18 U.S.C. § 1621

Perjury generally

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, § 1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, § 2, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 231, 629 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 125, 35 Stat. 1111; June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XI, § 19, 40 Stat. 230).

Words “except as otherwise expressly provided by law” were inserted to avoid conflict with perjury provisions in other titles where the punishment and application vary.

More than 25 additional provisions are in the code. For construction and application of several such sections, see Behrle v. United States (App. D.C. 1938, 100 F. 2d 714), United States v. Hammer (D.C.N.Y., 1924, 299 F. 1011, affirmed, 6 F. 2d 786), Rosenthal v. United States (1918, 248 F. 684, 160 C.C.A. 584), cf. Epstein v. United States (1912, 196 F. 354, 116 C.C.A. 174, certiorari denied 32 S. Ct. 527, 223 U.S. 731, 56 L. ed. 634).

Mandatory punishment provisions were rephrased in the alternative.

Minor verbal changes were made.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $2,000” in concluding provisions.

1976—Pub. L. 94–550 divided existing provisions into a single introductory word “Whoever”, par. (1), and closing provisions following par. (2), and added par. (2).

1964—Pub. L. 88–619 inserted at end “This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,117 cases (170 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: United States v. Mohammed Jabateh

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Mohammed Jabateh (2020) ca3 · cites it 13× “Jabateh also argues, for the first time, that the Government improperly charged him with making false oral statements during an interview with an immigration officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 and 18 U.S.C. § 1546 (a).”

Ho Yim v. William Barr (2020) ca9 · cites it 14× “” Before December 29, 2016, the BIA concluded that the federal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621 , established the generic definition of “perjury,” as used in 8 U.”

United States v. Robert J. Sherman (1998) ca3 · cites it 15× “The government appeals the order of the District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing a fivecount indictment against Robert Sherman in which he was charged with committing perjury before a federal grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 . The district…”

United States v. Joan McKenna (2003) ca9 · cites it 4× “GOODWIN, Circuit Judge: Joan McKenna appeals her convictions of perjury ( 18 U.S.C. § 1621 ) and making a false declaration under oath ( 18 U.”

United States v. Wallace (2010) ca6 · cites it 4× “Defendant Barbara Wallace appeals her conviction and sentence following her conviction for perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 , conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute oxycodone (OxyContin) in violation of 21 U.”

United States v. Miller (2008) ca3 · cites it 4× “2d 445 (1993), Justice Kennedy stated that: "In determining what constitutes perjury, we rely upon the definition that has gained general acceptance and common understanding under the federal criminal perjury statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1621 ." 507 U.S. at 94 , 113 S.”

United States v. Williams (2008) scotus · cites it 2× “Thus, the Eleventh Circuit's contention that § 2252A(a)(3)(B) gives law enforcement officials "virtually unfettered discretion" has no merit. No more here than in the case of laws against fraud, conspiracy, or solicitation.”

United States v. Wells (1997) scotus · cites it 4× “But Congress did not codify the crime of perjury or comparable common-law crimes in § 1014; as we discuss next, it simply consolidated 13 statutory provisions relating to financial institutions, and, in fact, it enacted a separate general perjury provision at 18 U. S. C. § 1621…”

United States v. Barry Bonds (2015) ca9 · cites it 14× “See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 , 1623. 7 A failure to answer a question or a material evasion that the witness refuses to correct during in-court testimony constitutes contempt.”

St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks (1993) scotus · cites it 2× “In all of those cases, as under the McDonnell Douglas framework, perjury may purchase the defendant a chance at the factfinderthough there, as here, it also carries substantial risks, see Rules 11 and 56(g); 18 U. S. C. § 1621 . The dissent repeatedly raises a procedural…”

Rickey I. Kanter v. William P. Barr (2019) ca7 · cites it 2× “§ 676 (violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act in certain ways); 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (committing perjury); Mass.”

United States v. Alvarez (2012) scotus · cites it 2× “, 18 U. S. C. §1621 . Statutes forbidding lying to a government official (not under oath) are typically limited to circumstances where a lie is likely to work particular and specific harm by interfering with the functioning of a government department, and those statutes also…”

Show all 1,117 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.