Staff Depositions in Congressional Investigations (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (27 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Dec. 3, 1999 |
| Report Number |
95-949A |
| Authors |
Jay R. Shampansky |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Depositions have been used in a relatively small number of major congressional
investigationsin the last quarter of a century. Depositions in the legislative branch are
often taken by committee staff, but Members sometimes are involved in the process.
Depositions may be a desirable alternative to a committee hearing, enabling a panel
to obtain the information that it needs quickly, confidentially, and without the
attendance of Members. However, concerns have been raised that staff depositions
may compromise the rights of deponents and restrict the role of the minority in the
investigative process.
On a number of occasions, authority for committee staff to take depositions has
been granted pursuant to Senate and House resolutions. Committees that have been
granted deposition authority often adopt rules establishing procedures for depositions.
Assuming, arguendo, thatstaff depositions are appropriately authorized, the two
main legal issues presented by these depositions are (a) enforcement of a subpoena
for a staff deposition and (b) sanctions for false statements in such a deposition.
There are three methods of citing a witnessfor contempt of Congress. Statutory
criminal contempt (2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194) and the inherent contempt power may
be utilized by eitherthe Senate or the House. The statutory civil contempt mechanism
(28 U.S.C. § 1365) is, by its terms, available only to the Senate. It may be argued
that any of these three methods could be utilized to enforce a subpoena for a staff
deposition. However, in recent investigations in which the House has authorized staff
depositions by a standing committee, the majority and minority have debated the
propriety of citing a deponent for contempt for failure to appear at such a deposition
or to answer questions in such a proceeding if he subsequently responds fully at a
committee hearing.
A witness who makes a false statement in a deposition given before committee
staff might be prosecuted under various statutory provisions, including 18 U.S.C. §
1001 (false statements), § 1505 (obstruction of investigation), or § 1621 (perjury).
Of course, a prosecution under the perjury statute would be possible only if the
witness was placed under oath. In resolutions adopted in recent years authorizing
depositions, the House and Senate often have provided for the taking of such
depositions under oath, arguably indicating that, in the view of Congress, statements
at such depositions could be subject to a perjury prosecution. Although judicial
decisions afford an inadequate basisfor a definitive determination asto whether all of
the elements of the perjury statute could be satisfied in a prosecution of a witness for
a statement made in a staff deposition, administration of an oath puts a witness on
notice of the significance attached by the committee to his deposition.
