Is Perjury a Felony? Charges, Proof and Penalties

Write down the jurisdiction, statute, subsection and offense date from the actual notice or charge. Perjury, false swearing, false declarations, false reporting and subornation are different offenses, even when they involve related statements. A disagreement about what happened is not itself proof of the elements of one of these crimes.

Maryland’s misdemeanor perjury and Alabama’s three degrees show why a nationwide felony answer fails. Georgia and Oregon also give false swearing different grades. Check the version in force when the statement was made and any separately alleged enhancement. A prosecutor’s allegation and a conviction are different stages.

Federal § 1621 covers specified lawful oaths and declarations made under penalty of perjury as permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 1746. Section 1746 allows qualifying signed and dated written declarations to substitute for many sworn writings, but it expressly excludes a deposition, an oath of office and certain oaths before a specified official. It does not turn every informal statement into sworn testimony.

Section 1623 also reaches qualifying declarations, with its separate federal court or grand-jury connection. State rules can define an oath or covered unsworn declaration differently. Keep the complete form, signature page, jurat, instructions and version used; do not assess liability from the presence or absence of a notary stamp alone.

Obtain the transcript or original recording, not just a summary of the disputed answer. Keep the surrounding questions, any definitions supplied, corrections and relevant documents. Under the cited federal perjury statutes, the required knowledge or belief about falsity matters; an error does not automatically establish that mental state.

In Bronston v. United States, the Supreme Court held that § 1621 did not reach the literally true but unresponsive answer at issue, even though it could mislead by implication. The Court also emphasized that truth is evaluated against the question, not by isolating selected words. This is a specific rule about that perjury statute, not permission to deceive or an assurance that other offenses cannot apply.

A materiality inquiry connects the statement to the decision or issue it could affect. The statement need not actually have changed the outcome. In United States v. Gaudin, a federal § 1001 case, the Supreme Court described the agreed natural-tendency-or-capacity-to-influence standard and held that the jury had to decide the materiality element.

Do not assume every offense called false swearing either requires or dispenses with materiality. Arkansas § 5-53-103 includes it; Oregon § 162.075 does not list it. Ask counsel to identify the actual element, the relevant decision-maker and the evidence offered to show that connection. Being unable to prove one crime does not establish immunity from every other false-statement law.

Section 1621 generally authorizes a fine, up to five years, or both, except as otherwise expressly provided by law. Section 1622 separately punishes procuring another person’s perjury with a fine, up to five years, or both. Section 1623 applies to specified false material declarations or information in proceedings before or ancillary to a federal court or grand jury; its scope is not every government interaction.

Section 1623’s ordinary maximum is five years. For proceedings before or ancillary to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or Court of Review, the statute provides up to ten years. The provision also addresses conduct outside the United States, inconsistent declarations, qualifying admissions of falsity and proof. Read the charged provision rather than assigning every federal case the same maximum or defense.

Section 1001 does not require an oath, but it requires the applicable elements, including knowing and willful conduct, materiality and a matter within federal jurisdiction. It covers specified concealment, false statements and false writings. Its ordinary maximum is five years; defined terrorism and listed sex-offense or trafficking matters can carry up to eight years. These are statutory ceilings, not automatic sentences.

Subsection (b) excludes specified submissions by a party or that party’s counsel to a judge or magistrate in the judicial proceeding. Subsection (c) limits legislative-branch coverage to listed administrative matters and authorized investigations or reviews. These exceptions do not create general permission to lie to federal agents, and an exception to § 1001 does not erase possible liability under a different statute.

Section 1623(c) permits a particular inconsistent-declarations charge without identifying which declaration is false when its conditions are met. It requires declarations inconsistent to the point that one is necessarily false, materiality and the specified limitations-period conditions; the statute also provides a belief-in-truth defense. A minor discrepancy between two accounts does not automatically satisfy that rule.

Section 1623(e) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt without a prescribed number of witnesses or type of evidence. Other provisions differ: California § 118(b), Oregon § 162.115 and Nebraska § 28-915(7) restrict conviction based solely on contradiction by one other witness. Identify the charged statute and any applicable inconsistent-statement exception before relying on a witness-count argument.

An admission or retraction can matter, but a later correction is not a universal cure. Federal § 1623(d) requires an admission of falsity in the same continuous court or grand-jury proceeding and addresses the statement’s effect and whether exposure had become manifest. Its application requires review of the governing law and precise timing; do not assume it automatically defeats a § 1621 or § 1001 charge.

State rules also differ. Oregon § 162.105 addresses a complete, voluntary retraction in the same proceeding before submission to the ultimate fact-finder. Nebraska § 28-915(5) and Kentucky § 523.090 have effect-and-exposure timing requirements. Preserve when the statement, any admission and relevant developments occurred, and obtain prompt legal advice about any proposed correction while complying with applicable orders.

Federal § 1622 punishes procuring another person to commit perjury. State statutes may assign different grades or separately cover an unsuccessful effort. Michigan § 750.424 punishes subornation by reference to § 750.423, while § 750.425 separately authorizes up to five years for trying to incite or procure perjury even when no perjury occurs. Maryland § 9-102 expressly labels its subornation offense a misdemeanor.

Keep original messages and instructions relevant to the allegation. Do not alter records or pressure anyone to change testimony. Ask counsel which completed offense, attempt or other charge is actually alleged; there is no single nationwide rule that every form of witness coaching has the same grade as completed perjury.

Distinguish a maximum authorized term, a presumptive range and the actual sentence. California § 126 specifies two, three or four years under § 1170(h), rather than universally state-prison custody. Minnesota § 609.48 has a seven-year limit for specified felony-trial or explosives-application circumstances and five years otherwise. Michigan § 750.422 has a separate capital-trial provision.

Nebraska’s current Class III table provides up to four years’ imprisonment and two years’ post-release supervision, or a fine, or both; it expressly preserves different treatment for offenses before August 30, 2015. South Dakota’s Class 3 maximum is fifteen years, while Class 5 and Class 6 have different limits. Offense dates, enhancements, sentencing rules and separate counts must be checked before treating a table entry as an individual outcome.

Immigration law has its own definitions. Section 1101(a)(43)(S) includes specified offenses relating to perjury or subornation with a term of imprisonment of at least one year, and § 1101(a)(48)(B) includes ordered confinement even when suspended. A state felony or misdemeanor label alone does not decide the immigration analysis. Have qualified counsel examine the precise offense, conviction record and sentence before a plea or other consequential decision; this guide does not determine removal, admissibility or relief.

A conviction can also affect later testimony, but not under an unrestricted any-future-case rule. Federal Evidence Rule 609 addresses dishonesty offenses and also contains older-conviction, qualifying pardon/rehabilitation and juvenile-adjudication provisions. State evidence rules and professional or public-office requirements need their own review. Do not infer automatic license loss or permanent disqualification from the offense name alone.

Gather the charging document or notice, next appearance date, complete transcript or declaration, oath and signature materials, relevant original records, and any alleged contradictory statement. Create a chronology showing what was said, what was known or believed at that time, the relevant decision and any later correction. Keep originals unchanged and distinguish facts you can document from assumptions.

Ask counsel which statute and version applies, what falsity and mental state must be proved, whether materiality and corroboration are required, what correction rules apply and which sentencing or immigration questions need separate advice. Confirm representation in each matter and who will handle the next deadline. If you cannot afford counsel, ask the court about appointment; the federal defender resource explains the federal system, not every state’s eligibility rules.