Document text
Civil perjury nets criminal court sentence By Chris Bristol In a rare perjury case, a Medford man who paid $200,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing him of molesting his daughter more than 20 years ago was sentenced to six months in jail Tuesday for lying about it under oath. So rare was the perjury charge against Norman Gene Miller, 58, that prosecutors here and around the state could not recall a similar case. "It�s definitely an unusual sort of situation," said Wayne Westling, a University of Oregon law professor, "mainly because perjury is so hard to prove, even more so in a civil case." "It�s done very rarely," agreed Jack Banta, the Douglas County district attorney and president of the Oregon District Attorneys Association. "You just don�t see the right case very often." Miller was just the right case, local authorities said. After all, he was caught on tape. "It�s usually hard to prove when somebody is flat-out lying," said Jackson County Deputy District Attorney Judi Harper, who prosecuted Miller on the felony charge. "But this guy really put his foot in his mouth." Miller�s downfall began in 1997, when his daughter, now 36 and the mother of two, sued him for incest under a little-known Oregon law that allows people to recover damages for sexual abuse endured in childhood. At first the case was strictly waged on the civil side of court, since the criminal statute of limitations had long since expired. In Oregon, victims of childhood sexual abuse have until the age of 24 to report it. But after initially denying the allegations, the former banker suddenly settled the suit for $200,000 when he was confronted with a key piece of evidence � his estranged wife had secretly tape-recorded a telephone conversation in which he admitted some of the allegations. Afterward, the Portland attorney who represented Miller�s daughter sent prosecutors the tape and affidavits in the case. The attorney, David Slader, had confronted Miller with the tape at the end of a sworn deposition. Harper said she took the case because it was a rare legal slam-dunk and because she was frustrated that she was prevented from filing criminal charges only because the statute of limitations had expired. "He not only victimized her by molesting her," she said of Miller, "he also victimized her by calling her a liar." Westling, the UO law professor, said perjury cases are difficult to prosecute because proving that someone knowingly lied about a material fact while under oath is harder than it sounds. "This case was perfect because of the tape-recorded admissions," the professor said. "You�ve also got an additional situation where there�s a reason to go after this person for the criminal penalty." Another problem is the widely held belief in the legal community that lying is epidemic in civil cases, particularly domestic beefs such as divorce and child custody. Roger Hanlon, chief deputy district attorney for Washington County, said he hears "horror stories" all the time in casual conversations with judges. "As a rule we don�t get involved," Hanlon said. "It would take too much time to start investigating and trying to prosecute everybody who lies under oath in civil cases." In court Tuesday, Judge Patricia Crain ruled that Miller deserved six months in jail instead of the standard 30-day sentence for a first-time offender. However, she declined Harper�s recommendation of 18 months. The judge also fined Miller $2,000 and put him on two years of supervised probation. She gave him one week to report to jail, saying space will be made available. Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us Copyright � 2000 Mail Tribune, Inc.