How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Colleen Grady Your Own Question
Colleen Grady
Colleen Grady, Attorney and Counselor at Law
Category: Criminal Law
Satisfied Customers: 444
Experience:  Attorney and Counselor at Law
Type Your Criminal Law Question Here...
Colleen Grady is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Is it lawful for police officers or detectives who are going

Customer Question

Is it lawful for police officers or detectives who are going to interrogate a suspect in a criminal case, to start the interrogation and before reading his Miranda Rights, by warning him that he is now under oath and that if he doesn't tell the truth he is going to be liable of perjury and could be punished by one year prison term, just from this fact?. Of course this looks like a "dirty trick" to scare that suspect from the start and make him more vulnerable or cooperative before actually warning him of his right to remain silent , to have a lawyer's assistance and that everything else he says thereafter can and will be used against him in a court of justice or perhaps a was to deviate his attention from the basic constitutional rights that he knows he is compelled by law to warn him. Doesn't this order or sequence constitute a legal motive to dismiss the whole "confession", if any results?
Submitted: 2 months ago.
Category: Criminal Law
Expert:  Colleen Grady replied 2 months ago.

Hello. I will help you today. I have been an attorney for 27 years. I am reviewing your question and will be back to you shortly.

Expert:  Colleen Grady replied 2 months ago.

Miranda is a US Supreme court decision that requires that the police give the following warnings before questioning a suspect:

  • [1] that he has the right to remain silent,
  • [2] that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law,
  • [3] that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and
  • [4] that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

In 2008, the US Supreme Court reaffirmed this in Powell v Florida, No. 08-1175

If the police did not say these words, then the statement obtained can be challenged in a suppression hearing before trial. If the police are challenge and your attorney can prove, the police did not give the proper Miranda warnings, then your statements may be able to not be used at trial against you.

The whole case will not be able to be dismissed. The prosecutor, if the statements are suppressed, will have to try to prove the case with other evidence.

Please let me know if I can help more. If you are satisfied with my help, please rate me.