The Exclusionary Rule and Police Perjury
![handle is hein.journals/sanlr11 and id is 863 raw text is: The Exclusionary Rule and Police Perjury
CHARLES M. SEVILLA*
[I]t would be a dismal reflection on society to say that when
the guardians of its security are called to testify in court under
oath, their testimony must be viewed with suspicion.'
The conclusion reached on the basis of this experience is that the
police are often not adverse to committing perjury to save a
case.2
As repugnant a concept as it may seem, the guardians of our
security are quite capable of deliberately lying under oath in court
proceedings. It is too basic a concept to promulgate, but the police,
being human, are subject to the same biases, ulterior motivations,
and irrationalities that are the bases of perjured testimony by
other witnesses. For the most part, police perjury in courtrooms
of the United States is recognized by the defense bar, winked at
by the prosecution, ignored by the judiciary, and unknown to the
* B.A. San Jose State College, 1966; J.D. University of Santa Clara,
1969; LL.M. George Washington University, 1971; Member of Supreme
Court, California, and District of Columbia Bars; Chief Trial Attorney,
Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, California.
1. Bush v. United States, 375 F.2d 602, 604 (D.C. Cir. 1967). The quote
by Chief Justice Burger was made prior to his elevation to the Supreme
Court when he served on the United States Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia.
2. Grano, A Dilemma For Defense Counsel: Spinnelli-Harris Search
Warrants and the Possibility of Police Perjury, 1971 Umv. IL. LAw Foaum
405, 409 (1971).
July 1974 Vol. II No. 4](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/sanlr11&div=49&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Exclusionary Rule and Police Perjury
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most