Unlikely a perjury case against Michael would succeed

I watched the film against recently and realized a successful perjury case against Michael would have been unlikely.

I'm not sure how a perjury to Congress case works, but I assume it's like any other criminal matter. Michael would be indicted and eventually a trial would be held. The trial would require evidence and witnesses. I'm operating under the assumption the standards of proof are the same as with any other criminal matter.

Here is the text of Michael's testimony:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthegodfather2corleonetestimony.html

During his appearance he lies to Congress five times:

1. He denies being the head of the most powerful mafia family in the country.
2. He denies killing Sollozzo and the police captain
3. He denies he devising the murder of the heads of the other families
4. He denies having controlling interest in Vegas hotels
5. He denies having control or narcotics and gambling in New York

In order to make a perjury case against Michael stick prosecutors would have to prove all of the above denials were in fact lies, which would make proving the opposite necessary. It would be quite a mountain to climb.

At the time of his testimony the only witness against Michael was Pentangeli. Whether or not other witnesses would have come forward if there was a trial is unknown, but making a case stick against Michael based solely on Frank's testimony would have been virtually impossible. Especially during the period of time when the movie is set. There were no RICO statutes back then and no real incentives for mafia figures to betray their bosses.

As for the lies themselves, they would be extremely difficult to prove.

1. If the government could proof Michael was head of the most powerful mafia family, it wouldn't need to go after him for perjury. During this historic time period there were still people who denied the existence of organized crime and the mafia. To prove this was a lie they would have to demonstrate the mafia is real, show how it works and is structured and then provide evidence Michael commands the most powerful elements of its organization.

2. The only people who were direct witnesses to the plan to kill Sollozzo and the police captain are: Tessio (dead), Clemenza (dead), Sonny (dead) and Tom (Michael's lawyer, who couldn't testify). They were the only other people in the room when the plan for the murder was hatched and put together. Pentangeli wasn't involved in those discussions and did not witness the murder, therefore any of his testimony would be hearsay and inadmissible. We also have to assume the family took care of any other witnesses in order to make it safe for Michael to return to the country (in the Godfather novel, Vito arranges for an associate, who faces a death sentence for murder in an unrelated crime, to confess to the killings).

3. If the government could prove this, why try him for perjury?

4. This would one would obviously be the easiest to prove. But Michael clearly would have set up his business to insulate himself as much as possible. He would use fronts and patsies (remember the Green character in Casino?) to set up his systems of control. Proving this would require the testimony of other witnesses, all of whom would have a business relationship with Michael and, thus, plenty of incentive to avoid ratting him out.

5. Again, if the government could prove this, why not try him for that instead of perjury.

In the film, Michael doesn't appear overly concerned about the prospect of facing five counts of perjury - since he obviously has the plan to bring Frank's brother over from Sicily in his back pocket. Probably the real danger to him was having his reputation destroyed by a criminal proceeding. After all, his ultimate goal was always to go legitimate.