The court has given the criminal defendant a procedural weapon in the form of perjury with which he can cause an endless number of mistrials. The McKissick court apparently felt compelled to do this for it said: "[T]he alternatives to mistrial were themselves fraught with difficulties and possible errors." The purpose of this Note is to examine these "alternatives" and attempt to develop from them an approach for avoiding the probable effect of this decision. There are three areas of judgment in which a different decision could have avoided a mistrial. These are: (1) the requirement that an attorney disclose his client's communication of perjury; (2) the withdrawal of the attorney; (3) the determination of the case by a jury influenced by the defendant's perjured testimony.

I. The Attorney’s Disclosure of His Client’s Communication of Perjury

II. Withdrawal of the Attorney

III. The Determination of the Case by a Jury Influenced by the Defendant’s Perjured Testimony