- it is not necessary that a statement be false in every detail in order for a guilty plea to false swearing to be provident; the gist of the crime of false swearing is that an oath to tell the truth has been knowingly violated; a statement need not be false in its entirety
- the difficulty with the plea inquiry into this false swearing specification was the military judge’s reference to false statements by omission; here, despite the reference to false by omission, there were also multiple literal falsehoods; it is clear from the entire record that the appellant knew that he was accused of making a false statement, referenced the falsity of the statement in his stipulation of fact and in response to the military judge’s questions, and voluntarily pleaded guilty because he was guilty
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.A.79 · Crimes Pre-2019 offenses
Article 134 -- False Swearing
Offenses committed before 1 January 2019 (pre-2016 amendment) — opinions from the 1999 through 2020 Terms of Court.
1 digested opinion, 2003–2003 Terms
2003
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIA79 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).