Note:
Charles J. Katz, Jr., Criminal Procedure—Grand Juries—Lack of Miranda Warnings for Virtual Defendant Results in Suppression of Perjurious Testimony. United States v. Mandujano (5th Cir. 1974), 53 TEXAS L. REV. 156 (1974).
 

Abstract:
Traditionally, witnesses subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury were not entitled to Miranda warnings, while de jure defendants called to appear before a grand jury were entitled to these warnings. The virtual or putative defendant falls somewhere between a witness and de jure defendant. Generally, virtual defendants were not entitled to Miranda warnings, and prosecutors used this to their advantage, deferring formal charges until after the virtual defendant had testified. In U.S. v. Mandujano, the Fifth Circuit held that a virtual defendant is entitled to Miranda warnings if he is the focus of the investigation. Further, if the prosecutor does not discharge his duty to warn the virtual defendant, the testimony offered must be suppressed for purposes both of the underlying charge and any perjury indictment. The author argues that the holding in Mandujano is the inexorable result of and perfectly consistent with the holding in Miranda v. Arizona.