What happened to the first and fifth ammendments? Is the penalty for perjury now death?
441652
You should read the constitution before you ask constitutional questions
893477
That makes no sense...of course not - especially if you're court ordered.\n\n"The 5th" only protects the accused.\nIf you're a witness - you're not accused....yet
137981
No.  Just as you cannot prosecute someone for doing something that was legal at the time the act was committed but no longer legal, you cannot exonerate someone for breaking what was a law at the time the criminal act was committed.  Look at it this way, it's not what they did that was wrong, it was that they disobeyed what was written as law.
510126
Then you were in Custodial Interrogation and you will have afforded the Constitutional rights to have counsel present while being questioned. See 5th Amendment U.S. Constitution.\nIt is considered a formal hearing. If they question you after you ask for counsel to be present then that evidence ( especially against you ) can be suppressed. Remember not to rant or rave but wait for your counsel to get thier.\nJohn\nCriminal Justice Student
806517
Well put. The Supreme Court interprets the first ammendment WRONG.
1031481
It depends on the state.; you can either access the state codes through the internet (Anderson's) or a local library. Some offenses have no statute of repose or statute of limitations on prosecution, such as murder. If you cannot find the information you're seeking, I would suggest contacting a law school nearby to see if they have a legal clinic to help you with the research.
952916
The first lawsuit filed in 2000 was by the republicans, to stop the recount.  But nice try at humor.\n\n\nAND GOOD PREDICTION ON THE ELECTION.  YOU NAILED THAT SUCKER.
958932
In honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
855415
I'm not a lawyer either, but it appears that the provision was repealed in 1971 (165.140 [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]). I was going to recommend going to a law library and see if the law librarian would be able to point you to where the old ORS books are stored. If it was recent enough, they might even have them. But I doubt that they would for something this old. That said, the law librarian should be able to tell you how to look up the case that repealed the statute - and I would guess it would have the original text of the law.\n\nHope this helps!
834681
Unfortunately, Nebraska (lived there for 6 years) is behind the times.  You cannot find out information online.  The best thing to do is to call the district attorney's office (or if you know who your friends lawyer is call them) and ask questions.  I had to do this for my stepson.\n\nGood luck
797410
Too many issues to open that can of worms. However, there are some loopholes in the current system, for example it may be possible to bring different charges for the same crime like manslaughter instead of murder, depends on your luck with the judge since much of law today is judicial discretion & bench precedent. It a person gets off and then confesses (on tape, provable), if that person testified at the trial and said they were innocent, s/he could be charged with perjury among other things. It would be very foolish to confess though, because even if the person gets off legally, there are still civil lawsuits and consequences that are not so easily dismissed.
610326
Judges are not allowed to change the law.  They must hold to the laws as they were at the time.  Therefore, if there is a statute of limitations of 6 years, and this has past, then there is no legal standing for anyone to come after you for money.
504545
The question isn't worded right.\n\nThe elements of the lie, an omission, and a falsehood are NOT jointly enough to constitute perjury.\n\nThe lies, omissions, and falsehoods must, themselves, be about a CRIMINAL MATTER.  Heavy petting, frottage and oral sexual contact are not criminal activities in the District of Columbia.  They are unethical for federal employees, but White House employees are exempt.  Therefore, Clinton did not PERJURE himself because he was covering up grubby sexual acts which were themselves LEGAL in that locality.\n\nAnd Clinton, himself a lawyer, knew all this when he was lying under oath.
362624
Each state has its own set of sentencing guidelines.\n\nAs to the other apart of your statement, the charge would stick, as long as the person lives...additional charges would be filed if should they die as a result of the action. And NO, the judge isn't going to lenient because you're a lousy shot!
895012
Most of the grounds are gone.\nHowever he can still appeal based on, for example, duress in obtaining the plea bargain.
755872
It remains to be seen what the consequences of the semi-admission will be. OJ could be tried again in the Federal, but not the state courts ("dual sovereign rule"). But it isn't obvious that he committed any federally-cognizable offense: typically a second, federal trial after a failed state prosecution is on the basis of a violation of civil rights. Federal homicides usually concern the kiling of a federal officer, or a kiling on a federal establishment or protected reservation.\n\nA California prosecution for perjury is out because (to my recollection) OJ never took the stand.\n\nThe fact is that a substantial proportion of crimes -- even murders -- are never prosecuted, or never successfully prosecuted.
138395
Perjury in a court of law basically means you lied while being questioned under oath in a court of law. When taking the stand to give testimony you swear you will tell the truth and nothing but, however, if while testifying you lie,you have committed perjury.\n\nYou can also committ perjury by signing a legal document that ask you to tell the truth and not give false info and you have lied, yet you still sign.(ex: tax forms, affidavits)