Penalties for Perjury False Allegation Charges Avoided

The complainant, a former boyfriend, alleged that the prior rape report was fabricated and that the client knowingly lied during police questioning. 

Because these allegations directly implicated penalties for perjury, the defense attorney analyzed potential retaliatory motives.

By reviewing the timeline, communication history, and contextual details, the defense established that the complainant’s accusations arose only after his acquittal, indicating a reactive rather than objective basis.

This formed an important foundation for disproving malicious intent.

Under New York law, penalties for perjury apply only when a person knowingly provides false testimony about a material fact.

The defense reviewed transcripts, initial statements, and all physical evidence to confirm that the client’s testimony aligned with objective circumstances.

The analysis showed no inconsistency suggesting intentional deception.

This strengthened the argument that the statutory elements of perjury could not be satisfied.

The client submitted CCTV video showing that she did not force her way into the complainant’s residence; instead, it was the complainant who physically pulled her inside. 

This contradicted his assertion that she gave false testimony—an accusation tied closely to penalties for perjury.

In addition, chat logs from messaging applications showed a cooperative tone and prior arrangements.

Together, these records proved that her testimony was consistent with contemporaneous evidence.

The defense attorney highlighted that the client’s statements during the original investigation matched the physical evidence.

Because penalties for perjury require proof that the speaker knew the statement was false at the time, the consistency of testimony was a key factor.

Each piece of evidence supported the conclusion that the client acted honestly and without deceptive intent.

This significantly weakened the accusations.

The defense emphasized that the client’s statements were rooted in her genuine understanding of events. 

Without intent, penalties for perjury cannot be imposed under New York law.

Medical records, communication logs, and security footage all supported the conclusion that she testified sincerely.

The absence of contradictory behavior reinforced this finding.

The attorney presented evidence suggesting that the complainant sought to retaliate after his acquittal rather than pursue legitimate claims. 

Because penalties for perjury must be based on reliable and objective evidence, the complainant’s inconsistent narrative failed to meet the standard.

The prosecution ultimately agreed that the allegations lacked legal merit.

This led directly to the final decision.

The final determination stated that the evidence did not support any element required to impose penalties for perjury or false-reporting charges.

The prosecution concluded that the client’s statements were consistent, credible, and corroborated.

This decision marked a complete legal vindication.

The resolution reinforced the importance of thorough evidence collection when false allegations involve exposure to penalties for perjury.

It also underscored how a precise legal defense can prevent retaliatory accusations from escalating into criminal liability.

The case now stands as a model for defending clients unfairly targeted in post-acquittal disputes.