Staff Depositions in Congressional Investigations (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (28 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 |
95-949 |
| Authors |
Jay R. Shampansky, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Depositions have been used in a relatively small number of major congressional investigations in
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 , that staff 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 witness for contempt of Congress. Statutory criminal
contempt (2 U.S.C. Section Section 192 and 194) and the inherent contempt power may be utilized
by either the Senate or the House. The statutory civil contempt mechanism (28 U.S.C. Section
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. Section 1001 (false statements),
Section 1505 (obstruction of investigation), or Section 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 basis for a definitive determination as to 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.
