IN MANDUJANO, THE COURT UPHELD THE DEFENDANT'S PERJURY CONVICTION, HOLDING THAT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION DOES NOT REQUIRE SUPPRESSION OF PERJURED TESTIMONY, EVEN IF THE WITNESS WERE A 'VIRTUAL' OR 'PUTATIVE' DEFENDANT AND HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN MIRANDA WARNINGS. THE AUTHOR EXAMINES THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY OPINIONS ENTERED IN THE CASE AND CONCLUDES THAT ALTHOUGH THE MIRANDA WARNINGS MAY NOT BE SUITED TO GRAND JURY INTERROGATION, THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONE COMPELLED TO TESTIFY UNDER CUSTODY SHOULD BE GUARDED BY PROPER WARNINGS AND THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL SHOULD BE SAFEGUARDED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)...EB