Abstract
The Nebraska Supreme Court recently took another step in the series of examinations into the official conduct of former Nebraska Attorney General Paul Douglas. In 1984 the court found that Douglas had not committed impeachable acts while in office. In 1986 the court decided that for purposes of the Nebraska perjury statute, a person under oath cannot commit perjury while testifying before a legislative committee, even if that person were to declare "any matter to be fact, knowing the same to be false or den[y] any matter to be fact, knowing the same to be true." That decision, State v. Douglas, reversed Douglas' perjury conviction. The conviction was based upon statements made by Douglas while testifying before a legislative committee. This article will examine the coherency of the legal analysis in State v. Douglas.
Recommended Citation
Todd W. Ruskamp,
"I Solemnly Swear to Tell the Truth, Maybe!" State v. Douglas, 222 Neb. 833, 388 N.W.2d 801 (1986),
66 Neb. L. Rev.
(1987)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol66/iss4/9