THE CHALMERS DECISION (1954) RIGIDLY HOLDS THAT ANY EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM POLICE QUESTIONING OF A PERSON UNDER SERIOUS SUSPICION OF HAVING COMMITTED A CRIME IS INADMISSIBLE. ONLY VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS FROM THE ACCUSED, MADE WITHOUT PROBING POLICE QUESTIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE AS EVIDENCE. SCOTTISH LAW, HOWEVER, HAS NOT GENERALLY APPROACHED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE FROM A DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS SO RIGIDLY. 'OPPRESSION' OR 'UNFAIRNESS' IN POLICE BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATED WITH INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY GROUND FOR EVIDENCE EXCLUSION IN SCOTTISH LEGAL TRADITION. THE MURPHY CASE (1975) DECISION SERVED TO BYPASS THE ATYPICAL APPROACH OF CHALMERS AND RETURNED TO THE MORE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE BASED IN GRACIE V. STUART (1884), WHERE STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE SO LONG AS THERE IS NO INDICATION SUCH STATEMENTS WERE OBTAINED BY UNREASONABLE POLICE ACTIONS, THREATS, OR PRESSURE. THERE IS STILL SOME CONCERN, HOWEVER, IN LEAVING THE MATTER TO THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE OR JURY REGARDING THE APPROPRIATENESS OF POLICE METHODS USED TO OBTAIN STATEMENTS FROM THE DEFENDANT. IN THE ABSENCE OF TAPE RECORDINGS OF POLICE INTERROGATIONS, THE PROBLEM IS TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCUSED AGAINST THE TESTIMONY OF A BATTERY OF POLICE OFFICERS. PERHAPS MORE RULES SHOULD BE USED TO REQULATE POLICE BEHAVIOR VIS-A-VIS SUSPECT QUESTIONING. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (RCB)