Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WA Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Perjury Law
MyNorthwest.com ^ | Yesterday | AP

Posted on 03/22/2008 11:02:25 AM PDT by Clint Williams

The Washington Supreme Court has struck down part of the state's perjury law...

(Excerpt) Read more at mynorthwest.com ...


TOPICS: US: Washington
KEYWORDS: perjury; ruling

1 posted on 03/22/2008 11:02:25 AM PDT by Clint Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libertina; American in Israel; Gator113; Horusra; rahbert; luckymom; Paperdoll; gandalftb; ...
The Washington Supreme Court has struck down part of the state's perjury law on Thursday. The high court says that juries, not judges, are responsible for determining whether a lie told under oath is important to a case.

The ruling was in the case of Dustin Gene Abrams, charged in Grant County with first-degree robbery and first-degree murder. At a pretrial hearing, Abrams testified that he never signed a confession and that he had been assaulted by a corrections officer; that got him charged with first-degree perjury, too.

The perjury law says that whether a false statement was ``material'' - that is, whether it could have affected the outcome of a proceeding - must be determined by a judge. But the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that juries must rule on all elements of a crime, Justice James Johnson wrote in the lead opinion.

Abrams sought to have the perjury charges against him dismissed on the grounds that the state law was unconstitutional, and the trial court agreed.

(test post showed excerpting was not required)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Say WA? Evergreen State ping

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.

Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.

2 posted on 03/22/2008 11:12:08 AM PDT by sionnsar (trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Sounds reasonable. I think there’s too much withheld from juries as it is.


3 posted on 03/22/2008 11:17:56 AM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob

It doesn’t make sense. Perjury, ie., lying under oath, is perjury whether or not it is material to a separate case. Sure, a jury should determine if the perjury is indeed material to the case, but why should lying under oath EVER be okay?


4 posted on 03/22/2008 11:22:37 AM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

AMEN! Perjury is perjury.


5 posted on 03/22/2008 1:45:26 PM PDT by Just Lori (There is nothing democrat-"ic" about democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I don’t think it should ever be allowed, also. My point that I didn’t make well, is openness and the fact some judges withhold info juries need to see the big picture. A jury should be able to hear the fact the perp has lied. I assumed that is what the bill meant.


6 posted on 03/22/2008 5:23:54 PM PDT by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson