The prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case was quoted as saying Smollett
wasn't likely to face perjury charges because it wasn't a common practice in such cases. But in this case Smollett voluntarily chose to testify and
spent several hours on the stand maintaining his story that he had nothing
to do with planning the attack on him, a story which the jury effectively decided was a lie. So why not charge him with perjury?

More generally, in any case where a defendant is found guilty of a crime involving the filing of a false or misleading police report after that defendant has essentially repeated the components of the report in sworn testimony - isn't that the essence of perjury?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:

The prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case was quoted as saying Smollett >wasn't likely to face perjury charges because it wasn't a common practice in >such cases. But in this case Smollett voluntarily chose to testify and
spent several hours on the stand maintaining his story that he had nothing
to do with planning the attack on him, a story which the jury effectively >decided was a lie. So why not charge him with perjury?

Prosecutors have discretion about what cases to take. In this case it he's already been convicted of felonies that can put him in jail for up to
15 years and fine him $25K. What would be the point of yet another trial?

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

The prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case was quoted as saying
Smollett wasn't likely to face perjury charges because it wasn't a
common practice in such cases. But in this case Smollett
voluntarily chose to testify and spent several hours on the stand
maintaining his story that he had nothing to do with planning the
attack on him, a story which the jury effectively decided was a
lie. So why not charge him with perjury?

Perhaps they figured the punishment he got was enough.

Reminds me of a case some years ago, where a person was put on the
witness stand, under oath. The prosecutor read the man's written
statement and asked, "is that your statement?" To which the man
answered, "yes." The statement was filled with lies. He was
prosecuted for perjury. But the judge said he answered truthfully -
that was his statement. The prosecutor forgot to ask him if it was
true.

More generally, in any case where a defendant is found guilty of a
crime involving the filing of a false or misleading police report
after that defendant has essentially repeated the components of
the report in sworn testimony - isn't that the essence of perjury?

It's not perjury per se because it's not under oath. In many places
lying to the police is a crime, and it's similar but not exactly the
same.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsADFD51B193889spamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

The prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case was quoted as saying
Smollett wasn't likely to face perjury charges because it wasn't a
common practice in such cases. But in this case Smollett
voluntarily chose to testify and spent several hours on the stand
maintaining his story that he had nothing to do with planning the
attack on him, a story which the jury effectively decided was a
lie. So why not charge him with perjury?

Perhaps they figured the punishment he got was enough.

Reminds me of a case some years ago, where a person was put on the
witness stand, under oath. The prosecutor read the man's written
statement and asked, "is that your statement?" To which the man
answered, "yes." The statement was filled with lies. He was
prosecuted for perjury. But the judge said he answered truthfully -
that was his statement. The prosecutor forgot to ask him if it was
true.

More generally, in any case where a defendant is found guilty of a
crime involving the filing of a false or misleading police report
after that defendant has essentially repeated the components of
the report in sworn testimony - isn't that the essence of perjury?

It's not perjury per se because it's not under oath. In many places
lying to the police is a crime, and it's similar but not exactly the
same.

But when he repeats the story in court, now he IS under oath, and if the
jury is essentially concluding he lied in his under-oath testimony, that's where I'm thinking the perjury would come in.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John Levine" wrote in message ne ws:sp2u0e$2vfa$1@gal.iecc.com...

According to Rick <rick@nospam.com>:

The prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case was quoted as saying Smollett >>wasn't likely to face perjury charges because it wasn't a common practice >>in
such cases. But in this case Smollett voluntarily chose to testify and >>spent several hours on the stand maintaining his story that he had nothing >>to do with planning the attack on him, a story which the jury effectively >>decided was a lie. So why not charge him with perjury?

Prosecutors have discretion about what cases to take. In this case it he's >already been convicted of felonies that can put him in jail for up to
15 years and fine him $25K. What would be the point of yet another trial?

If he actually gets 15 years, then sure. But there was a lot of speculation going in that he would get a light or suspended sentence. He apparently
has no previous record, and commentators had said a lower profile defendant would typically serve little or no time. If he actually gets 15 years or
even five years, then I'd agree a perjury charge on top of that would be
piling on.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)