Cite as: 507 U. S. 87 (1993)
Opinion of the Court
position of criminal charges, in respect to the instant offense.
. . . . . "1. The following conduct, while not exclusive, may provide a basis for applying this adjustment:
. . . . . "(c) testifying untruthfully or suborning untruthful testimony concerning a material fact, . . . during a preliminary or grand jury proceeding, trial, sentencing proceeding, or any other judicial proceeding." USSG § 3C1.1, comment., n. 1(c) (Nov. 1989).
See also USSG § 3C1.1, comment., n. 3(b) (Nov. 1992) ("The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of the types of conduct to which this enhancement applies: . . . (b) committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury").
Were we to have the question before us without reference to this commentary, we would have to acknowledge that some of our precedents do not interpret perjury to constitute an obstruction of justice unless the perjury is part of some greater design to interfere with judicial proceedings. In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, 228 (1945); Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, 383 (1919). Those cases arose in the context of interpreting early versions of the federal criminal contempt statute, which defined contempt, in part, as "misbehavior of any person . . . as to obstruct the administration of justice." 28 U. S. C. § 385 (1940 ed.) (Judicial Code § 268), derived from the Act of Mar. 2, 1831, Rev. Stat. § 725. See also 18 U. S. C. § 401(1) (same).
In Hudgings and Michael, we indicated that the ordinary task of trial courts is to sift true from false testimony, so the problem caused by simple perjury was not so much an obstruction of justice as an expected part of its administration. See Michael, 326 U. S., at 227-228. Those cases, however, were decided against the background rule that the contempt power was to be confined to " 'the least possible power adequate' " to protect "the administration of justice
93
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007