And if so, would they get more prison time / a larger fine?
Think of a guilty/not guilty plea as the defense declaring their stance rather than literally saying “I did this” or “I did not do this”. After all there are circumstances in which a person absolutely did the thing they’re accused of but are not actually guilty (self defense) or extenuating circumstances need to be considered (insanity plea).
Perjury requires that a person lied under oath in a specific, provable way. That’s why defense attorneys will sometimes have their client not take the stand or assert their fifth amendment rights in response to certain questions. Making the prosecution prove that the defendant did a thing is fine. Saying “I didn’t do thing X at all” and then having evidence being presented that you did is no bueno.
TL;DR: A not guilty plea basically says “prove it”. Perjury is lying about specifics and it can later be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied about those details.
Plus prosecutors don’t want to hold a separate trial (because that is what is required to charge perjury) if they already proved what they wanted to.
They will (likely) only charge perjury if you fuck up a third party’s trial or if your lies are provable and got you off the hook otherwise.
Simple answer is no. You have a constitutional right to say not guilty because it’s innocent until proven guilty.
In the US. Your milage may vary in other countries.
It will vary in the US, too.
Remember this only applies in court. On the streets, it’s guilty until shot.
A plea is not a testimony, and the defendant is not under oath at that point, so a not guilty plea is not seen as perjury. However, the defendant rejects any deals by pleading not guilty, so it might result in a more severe sentence.
(edit) There is also an option of “standing silent”, or refusing to plead, in which case the judge can enter a plea of not guilty on the defendant’s behalf, so that the rest of the trial can happen. Turning that “not guilty” plea into a perjury charge would be a pretty gross 1A violation.
However, the defendant rejects any deals by pleading not guilty, so it might result in a more severe sentence.
A bit tangential, but: In any criminal case (goes for civil, too, but with different terminology), the accused should always plead “not guilty” at arraignment. You can change your not guilty plea to guilty later on, if the prosecution offers a plea deal, or if some other set of circumstances make that plea your best choice. If and when you plead guilty, that’s it, all over, move on to sentencing.
Further down this rabbit trail, if you arrange it with the prosecution, you can plead “no contest,” which is a guilty plea that cannot be used against you in a later civil case. The plea itself does not make you civilly liable. In 47 states (exceptions: Indiana, New Jersey, and Michigan), you can submit an Alford plea. This plea is “I still proclaim innocence, but I agree that the State case is strong enough to convict me, and I do not have a sufficient defense.” Such a plea is allowed when the plea deal offers an escape from a more severe sentence, as in life in prison vs. capital punishment, making the plea “in the best interest” of the accused.
This plea is “I still proclaim innocence, but I agree that the State case is strong enough to convict me, and I do not have a sufficient defense.” Such a plea is allowed when the plea deal offers an escape from a more severe sentence, as in life in prison vs. capital punishment, making the plea “in the best interest” of the accused.
This sounds a lot like a “the state violated my right to a fair trial but I have no recourse” plea.
Not necessarily. The circumstances of the crime could mean you don’t have a viable defense even if innocent.
In the US and many other Western nations, the law operates on the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty¹. To enter a plea as a defendant is to formally acknowledge charges filed in a court of law. A guilty plea simply indicates the defendant will not contest the charges, and the trial proceeds more or less directly to final adjudication and sentencing. Sometimes this is done as part of a plea deal where the prosecution and defense agree to a set of lesser charges, with reduced reduced jail times and/or larger fines. The defendant may noy even have committed any of the offences charged, but agrees to the to lesser charges to avoid time, expense or reputational harm of a lengthy trial.
A plea of not guilty simply indicates the defendant intends to challenge some or all of the charges, and is asserting their right to the presumption of innocence while the defense team reviews prosecutor’s inculpatory evidence, prepares counterarguments and gathers exculpatory evidence.
The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until a guilty verdict is reached on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. Additional charges of perjury would only apply where evidence is entered in bad faith, or if the defendant were to make false statements under oath.
- In theory. In practice, we all know people get railroaded for any number of reasons, but that’s beside the point.
In Hungary, no. Because you only commit perjury if you are under oath on the stand as a witness. You are not under oath simply defending yourself. As my lawyer said to me once: you can say or lie literally anything you just want.
This is common in European countries, but in the US and other common law countries, defendants who choose to testify are under oath like any other witness.
If you testify. But you can always say no to that, do I know it right?
Yes
Same process in the United States
Another thing to consider is just because someone says something that is not true based on reality, doesn’t mean they lied. People’s memories are terrible and easily manipulated.
This seems a very regional question.
No.
No
If we assume US centrism here since you didn’t specify country then practically you do get punished for pleasing not guilty. Not because it’s illegal to lie but because if you plead guilty you usually get a shorter sentence.
I love this question.
Also it makes me so angry when serial killers still try to deny their murders years after the fact. The only thing worse than a killer is a lying killer.
Ah, yes, but what about a lying killer who also talks with their mouth full?
Truly diabolical.
speaking with a mouthful of Mike: “What? No. I didn’t kill and then eat Mike.”
I was watching a video recently where a guy denied eating someone so they settled it by going in their stomach, finding his lunch, and DNA testing it. It was indeed the dead guy.
Stop making me laugh so hard I’m gonna wake up my kid 😂
