<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="0.91">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Criminal Procedure Issues - False Statements Decisions</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/criminal-procedure/false-statements/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  
   <item>
    <title>Brogan v. United States</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Is the so-called "exculpatory no" doctrine, excluding from criminal sanction false statements that merely deny one's wrongdoing, consistent with the Fifth Amendment's protections against self-incrimination?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No. In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the imposition of criminal liability for false statements is not limited only to those falsehoods that pervert governmental functions - it applies to statements "of whatever kind." Moreover, even if the "exculpatory no" doctrine did apply to statements that do not impede federal functions, Brogan would not benefit from it since his falsehoods were intended to prevent federal agents from uncovering the truth. The Court concluded by noting that a literal reading of federal laws which prohibit the "exculpatory no" defense is consistent with the Fifth Amendment, since th Framers never intended to confer a privilege to lie.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1997/1997_96_1579/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Hubbard v. United States</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_172/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>Rubin v. United States</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_79_1013/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Hvass</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1957/1957_92/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Rodgers</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_620/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Wells</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;Is the materiality of falsehood an element of the crime of knowingly making a false statement to a federally insured bank?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;No. In an 8-1 decision, authored by Justice David H. Souter, the Court ruled that the materiality of falsehood is not an element of the crime of knowingly making a false statement to a federally insured bank. Justice Souter wrote for the court that prosecutors need not prove that a lie was relevant enough to affect the outcome of a bank's decision because the law does not require such materiality.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_95_1228/</link>
   </item>
  
   <item>
    <title>United States v. Yermian</title>
    <description>&lt;p&gt;No details yet.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_346/</link>
   </item>
  
 </channel>
</rss>
