Different kinds of perjury?
<p>To convict someone of perjury, I would think it must be proved that in a statement under oath either</p>

<ul>
<li>they knowingly said something untruthful, or</li>
<li>they knowingly told less than the whole truth, or</li>
<li>both.</li>
</ul>

<p>What percent of convictions for perjury fall into each of those three groups?</p>

<p>Since 1973 100% of perjury convictions in the <a href="/questions/tagged/united-states" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;united-states&#39;" rel="tag">united-states</a> are for the first category. The &quot;whole truth&quot; requirement is gone, following <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/352/case.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bronston v. United States</a>, 409 U.S. 352. If you say something that is literally untrue, you can be convicted of perjury. Hence &quot;there is no sex&quot; is a literally truthful and non-perjurous statement, even when the question was about sex in the past. The attorney pursuing a line of questioning is expected to pay attention to what a person says, and detect whether they only answered part of the question.</p>

perjury