It appears that there is some confusion between the trial (about which we know nothing except what is stipulated in the question) and the question itself. The video evidence is the issue in the question here, and we have to assume (since we are told) that it contradicts the officer's testimony, and supports the defence's recollection of events. This means that the officer's testimony was false. As my answer says, it does not mean the officer lied, and there is no question of perjury.

It seems the issue is whether there was a procedural error leading to prejudice against the defendant

It also seems that the camera evidence supports a contention that, had all the evidence been at trial, the verdict would have been different. Whether it is in fact strong enough to have the verdict reconsidered is unknown; how any reconsideration would take place procedurally depends on jurisdiction.

I.e was the defendant owed discovery? Was the request proper? Was the motion for delay proper and timely?

You claim that "his testimony was in error": but the OP only stipulates that the officer's testimony contradicts the defendant's testimony. There is thus no reason to hold that the officer (and not the defendant) is in error. The content of the video is not even introduced (in the question). If you stipulate hypothetically that the video does indeed show this, and that any reasonable person would see that, then where is no problem.

Ya, whether the camera evidence supports an alternative verdict would be part of the assessment of whether there was prejudice if in fact it is found that this was a procedural error, right?

Or, you can ignore the perjury question and address the question of the severity of the procedural error is itself a problem. I just object to taking the analysis of a defendant to be beyond question.

No, the question stipulates (in the title) that the video evidence contradicts the officer's testimony. Any reasonable court would conclude that the officer was mistaken rather than the camera has been tampered with.

You're jumping several steps ahead I think

First question is whether there is a preserved appealable error by the court or the defendant's lawyer

That's the confusion: in court, presumably the judge would investigate the camera evidence and see what it actually shows. We on SE can only go by what we are told: that it contradicts the officer. (I am also assuming that it supports the defendant's version, which also contradicts the officer, but that's not much of an assumption.

But you don't even get to what the evidence shows if the court correctly decided that the trial shouldn't be delayed for the discovery to complete

We are not an appeal court; just trying to answer the question, assuming the facts are as stated. Yes, it may easily be that this mistake is not serious enough to retry the case; that's not what was asked.

Here's how I was thinking this analysis goes: 1. Did the court err in declining the motion to delay for discovery? 2. If so, did that error result in prejudice. So even if we assume the facts as stated, they don't matter if the denial of the motion wasn't in error.

Step 1 isn't about whether the mistake is serious enough. It's about whether there was a mistake at all.

I'm not crim pro though... Do I have this wrong?

I disagree with the premise that we have to accept legally sketchy conclusions as correct. I think we can fairly assume that the facts are as indicated by an OP, but we don't have any facts about the video – that is a conclusion. We get all sorts of questions where people say "the landlord broke the law / violated the contract" when the act is actually not illegal. So I think it is right and proper for us to address unwarranted legal conclusions.

Questions before the learned jury: "Can the officer be charged with perjury? Who charges the officer with perjury? How do you start the process?" Question not before tlj: Is there grounds for appeal?. The latter is unanswerable without jurisdiction, as my answer says. I think it would require much else both fact and law: maybe OP could post another question where we could thrash it out.

The OP clearly also concludes that there is perjury and wants to know "how to charge". If we accept all conclusions that an OP sets forth, then it is non-responsive to argue that there wasn't perjurt.

Ya I'm not at all wanting to give any advice about this situation.. it's clearly a real case. I'm just trying to play along to see if I'm correct about the steps of analysis that would play out

An easy answer is "ya if the officer lied about a material fact, then there was purjury"

If that's all the question author wants to know :)

No, OP clearly belives this was perjury, based on a mistaken analysis. the important difference is between 'lied' and 'was mistaken', which is why I think false an unhelpful term.

Well, then maybe the question author's question is: "given that somebody purjured, how can you get a charge to happen"... In which case the answer is: report it and provide as much evidence as you have

Who cares how they get to the premise "given that somebody purjured"... And if we don't like the argument they used to get there, we can even delete that part without changing the ultimate question

I don't like answering 'the question OP meant, rather than the one asked'. What was actually asked is "Given these facts, how do I start the perjury indictment?" to which one possible answer is "You don't, because these facts do not support a conclusion of perjury". That was all I tried to set out: there are certainly other possible answers, which I would encourage you (plural) to draft and submit.

Sticking to the literal question asked, I would say that the procedure is to complain to the authorities, and see if they can be persuaded to prosecute (leading to the evidence question). The reason why "false" is useful is because it unifies "lied" and "is mistaken", and identifies the logically first step in determining whether there was perjury (since we are not assuming that there is perjury).

Incidentally, some versions of perjury include "testifying to something that you do not know to be true".

Why do you conclude that the testimony was false?

I specifically did not conclude it was false; if "officer's testimony contradicts dashcam video", it is more likely that the officer is mistaken than that the video has been tampered with.

Being mistaken means that the officer's statement is not correct, ergo false. Perjury is the combination ot false and knowingly: mistake is innocent falsity. So I repeat, what reason do you have for thinking that the testimony is not completely true and accurate?

I am not sure what you are asking here. The question says that the officer's testimony was contradicted by the evidence, hence (by your definition) false. That is not something either of us can argue with.

I mean that the defense's testimony could be false. The video has no bearing on the issue (we have no information on what one could infer from the video, and why we might infer that, all we have is the observation that the testimonies are contradictory).

Let us take this discussion to chat.

And also materiality

Don't disagree with first paragraph, but think the last sentence unhelpful. *All*(?) trials revolve around two different versuions of events; the fact that both were given on oath does not mean one witness will be charged with perjury.

← 7 messages moved in from beginning of comment thread

(I can imagine a trial where everyone agrees about what events happened, but expert witnesses provide contradictory evidence regarding the state of mind of the defendant, or causation analysis, etc.)

Sorry for the confusing comment merge, folks. You can now return to the featured presentation ... ;)