Yesterday, we began our discussion about the Littleton coach (hereinafter, the “Defendant”) who had apparently lied before a Grand Jury when summoned to testify in connection with an ongoing Middlesex County rape investigation.
As we discussed, and it certainly deserves repeating, lying to authorities about an ongoing investigation, either under oath or not, is a crime. The only thing that changes is which crime it is going to be.
In this case, the apparent lies were spoken under oath. In the Grand Jury, witnesses are sworn in and questioned by a prosecutor about whatever is being investigated. To lie while under oath is the crime of perjury.
The Defendant was questioned about, among other things, whether he had committed certain crimes such as providing alcohol to minors. He denied having done so.
The government decided that the Defendant had committed perjury because his testimony, albeit self-serving, was contradicted by other witnesses.
To me, this brings about a couple of troubling questions.
Continue reading