By Michael Phillips | People’s Law Review
Perjury—knowingly making false statements under oath—remains one of the most serious threats to the integrity of the American legal system. Courts depend on truthful testimony to resolve disputes, determine guilt or innocence, and protect constitutional rights. When witnesses lie under oath—whether in criminal trials, civil litigation, or depositions—the consequences can ripple far beyond a single case.
Over decades, U.S. courts have developed a detailed body of precedent defining what constitutes perjury, what defenses may apply, and how courts should respond when false testimony affects the outcome of a proceeding. Federal law governs many perjury prosecutions, while states—including Maryland—maintain their own statutes and evidentiary rules governing false statements under oath.
This article examines the key precedents shaping modern perjury law, focusing on landmark Supreme Court rulings, federal appellate decisions addressing deposition testimony, and Maryland-specific interpretations. These cases illuminate how courts balance two competing principles: protecting individuals from overly broad prosecution while ensuring accountability for deliberate falsehoods that undermine justice.
The Legal Foundations of Perjury
Under federal law, the primary perjury statute is 18 U.S.C. § 1621, which criminalizes willfully making false statements under oath regarding material matters. A related statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1623, applies specifically to false declarations made before grand juries or courts.
To secure a conviction under federal perjury statutes, prosecutors generally must prove four elements:
- Oath – The statement was made under oath or affirmation.
- Falsity – The statement was objectively false.
- Materiality – The statement had the capacity to influence the proceeding.
- Willfulness – The false statement was made knowingly and intentionally.
Maryland law follows a similar structure under Md. Code Ann., Criminal Law § 9-101, which criminalizes willfully making a false statement under oath in an official proceeding.
However, while these elements appear straightforward, the courts have spent decades defining exactly what each one means. The result is a complex jurisprudence that frequently turns on subtle distinctions between falsehood, ambiguity, and evasion.
Supreme Court Precedents Defining Perjury
Bronston v. United States (1973): The “Literal Truth” Doctrine
One of the most influential perjury decisions in American law is Bronston v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in 1973.
Samuel Bronston, president of a film production company, testified during a bankruptcy proceeding. When asked whether he had a Swiss bank account, Bronston replied that his company had an account in Zurich. While technically true, the answer was misleading because Bronston himself had previously maintained a Swiss account.
Bronston was convicted of perjury, but the Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
The Court held that literally true statements—even if intentionally misleading—do not constitute perjury. Instead, the burden rests on the questioner to ask clear and precise questions.
Justice Burger wrote:
“The perjury statute is not to be loosely construed… Precise questioning is imperative as a predicate for the offense of perjury.”
Impact on Depositions
This ruling created what is commonly known as the “literal truth defense.”
In deposition practice, the Bronston doctrine often arises when witnesses give technically accurate answers that avoid the real issue. For example:
• A witness may answer a narrow version of a question rather than the broader issue being investigated.
• A witness may provide partial answers that create misleading impressions.
Under Bronston, such responses may frustrate the discovery process but generally do not qualify as perjury unless the statement itself is objectively false.
However, the decision also serves as a warning for attorneys conducting depositions: vague questions can destroy potential perjury claims.
Napue v. Illinois (1959): Perjury and Due Process
In Napue v. Illinois, the Supreme Court addressed a different problem: what happens when prosecutors knowingly allow false testimony to stand.
In that case, a key prosecution witness falsely testified that he had received no promises of leniency from the state in exchange for his testimony. The prosecutor knew this statement was false but failed to correct it.
The Supreme Court ruled that this conduct violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court established a crucial standard:
A conviction obtained through testimony known to be false must be set aside if there is any reasonable likelihood the false testimony could have affected the jury’s judgment.
Significance
Napue established the principle that the government cannot knowingly rely on perjured testimony, even if the falsehood relates only to credibility rather than core facts of the case.
While Napue arose in a criminal context, its implications extend to broader litigation ethics. Lawyers have professional obligations to correct false evidence presented to the court, a duty reflected in Rule 3.3 of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
Mooney v. Holohan (1935): The Constitutional Roots
Napue built upon an earlier decision, Mooney v. Holohan, where the Supreme Court first held that convictions obtained through the use of known perjury violate constitutional due process.
The Court explained that the deliberate use of false evidence by the state represents a corruption of the judicial process itself.
Mooney therefore established the constitutional principle that courts cannot permit verdicts obtained through fraudulent testimony.
United States v. Dunnigan (1993): Sentencing Consequences
Perjury does not always result in separate criminal charges. In United States v. Dunnigan, the Supreme Court addressed whether courts may enhance a criminal defendant’s sentence when the defendant commits perjury during trial testimony.
The Court upheld such enhancements, ruling that judges may increase sentences if they find that a defendant:
• testified falsely
• about a material matter
• with willful intent to deceive
This ruling reinforced that false testimony itself can carry legal consequences even within the same case.
Federal Appellate Decisions on Perjury in Civil Depositions
Depositions play a central role in modern civil litigation. Because they occur under oath, false deposition testimony can constitute perjury.
Federal appellate courts have expanded the Supreme Court’s framework to address this context.
United States v. Gaudin (1995): Materiality as a Jury Question
In United States v. Gaudin, the Supreme Court clarified that materiality in perjury cases must be decided by a jury, not solely by a judge.
Materiality asks whether the false statement had the potential to influence the proceeding. In deposition contexts, this can include statements that affect:
• discovery disputes
• summary judgment decisions
• credibility assessments
By requiring juries to determine materiality, Gaudin strengthened procedural protections for defendants while preserving the ability to prosecute serious falsehoods.
United States v. Richardson (2005): False Deposition Testimony
The First Circuit’s decision in United States v. Richardson addressed perjury arising from deposition testimony.
The court held that a witness can commit perjury in a deposition if:
• the testimony is objectively false
• the witness knows it is false
• the statement is material to the proceeding
Importantly, the court noted that patterns of evasive testimony—such as repeated “I don’t recall” responses—may support perjury charges if evidence shows the witness actually remembered the events in question.
Hub v. Sun Valley Company (1982): Using Deposition Testimony Across Cases
In Hub v. Sun Valley Company, the Ninth Circuit addressed the admissibility of deposition testimony from earlier proceedings.
The court ruled that deposition testimony may be used in subsequent litigation when:
• the parties are substantially similar
• the issues are substantially similar
This ruling becomes particularly relevant when inconsistent deposition testimony appears across multiple proceedings, potentially raising questions about credibility or perjury.
Attorney-Specific Accountability for False Testimony
Attorneys occupy a unique position in the legal system. Because they are officers of the court, false statements under oath can lead not only to criminal consequences but also to professional discipline.
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Mixter (2015)
In this Maryland disciplinary case, an attorney was disbarred after making false statements in court filings and depositions.
The court concluded that the attorney violated:
• Rule 3.3 – Candor Toward the Tribunal
• Rule 8.4 – Misconduct
The decision emphasized that lawyers who knowingly make false statements in litigation undermine the integrity of the legal profession itself.
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Jackson (2022)
In a more recent case, the Maryland Court of Appeals again imposed disbarment for an attorney who made knowingly false statements in proceedings related to a federal securities matter.
The case reinforced Maryland’s strict stance: intentional false testimony by attorneys often results in the most severe professional sanctions.
Maryland’s Unique Approach to Perjury
Maryland law retains an evidentiary rule that differs from federal practice.
The Two-Witness Rule
Maryland continues to apply the historic “two-witness rule.”
Under this doctrine, perjury cannot be proven solely through one person’s testimony contradicting another’s. Instead, the prosecution must present:
• two witnesses, or
• one witness plus corroborating evidence
This rule reflects a longstanding concern about the dangers of perjury prosecutions based solely on conflicting testimony.
O’Sullivan v. State (2021)
The Maryland Court of Appeals reaffirmed the two-witness rule in O’Sullivan v. State, a case involving allegations of police perjury.
The court declined to eliminate the rule, though it acknowledged that modern forms of corroboration—such as documents, recordings, or forensic evidence—can satisfy the requirement.
This decision ensures that Maryland perjury prosecutions must meet a high evidentiary threshold.
McGhie v. State (2016): False Expert Testimony
Another significant Maryland case is McGhie v. State, which involved testimony from a firearms expert whose credentials were later revealed to be fabricated.
The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that convictions relying on such testimony must be reversed if there is a reasonable likelihood the false testimony influenced the jury.
This standard mirrors the constitutional rule articulated in Napue v. Illinois.
The McGhie decision triggered widespread review of cases involving the expert witness in question and illustrates how perjury can affect dozens or even hundreds of cases simultaneously.
Yearby v. State (2010)
In Yearby v. State, Maryland courts reaffirmed the Napue standard in the state context.
The court held that when prosecutors fail to correct false testimony, a conviction must be overturned if the false evidence could reasonably have influenced the jury’s verdict.
This case reinforces the obligation of government actors to ensure that testimony presented to courts is truthful.
Perjury in Modern Civil Litigation
While perjury prosecutions are relatively rare, false testimony still carries serious consequences in civil litigation.
Courts may respond to false deposition testimony through:
• sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37
• dismissal of claims or defenses
• referral for criminal prosecution
• professional discipline for attorneys
In family law and custody litigation, false testimony can have particularly profound consequences, as courts often rely heavily on witness credibility when determining the best interests of a child.
The Continuing Challenge
The precedents discussed above reflect an ongoing tension in American law.
On one hand, courts must protect witnesses from unfair prosecution based on ambiguous questioning or minor inconsistencies.
On the other hand, the legal system cannot function if witnesses believe they can lie under oath without consequence.
Supreme Court decisions like Bronston protect against overly aggressive prosecutions. Meanwhile, cases such as Napue, McGhie, and Yearby demonstrate that courts will intervene when false testimony threatens the fairness of judicial proceedings.
Conclusion
Perjury law sits at the intersection of criminal justice, civil litigation, and professional ethics. The precedents established by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, and Maryland’s highest courts create a framework that governs how false testimony is evaluated and punished.
Together, these rulings establish several enduring principles:
• Literally true statements cannot constitute perjury.
• Knowingly false testimony that affects a case violates due process.
• Materiality must often be decided by juries.
• Attorneys face heightened discipline for false statements.
• Maryland requires corroborating evidence through the two-witness rule.
In an era when litigation increasingly relies on sworn depositions and complex evidentiary records, these doctrines remain critical safeguards.
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the legal system depends on one foundational assumption: that testimony given under oath is truthful. When that assumption breaks down, the consequences can extend far beyond a single case—undermining public confidence in the courts themselves.
The People's Law Review 