Word: oaths
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Helmut Schmidt must attempt to pull the Social Democrats out of their tailspin after he takes the oath of Chancellor next week. He has his task well cut out for him. The urgent problems that depressed Brandt have not gone away. Moreover, a public opinion poll released last week showed that voter preference for the S.P.D. is at an all-time low of 21%; only 7% favor the Free Democrats, while 62% support the Christian Democrats. Schmidt and the Social Democrats are lucky that they do not have to face another national election until the fall...
...Haven't you testified falsely under oath for the last two days...
...uses the term "false declarations" rather than perjury and applies only to grand jury and other court-related proceedings. The original statute, which remains on the books, sweeps more broadly to include lying under oath during any federal proceeding. Each provides the same five-year maximum sentence. But whenever they have had the opportunity, the Watergate prosecutors have chosen to make use of the new charge of false declaration. Reason: Nixon's law offers substantial advntantages to the prosecution...
...statements, it need no longer prove which one was false. Gone too is the stiff requirement that the testimony of a single witness who contradicts a defendant must be backed by a second witness or by other evidence. As a result, "a man can be convicted merely on the oath of another man," says Boston Defense Lawyer Paul T. Smith. "That's tragic. For instance [Presidential Lawyer Herbert] Kalmbach has tes tified in direct contradiction to [Bebe] Rebozo on the disposition of that $100,000 Hughes donation. One of them is lying. Basically, the prosecutor can simply decide which...
...lied about was significant to the case. Further, the proof must be exceptionally precise. Last year the Supreme Court threw out the perjury conviction of Movie Producer Samuel Bronston. Asked by a creditor's lawyer if he had ever had a Swiss bank account, Bronston answered under oath: "The company had an account there." Though the answer seemed to imply-falsely-that Bronston himself had not had an account, the court held that "a wily witness" may escape "so long as the witness speaks the literal truth...