifth Amendment with his client's plea in which case the court entered a plea of not guilty. In reality, you never have to go that far because standing mute will have the same effect.

By entering an actual formal not guilty plea, it can also be construed that the defendant is silently admitting to the correctness of the proceedings against him or her until that point. By standing mute, the defendant is better ensured to remain free to attack all previous proceedings that he or she may wish to challenge were defective (such as preliminary arraignment on charges, preliminary hearings on the charges, bail, etc).

Each jurisdiction may have different rules precluding or allowing 'silent admissions' by a formal not guilty plea, but the best practice is to simply stand mute anyway.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

A very important point.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

I think if they later admit to it that they lied under oath that they then can be charged with Perjury (or at least the perjury charged of what they said under investigation) but so long as they keep protesting their innocence they should be fine...i guess it could get complicated if someone later says they are in fact guilty, repented for their crimesbut then they then get slapped with perjury and Obstruction of justice charges...or i dunno, they may be protected by not being double jeapordied for the same crime.

Fascinating.

Thanks for the insight. I learned something today!

__________________
So many cowards.

You know who you are.

A testifying defendant can be charged and potentially convicted of perjury. The right to testify in the US Constitution does not protect perjury and such an act can be--and is--criminalised. Sentencing guidelines can also permit the court to issue an enhancement of sentence if the court finds the convicted defendant's testimony constituted perjury. Google United States v. Dunnigan as SCOTUS precedent for that.

Whilst occasionally such a case is easily shown, in the vast majority of cases it is often difficult to prove perjury. All criminal charges need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including perjury. Simply because a judge or jury convicted someone despite a defendant testifying doesn't mean they were certain the defendant was committing perjury. Testimony can be credited or discredited for a wide number of non-perjury reasons (belief that the defendant was mistaken, intoxicated recollection, perceived insufficient basis for the defendant's belief, etc). Testimony can also be credited or discredited on hunches, perceived bias, certitute, details, etc, of one versus another but not to the extent they can be absolutely certain of anyone's perjury. That makes perjury prosecutions difficult. Judges who feel perjury occurred and want to make it a sentencing enhancement also have to have sufficient evidence to cite to make the sentencing enhancement stick on appeal. That likewise is difficult.

Given the difficulties of showing certain perjury in most cases, and also that the defendant is also already facing a sentence in the primary case, most times the matter is not prosecuted or factored into a sentence. Most prosecutors and courts also feel satisfied that the pound of flesh will be gotten anyway given the defendant was convicted and will be sentenced in the primary case and, insofar as sentencing enhancements, don't want to create any extra appellate issues on the sentence.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

Thanks O'Sullivan. You've provided a great explanation for both instances.

You both are welcome.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

A couple of quick points:

1. A pleading is not testimony, nor is it under oath.
2. "Not Guilty" is a legal distinction, not a factual one. Technically it is NOT (either in pleading or in verdict) an affirmative finding of innocence, it is merely an acknowledgment or belief that the LEGAL requirements to reach a finding of guilty are not, or were not present.
3. O'Sullivan Bere is absolutely correct, the right to not incriminate oneself only goes to the right to maintain silent, it is not a right to say anything false in your own defense once you chose to testify (it is also the reason that once you testify, you cannot avoid cross-examination questions by pleading the fifth)

__________________
"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