And, if so, what are the possible consequences?
Small study break thoughts as follows. (yes, I’m dumb enough to enroll in summer school) Back in May of 2007, Mr. Landis testified at an arbitration hearing in California. I’ve not seen an “official” transcript from the proceedings, but I’m pretty sure Landis said, under oath, that he did not use performance enhancing drugs.
Landis got his first chance under oath to tell his story his way, to firmly deny using performance-enhancing drugs and portray himself as a person of character.
It would appear as though he has.
The relevant statute is California Penal Code Section 118:
§ 118 (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.
This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or
subscribed within or without the State of California.
(b) No person shall be convicted of perjury where proof of falsity rests solely upon contradiction by testimony of a single person other than the defendant. Proof of falsity may be established by direct or indirect evidence.
Oath. Testifies. States as true any material matter which he knows to be false. Guilty of perjury.
And look at part b. The proof of falsity comes from his own mouth.
Do you hear a clock ticking? ‘Cause I sure do. When does the statute of limitations toll?
§ 801.5. Notwithstanding Section 801 or any other provision of law, prosecution for any offense described in subdivision (c) of Section 803 shall be commenced within four years after discovery of the commission of the offense, or within four years after the completion of the offense, whichever is later.
Four years after the state finds out about the offense (as in now) or within four years after it occurred. Tick tock.
§ 803. (c) A limitation of time prescribed in this chapter does not commence to run until the discovery of an offense described in this subdivision. This subdivision applies to an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, a material element of which is fraud or breach of a fiduciary obligation, the commission of the crimes of theft or embezzlement upon an elder or dependent adult, or the basis of which is misconduct in office by a public officer, employee, or appointee, including, but not limited to, the following offenses:
. . .
(2) A violation of Section 72, 118, 118a…
When the offense has been discovered. As in this week. Not 2007.
This doesn’t look good for Mr. Floyd Landis. This is serious offense.
§ 126. Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years.