18 U.S.C. § 1623
False declarations before grand jury or court
2024—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 118–49 inserted “or, if such proceedings are before or ancillary to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review established by section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803), imprisoned not more than ten years” before “, or both”.
1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $10,000”.
1976—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 94–550 inserted “(or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code)” after “under oath”.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,387
cases (82 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: United States v. William P. Reilly, United States of America v. John Patrick Dowd
United States v. William P. Reilly, United States of America v. John Patrick Dowd (1994)
“1 The appellants are John Patrick Dowd, who was convicted of knowingly making a false declaration under oath, 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (a), and William P. Reilly, who was convicted of knowingly making false declarations under oath, 18 U.”
United States v. Steven McLaughlin (2004)
“§§ 431 , 439(b), and perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 . The principal issue presented is whether the District Court erred by instructing the jury that materiality was a question of law, rather than fact, for purposes of 18 U.”
United States v. Robert J. Sherman (1998)
“The district court held that the prosecution improperly charged Sherman un *308 der that general perjury statute rather than the more specific false declarations statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1623 , thereby denying him the ability to assert the recantation defense available under 18 U.”
United States v. Mandujano (1976)
“" Following this appearance, respondent was charged by a grand jury on June 13, 1973, in a two-count indictment with attempting to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U. S. C. §§ 841 (a) (1), 846, and for willfully and *569 knowingly making a false material declaration to the…”
United States v. Guillermo Novo Sampol, United States of America v. Alvin Ross Diaz, United States of America v. Ignacio (1980)
“Guillermo Novo was also charged with two counts (6 and 7) of false declarations to the grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 . His brother, appellant Ignacio Novo Sampol (Ignacio Novo), was charged with two counts (8 and 9) of false declarations to the grand jury, 18 U.”
United States v. Apfelbaum (1980)
“ecause proper invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination allows a witness to remain silent, but not to swear falsely, we hold that neither the statute nor the Fifth Amendment requires that the admissibility of immunized testimony be…”
United States v. Alfred Scivola, Jr. (1985)
“, was convicted of committing perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (a) (1982). The alleged perjury occurred when defendant was testifying in his own behalf while on trial, along with several others, for the offense of receiving stolen property.”
United States v. Joan McKenna (2003)
“§ 1621 ) and making a false declaration under oath ( 18 U.S.C. § 1623 ) for various statements she made during the course of her civil action against the government stemming from a car accident she had with a United States Postal Service (USPS) mail truck.”
United States v. David H. Moore (1980)
“Moore is charged with knowingly making false declarations before a grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (a). On several occasions defense counsel clearly indicated that Moore did not intend to dispute the factual elements of the crime — falsity and knowledge.”
United States v. Thomas (2010)
“OPINION BYBEE, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Tammy Thomas, a former professional cyclist, challenges her convictions, after a jury trial, of three counts of perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (a) and one count of obstruction of justice under 18 U.”
United States v. Miller (2008)
“1999), we heeded this guidance and held that a perjury conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 cannot be predicated on a response to a "fundamentally ambiguous" question.”
United States v. Thomas A. Wilkinson, Iii, United States of America v. Edward M. Conk (1998)
“Count 24 charged Conk with perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 . A jury acquitted Wilkinson and Conk on Counts 10,15, 22, and 23 and convicted them on the remaining counts.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a) — 4 cases
United States v. Dudley Bell (1980)
United States v. Prior (1974)
— 18 U.S.C. § 1623(d) — 1 case
United States v. Prior (1974)
— 18 U.S.C. § 1623(e) — 1 case
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.