That pesky phrase "Suborning Perjury" again.

Here we go with that phrase again, Suborning Perjury. For those who missed out the last time we talked about it, here's the definition again:

"The criminal offense of procuring another to commit perjury, which is the crime of lying, in a material matter, while under oath."

That sounds pretty serious doesn't it? A criminal offense no less? Not just a regular criminal offense, but a FEDERAL CRIMINAL OFFENSE! Let's look specifically at that criminal law 18 U.S.C.A. § 1622 and see what it says:

"Under federal criminal law (18 U.S.C.A. § 1622), five elements must be proved to convict a person of subornation of perjury. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed and that the statements of the perjurer were material. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer's statements were false."

OK, now based on what we just read yesterday regarding Detective Jorge Baluja instructing a witness to lie about the time and place a witness statement was written, does his behavior fall under 18 U.S.C.A. § 1622? We know the answer, but lets go through the five elements of the crime any way:

1. It first must be shown that the defendant made an agreement with a person to testify falsely. Detective Baluja instructed the witness to lie and she agreed but more than likely under duress.
2. There must be proof that perjury has in fact been committed.The witness admits to the Detective Baluja that she had written the statement earlier in the day and at a different location than what he had instructed her to write on the statement.
3. That the statements of the perjurer were material.Of course the statements were material, his instructions to the witness to lie about the time and place the statement was written speaks directly to his credibility and his lack of ethics in his police work.
4. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the perjurer made such statements willfully with knowledge of their falsity. Of course the witness made the statements with knowledge of their falsity, she told the Detective so!
5. Finally, there must be proof that the procurer had knowledge that the perjurer's statements were false.Of course the detective knew that the statements the witness made were false! He knew they weren't written in front of him at 6:50 PM on September 16, 2009!

I know, we didn't need to restate the obvious, perhaps I'm being a bit redundant...


Now what? We've shown two separate instances where Detective Jorge Baluja has suborned perjury (here and here) which in my opinion clearly illustrates a PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR. So what's next? We now clearly have Detective Baluja breaking a federal law, what are we to do now? Looks to me like its time to take a field trip, let's see, where is that were supposed to go when we have a case of police misconduct? Is it here?

(NO, THAT'S NOT ALEX HANNA'S OFFICE!)

I'll have to make some calls tomorrow...