## Facts

- Ted R. Grayson was confined in a federal prison camp after a controlled-substance distribution conviction.
- Grayson escaped from the camp in October 1975 and was apprehended two days later in New York City.
- He was indicted for prison escape under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).
- At trial, the government proved lawful confinement and unlawful departure; evidence also indicated Grayson denied his true identity when arrested.
- Grayson testified, admitting he left the camp but claiming he fled due to threats from another inmate.
- The jury convicted Grayson of escape.
- At sentencing, the district judge, acting within statutory limits, considered Grayson’s trial testimony to be false and treated it as bearing on his character and prospects for rehabilitation, imposing a high-end sentence.
- The Third Circuit vacated the sentence as improper, concluding the sentencing court could not consider supposed perjury in fixing the sentence; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether a sentencing judge may constitutionally consider a defendant’s false testimony observed during trial when selecting a sentence within statutory limits.
2. Whether considering such false testimony amounts to impermissible punishment for uncharged perjury without due process.
3. Whether using false testimony as a sentencing factor impermissibly burdens the defendant’s right to testify.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit and remanded.
- A sentencing judge may consider a defendant’s false trial testimony, observed by the judge, when fixing a sentence within statutory limits.
- The Court treated truthfulness on the stand as relevant to character and rehabilitation rather than as a separate, unadjudicated perjury conviction.
- The Court rejected the claim that this practice impermissibly chills the right to testify, reasoning the right is to testify truthfully under oath.
- The Court emphasized the judge’s discretion: the judge is not required to increase a sentence whenever the judge believes the defendant testified falsely, but may consider willful and material falsehoods as part of the overall assessment.

## Legal Principles

- Sentencing courts may consider a wide range of information relevant to the defendant’s character and prospects for rehabilitation when choosing a sentence within statutory limits.
- A defendant’s truthfulness or mendacity while testifying may be considered as probative of attitudes toward society and rehabilitation prospects.
- Considering false testimony at sentencing does not, by itself, constitute an additional punishment for perjury requiring indictment and trial, so long as it is used as a character assessment and the sentence remains within statutory limits.
- Judicial consideration of willful, material false testimony does not violate the right to testify because the protected right is to testify truthfully.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, when imposing a sentence within statutory bounds, a judge may consider the defendant’s willful and material false testimony observed at trial as relevant to character and rehabilitation, without converting sentencing into punishment for uncharged perjury or violating the right to testify.


United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 (1978)