U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 79— PERJURY

18 U.S.C. § 1623

False declarations before grand jury or court

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years 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, or both.(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title IV, § 401(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 932; amended Pub. L. 94–550, § 6, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2535; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 118–49, § 13(d), Apr. 20, 2024, 138 Stat. 882.)Editorial NotesAmendments

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 Am. v. John Patrick Dowd, 33 F.3d 1396 (3d Cir. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. William P. Reilly, United States of Am. v. John Patrick Dowd, 33 F.3d 1396 (3d Cir. 1994). · cites it 14× “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, 386 F.3d 547 (3d Cir. 2004). · cites it 9× “§§ 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, 150 F.3d 306 (3d Cir. 1998). · cites it 20× “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, 425 U.S. 564 (1976). · cites it 6× “" 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 Am. v. Alvin Ross Diaz, United States of Am. v. Ignacio Novo Sampol, 636 F.2d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 7× “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, 445 U.S. 115 (1980). · cites it 6× “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., 766 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1985). · cites it 10× “, 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, 327 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “§ 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, 613 F.2d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 1980). · cites it 8× “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, 612 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 7× “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, 527 F.3d 54 (3d Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “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 Am. v. Edward M. Conk, 137 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 1998). · cites it 8× “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.”
Show all 1,387 citing cases →
18 U.S.C. § 1623(a): 4 cases
United States v. Dudley Bell, 623 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980).
United States v. Thomas Fornaro, 894 F.2d 508 (2d Cir. 1990).
United States v. Prior, 381 F. Supp. 870 (M.D. Fla. 1974).
United States v. Paul Lester Castner (4th Cir. 2000).
18 U.S.C. § 1623(d): 1 case
United States v. Prior, 381 F. Supp. 870 (M.D. Fla. 1974).
18 U.S.C. § 1623(e): 1 case
United States v. Wayne B. Clizer, 464 F.2d 121 (9th Cir. 1972).
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.