UCMJ Article False Official Statements; False Swearing The MCM states under Article False Official Statements; False Swearing any service member may be prosecuted for false official statements if they: sign any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false; or make any other false official statement knowing it to be false. A service member may be prosecuted under Article for false swearing if they: take an oath that is administered in a matter in which such oath is required or authorized by law; and is administered by a person with authority to do so; and upon such oath, makes or subscribes to a statement; if the statement is false and at the time of taking the oath, the person does not believe the statement to be true. In order to be convicted for false official statements, the prosecution must demonstrate: the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement; the document or statement was false in certain particulars; the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it; and the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive. A conviction for false swearing requires the prosecution to prove: the accused took an oath or equivalent; the oath or equivalent was administered to the accused in a matter in which such oath or equivalent was required or authorized by law; the oath or equivalent was administered by a person having authority to do so; upon this oath or equivalent the accused made or subscribed a certain statement; the statement was false; and the accused did not then believe the statement to be true. Understanding Article False official statements; false swearing of the UCMJ False Official Statements: Statements may be made orally or in writing and include records, returns, regulations, orders, or other documents.
|Published (Last):||27 April 2009|
|PDF File Size:||7.58 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.95 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
False Official Statement. MCM, pt. That the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement; That the document or statement was false in certain particulars; That the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it; and That the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive.
Relation to Federal Statute. Congress intended Article to be construed in parimateria with 18 U. United States v. Jackson , 26 M. Aronson , 25 C. The purpose of Article is to protect governmental departments and agencies from the perversion of its official functions which might result from deceptive practices.
Jackson, supra; United States v. Hutchins , 18 C. However, Article is more expansive than 8 U. Teffeau , 58 M. Day, 66 M. Relation to Perjury. The offense of false official statement differs from perjury inthat a false official statement may be made outside a judicial proceeding and materiality is not an essential element.
IV, 3c 3. Materiality may, however, be relevant to the intent of the party making the statement. Hutchins , 18 M. Making a false official statement is not a lesser included offense of perjury. Warble , 30 C. Wright , 65 M.
While loading equipment for a deployment, the accused and another soldier stole four government computers. In fact, the accused knew exactly where the computers were located. The court found that the statement was false for purposes of Article even though it was misleading, but true. The statement falsely implied that he had no explanation for the absence of the computers. The statement also falsely implied that the computers went missing while he was loading up the connex boxes.
Independent Duty to Account and the Meaning of Officiality. Formerly, a false statement to an investigator, made by a suspect who had no independent duty to account or answer questions, was not official within the purview of Article Osborne , 26 C.
Davenport , 9 M. Later, the Court of Military Appeals determined that no independent duty to account was required if the accused falsely reported a crime. Collier , 48 C. More recently, the court determined that officiality was not dependent upon an independent duty to account or initiation of a report. The focus is on the officiality of the statement—whether an official governmental function was perverted by a false or misleading statement.
Harrison , 26 M. Goldsmith , 29 M. Ellis , 31 M. Hagee , 37 M. Dorsey , 38 M. Smith , 44 M. Bailey , 52 M. Czeschin , 56 M. Paragraph 31c 6 a of the Manual for Courts-Martial, which provides that a statement by an accused or suspect during an interrogation is not an official statement within the meaning of Article if that person did not have an independent duty or obligation to speak, does not establish a right that may be asserted by an accused who is charged with violating Article Statements to investigators can be prosecuted as false official statements.
Melbourne , 58 M. IV, 31c 6 is no longer an accurateof law, at least insofar as it would apply tomade to law enforcement agents conductinginvestigations. McMahon , 58 M. False statements made to on-base emergency medical personnel were official for purposes of Art.
Statement to Civilian Law Enforcement Authorities. Analysis for Statements to Civilian Authorities. Duty status at the time of the statement is not determinative. False official statements are not limited those made in the line of duty. Morgan , 65 M. Holmes , 65 M. Caballero , 65 M. A number of federal circuit courts apply this doctrine,which stands for the proposition that a person who merely gives a negative response to a law enforcement agent cannot be prosecuted for making a false statement.
See generally United States v. Solis , 46 M. Statutory and constitutional concerns do not support continued application of the doctrine under the UCMJ. Nelson , 53 M. The doctrine was traditionally given limited scope under military law , but recent cases placed severe limits on its scope.
See United States v. Prater , 32 M. Frazier , 34 M. A ; United States v. Sanchez , 39 M. Gay , 24 M. The doctrine has no legitimate statutory or constitutional basis and is not a defense to 18 U. Brogan v. United States , S. McCoy , 32 M. Esposito , 57 M. Also, charging accused with soliciting a false official statement and obstructing justice by that same solicitation was UMC.
Statute of Limitations. Prosecuting an accused for making a false official statement about instances ofmi deviant sexual behavior that occurred outside the five-year statute of limitations for such offenses did not violate his due process rights. Sills , 56 M. Newson , 54 M. Crim App. False Swearing. False swearing is the making, under a lawful oath, of any false statement which the declarant does not believe to be true.
The offense of false swearing has seven elements: 1 that the accused took an oath or its equivalent; 2 that the oath or its equivalent was administered to the accused in a matter in which such oath or equivalent was required or authorized by law; that the oath or equivalent was administered by a person having authority to do so, United States v. Hill , 31 M. IV, 79b. It is service discrediting whether it occurs on or off post.
Greene , 34 M. Although often used interchangeably, perjury and false swearing are different offenses. Perjury requires that the false statement be made in a judicial proceeding and be material to the issue.
These requirements are not elements of false swearing, which is not a lesser included offense of perjury. Smith , 26 C. Byard , 29 M. Claypool , 27 C. Kennedy , 12 M. Galchick , 52 M. IV, 79c 1 ; but see MCM, pt.
IV, 57c 1. The drafters make no attempt to reconcile this provision with the authorities cited above. See MCM, pt. IV, 57 analysis at A Ed.
False Official Statement. MCM, pt. IV, 31; UCMJ art. 107
Worldwide Since Article False Official Statements False official statement is one of the most commonly alleged offenses in the manual for courts-martial. It includes all statement and documents made in the line of duty. The elements of false official statement under Article , UCMJ are: That the accused signed a certain official document or made a certain official statement; That the document or statement was false in certain particulars; That the accused knew it to be false at the time of signing it or making it; and, That the false document or statement was made with the intent to deceive. A false official statement does not require material gain. Though, material gain can be circumstantial evidence of intent to deceive. Defense counsel will usually contest the suggestion that the accused knew the statement to be false. Whether a statement is official or not, depends on whether an official government function will be negatively impacted by the false or misleading statement.
ARTICLE 107 MAKING FALSE OFFICIAL STATEMENTS
Fenrikazahn Eyewitness statement confirm this fact. Composition of Courts-Martial I filed congressionals but my deployed chain of command simply lied and blamed me. The doctrine has no legitimate statutory or constitutional basis and is not a defense to 18 U. Can I Still Be Convicted? Frazier34 M. Relation to Federal Statute. Hutchins18 C.
Article 107 False Official Statements
Articles 77 through of the UCMJ are known as the "punitive articles. Many will also likely have civilian court cases as well if other local laws were broken too such as driving drunk to rape or murder. Chapter 4 of the MCM includes, and expands on the punitive articles. Elements: These are the specifics of the offense. To support a finding of "guilty," the government must prove each element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt. Explanation: The explanation defines terms, and clarifies the elements, based on previous court decisions.