What a joke!!

[OutletPass]

Doc...here are the definitions under the Texas Penal Code:

§ 37.02. Perjury
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to deceive and with knowledge of the statement's meaning:
(1) he makes a false statement under oath or swears to the truth of a false statement previously made and the statement is required or authorized by law to be made under oath; or
(2) he makes a false unsworn declaration under Chapter 132, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 37.03. Aggravated Perjury
(a) A person commits an offense if he commits perjury as defined in Section 37.02, and the false statement:
(1) is made during or in connection with an official proceeding; and
(2) is material.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

§ 37.04. Materiality
(a) A statement is material, regardless of the admissibility of the statement under the rules of evidence, if it could have affected the course or outcome of the official proceeding.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under Section 37.03 (Aggravated Perjury) that the declarant mistakenly believed the statement to be immaterial.
(c) Whether a statement is material in a given factual situation is a question of law.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

And here's the Federal Statute on Aggravated Perjury...(it's very, very similar, but can you tell the one difference in the "burden of proof" ?

Sec. 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

STATUTE

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.

(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if -

(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and

(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section. In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.

Note: I didn't mean to give the impression that aggravated perjury was confined to Immigration law. The explosion of new "aggravated felonies" was created by the Immigration Act and have given rise to another explosion in aggravated perjury cases. You'll find that a very high percentage of aggravated perjury cases have been tried as a result of the Immigration Act. Since 9/11, there's been a tidal wave of aggravated perjury cases as a result of deportation investigations by various federal grand juries.

[OutletPass]

Originally posted by ME:

nd the Prosecutor didn't want to take the risk of losing a high profile case

Doc...the one little difference in the Federal Statute was one of many things that forced the prosecutor to plea the case. No prosecutor in his right mind wants to lose a high profile case; that's basically career suicide (as the Prosecutor's in O.J. Simpson's case found out).

I've been very strong about waiting to see the evidence in Kobe's case...I don't believe in pre-judging cases and I've been in the same camp as WOW as to all of the rumor mongering on both sides. I don't care for all that gossiping one bit. Let's just see what the evidence is.

But do take note of the prosecutor's actions as this case moves forward...if he gets favorable evidentiary rulings and keeps after this one (with his career on the line)...it'll indicate that he's got some pretty damning physical evidence. I won't pretend to know what will happen in front of the jury and the way that they'll look at all of the evidence and the testimony...just know that this guy is putting his career on the line, big time. He's either got something very big in his bag...or he's one stupid SOB.

[Drbio]

Thanks OP.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: OutletPass
Originally posted by ME:

Doc...the one little difference in the Federal Statute was one of many things that forced the prosecutor to plea the case. No prosecutor in his right mind wants to lose a high profile case; that's basically career suicide (as the Prosecutor's in O.J. Simpson's case found out).

I've been very strong about waiting to see the evidence in Kobe's case...I don't believe in pre-judging cases and I've been in the same camp as WOW as to all of the rumor mongering on both sides. I don't care for all that gossiping one bit. Let's just see what the evidence is.

But do take note of the prosecutor's actions as this case moves forward...if he gets favorable evidentiary rulings and keeps after this one (with his career on the line)...it'll indicate that he's got some pretty damning physical evidence. I won't pretend to know what will happen in front of the jury and the way that they'll look at all of the evidence and the testimony...just know that this guy is putting his career on the line, big time. He's either got something very big in his bag...or he's one stupid SOB.

Don't ever remember anyone accusing SheWebb of being a genius. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-confused.gif[/img][img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Drbio]

LRB is a genius! Welcome back!

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Drbio
LRB is a genius! Welcome back!

Thanks, Doc. Guess with training camp about to start, it was time to get the fingers back in shape for some more posting.
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: LRB

Thanks, Doc. Guess with training camp about to start, it was time to get the fingers back in shape for some more posting.
[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I think you heard through the grapevine that MFFL was only 1000 posts from being the next guru and you wanted to pose as a challenge to him. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

[OutletPass]

LRB...

Big Man ...you are getting a PM from me.

[Jeremiah]

Originally posted by: OutletPass
Jeremiah...just wanted to add one thing that I forgot to mention. Webber never reported the income that he has now admitted he received. That's called tax evasion.

Look at it from this standpoint for a second...

the grand jury is after Martin for the illegal lottery thing...Webber simply goes in and tells the truth to the grand jury about the payments he received....amends his tax returns and cuts a deal with the government to pay up (which he can easily do). The only law he's broken is the tax thing...and that gets taken care of. Pretty simple...and he can pay up for his father, too.

Instead he lies...and opens himself to obstruction of justice, perjury and tax evasion. That's 3 felonies.

Pretty stupid move, don't you think ?

Makes you wonder what kind of legal advice he was getting...and whether he completely ignored any good advice that he was getting.

When you put it that way, then yes, it does look like he wasn't thinking very clearly: either in hiring counsel or listening to counsel.

I think of the obstruction of justice charge (and sentencing parameters) for lying to a federal grand jury as a safety net for the government. The government adds the charge in the event that the defendant is acquitted of the more serious charges, as it is theoretically simpler to prove the lesser charge, but the kicker is that the lesser charge still carries with it a harsh penalty. Obstruction of justice is an offense that should have harsh penalties in some cases, in my opinion, like a capital crime. One shouldn't have to go to jail for lying though.

I'm smart enough to know that my opinion stems from my dislike of the sentencing protocols within the federal, state, county and city governments. From what I know about them, I don't like them because they are arbitrary, cost-effective in comparison to the alternative, but arbitrary, and therefore, unfair. Obstruction of justice in and of itself isn't something one ought to partake in, though the penalty parameters don't fit the crime in my eyes. Of course, I'm also smart enough to know that there are probably other issues that go along with sentencing that I haven't considered, and couldn't, until they were in front of me.

I don't quite think it's a big problem that Webber was sentenced to community service and that his record might be expunged. His infraction, in the context of the charge, is minor in my eyes. But perhaps I don't know enough about it to make that conclusion.