I'm not arguing one bit of that. If I were a juror I would have listened
attentively to Mr. McNealy right to the point he claimed Mr Schwartz didn't
speak for "the company" on his corporate blog, and zoned out the rest. But
perjury is a criminal offence, requiring the statement in question:
- Be
factually wrong.
- Be made knowing it was factually wrong.
- Have a
material effect on the outcome of a judicial proceeding.
- Be made with the
intention of having such effect.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, but from
Wikipedia's entry on
perjury:
Perjury,
also known as forswearing, is the willful act of swearing a false oath or
affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters
material to a judicial proceeding.[1] That is, the witness falsely promises to
tell the truth about matters which affect the outcome of the case. For example,
it is not considered perjury to lie about one's age unless age is a factor in
determining the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement
benefits...
Statements of interpretation of fact are not perjury because
people often make inaccurate statements unwittingly and not
deliberately.[citation needed] Individuals may have honest but mistaken beliefs
about certain facts, or their recollection may be inaccurate. Like most other
crimes in the common law system, to be convicted of perjury one must have had
the intention (mens rea) to commit the act, and to have actually committed the
act (actus reus). Subornation of perjury, attempting to induce another person to
perjure themselves, is itself a crime.
Serious stuff. While I find
myself in violent sympathy with your contempt -- the subject of this thread -- I
repeat my suggestion Mr. McNealy covered his himself in his
testimony, to the effect:
I sincerely believe Jonathan's
Blog does not convey the official word of a corporate officer. I thought it
a personal blog and never bothered to read it. Having never done so, there is no
way I could have known that Mr. Schwartz intended otherwise. And it is still my
honest opinion that such personal blogs do not and cannot speak for the
company.
And without legal precedent to the contrary, who's to say
Mr. McNealy, legally speaking (which is what counts in perjury), is even wrong?
Yes, I'm being argumentative. When someone accuses another of criminal
conduct, I like to play the "but what if it ain't?" game. But as you observed in
another comment, Mr. McNealy's credibility is now a matter for the jury.
And
I wish them luck with it.
:-)
--- Real Programmers mangle their
own memory. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|