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 ...
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)

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.
Sounds reasonable. I think there’s too much withheld from juries as it is.
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?
AMEN! Perjury is perjury.
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.
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.