Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1488382
 
 

Footnotes (305)



 


 



Criminal Lying, Prosecutorial Power, and Social Meaning


Lisa Kern Griffin


Duke University - School of Law

October 13, 2009

California Law Review, Vol. 97, p. 1515, 2009

Abstract:     
This article concerns the prosecution of defensive dishonesty in the course of federal investigations. It sketches a conceptual framework for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and related false-statement charges, distinguishes between harmful deception and the typical investigative interaction, and describes the range of lies that fall within the wide margins of the offense. It then places these cases in a socio-legal context, suggesting that some false-statement charges function as penalties for defendants’ refusal to expedite investigations into their own wrongdoing. In those instances, the government positions itself as the victim of the lying offense and reasserts its authority through prosecution. Enforcement decisions in marginal criminal lying cases are driven by efficiency rather than accuracy goals, which may produce unintended consequences. Using false-statement charges as pretexts for other harms can diminish transparency and mute signals to comply. Accountability also suffers when prosecutors can effectively create offenses, and when it is the interaction with the government itself rather than conduct with freestanding illegality that forms the core violation. The disjunction between prosecutions and social norms about defensive dishonesty may also result in significant credibility costs and cause some erosion of voluntary compliance. Animating the materiality requirement in the statute with attention to the harm caused or risked by particular false statements could mitigate these distortions. An inquiry into the objective impact of a false statement might account for the nature of the underlying conduct under investigation, whether the questioning at issue is pretextual, whether the lie is induced, and whether the deception succeeds or could succeed in harming the investigation. By taking materiality seriously, courts could curtail prosecutorial discretion and narrow application of the statute to cases where prosecution harmonizes with social norms.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 56

Keywords: prosecutorial discretion, defensive dishonesty, process offenses

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 13, 2009 ; Last revised: February 1, 2010

Suggested Citation

Griffin, Lisa Kern, Criminal Lying, Prosecutorial Power, and Social Meaning (October 13, 2009). California Law Review, Vol. 97, p. 1515, 2009. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1488382

Contact Information

Lisa Kern Griffin (Contact Author)
Duke University - School of Law ( email )
Box 90360
Duke School of Law
Durham, NC 27708
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 675
Downloads: 103
Download Rank: 148,015
Footnotes:  305

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.484 seconds