Rule 603 (Oath or Affirmation to Testify Truthfully) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is unambiguous: “Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.” The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that similar language does not apply to police officers when they are interrogating a suspect. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969). Nonetheless, a small number of states have banned police from lying or being deceptive when interrogating minors. New York should follow suit.
The Guide to New York Evidence Article 6: Witnesses & Impeachment, in Subdivision (1), explains: “This rule is derived from Court of Appeals precedent that holds that requiring a witness to take an oath or make an affirmation is a ‘traditional safeguard[ ] to truthfulness’ (Matter of Hecht v. Monaghan, 307 NY 461, 474 [1954]). The requirement of an oath or affirmation, the Court has observed, serves two functions: ‘(1) to awaken the witness to his moral duty to tell the truth, and (2) to deter false testimony by providing a legal ground for perjury prosecutions’ (see Matter of Brown v. Ristich, 36 NY2d 183,189 [1975]).” That same logic should apply during a criminal interrogation of a juvenile.
