Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (40804)	3/30/1999 6:02:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Will Clinton's perjury have an effect on our legal system? You tell me. 2nd Circuit Denounces Perjury in Civil Suits By Deborah Pines New York Law Journal Tuesday, March 30, 1999 Affirming a Bronx man's perjury conviction for lying in a civil proceeding, a federal appeals panel in Manhattan last week went out of its way to denounce such lies and declare, as if joining the Clinton impeachment debate, that such prosecutions are "unremarkable." The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Feliz, 98-1254, mainly rejected specific due process claims raised by Melvin Feliz. Mr. Feliz argued that his rights were violated by a four-year gap between his lies at a 1993 civil trial alleging police brutality and his 1997 perjury indictment. In reaching that conclusion, however, the panel also used strong terms to denounce all perjury. Without referring to the national debate over whether President Clinton was unfairly charged with lying in a sexual harassment case brought by Paula Jones -- a former Arkansas state employee -- the panel also noted that perjury charges in a civil context not unheard of. "Perjury goes to the very heart of the fair administration of justice," Second Circuit Judge Richard J. Cardamone wrote for the court. "No legal system can long remain viable if lying under oath is treated as no more than a social solecism" -- that is, a breach of etiquette or decorum. At the outset of his March 24 ruling, Judge Cardamone also noted, that "it is undoubtedly the case that a good many untruthful statements occur during the course of a civil trial," which are not prosecuted. But he also called "unremarkable" perjury prosecutions arising from civil cases and cited five recent appellate rulings reviewing such convictions. CONTRARY PLEA Mr. Feliz, now 32, and two other men filed civil rights suits in Manhattan federal court in 1989. They alleged that they were beaten by several New York Drug Enforcement Task Force officers during a drug arrest on Aug. 16, 1988. After a jury rejected their claims and bid for money damages in 1993, the trial judge, Southern District Judge John S. Martin Jr., concluded that Mr. Feliz had perjured himself at trial on one issue: his denial of his brother-in-law's involvement in the drug sales. The claim contradicted Mr. Feliz's guilty plea in state court. Judge Martin referred the matter to the Southern District U.S. Attorney's office which filed perjury charges against Mr. Feliz in September 1997. Mr. Feliz entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced to eight months in prison by Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff. On appeal, Mr. Feliz, who has been free pending the appellate ruling, claimed that his sentence violates the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution because he was not indicted until four years after the perjury. He called prejudicial the "extraordinary harm" he would suffer being reincarcerated after his full rehabilitation following incarceration on the state drug charges. He cited a recent marriage, return to school and glowing recommendations from employers. The Second Circuit panel ruling, joined by Second Circuit Judges Jon O. Newman and Fred I. Parker, rejected Mr. Feliz's due process claim. Judge Cardamone noted that the indictment, coming within the five-year statute of limitations for perjury, has a "strong presumption of validity." In addition, he found Mr. Feliz failed to show one element necessary to proving a due process violation: that he had suffered "substantial prejudice." "Because we decline to extend the concept of prejudice in the pre-indictment delay context to include the hardship of reincarceration after alleged rehabilitation, it follows that appellant's burden to demonstrate a due process violation has not been met." DENUNCIATION IN DICTA Before endorsing Mr. Feliz's eight-month sentence, which represented a modest downward departure due to his case's combined unusual circumstances, Judge Cardamone strongly denounced perjury in any context. "Swearing to tell the truth is a solemn oath, the breach of which should have serious consequences, especially where the perjurer tells his lie in an attempt to obtain money damages," he wrote. Last December, the U.S. House of Representantives approved two articles of impeachment against the President for perjury -- based on his testimony before a federal grand jury -- and obstruction of justice -- stemming from Mr. Clinton's efforts to conceal an affair with a White House intern, Monica S. Lewinsky. Among the charges considered by the House were allegations that Mr. Clinton had lied during a deposition in the Paula Jones civil suit. During the debate in the House, some of Mr. Clinton's defenders characterized the charges as politically motivated and not the usual subject of criminal prosecutions. Ultimately, the House declined to refer to the Senate the charges arising from the Jones case. After a five-week trial on the two articles that were approved, the Senate voted against removing the President on Feb. 12. Mr. Feliz's attorney, Noah L. Shube of Friedman & Shube, said his client will surrender on April 8 to serve his eight-month sentence. He expressed frustration "the court's focus was not on the merits of our due process arguments, which I still believe are compelling if somewhat creative." He added, "The court's broad discourse upon the role of perjury laws in civil litigation was rather wide of the mark." Joshua G. Berman and Alexandra A.E. Shapiro, Southern District Assistant U.S. Attorneys, represented the government. lawnewsnetwork.com