Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76dd75c94c-68sx7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T09:24:31.471Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Decisions Related to Miranda Rights

from Part II - Pretrial Phase Decision-Making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2024

By
Emily Haney-Caron ,
Sydney Baker  and
Naomi E. S. Goldstein
Edited by
Monica K. Miller ,
Logan A. Yelderman ,
Matthew T. Huss  and
Jason A. Cantone
Monica K. Miller
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Logan A. Yelderman
Affiliation:
Prairie View A & M University, Texas
Matthew T. Huss
Affiliation:
Creighton University, Omaha
Jason A. Cantone
Affiliation:
George Mason University, Virginia
Get access

Summary

This chapter describes the legal landscape related to Miranda rights and waivers, as well as the relevant research literature regarding Miranda waiver decisions. The chapter identifies factors related to Miranda rights comprehension and waiver and emphasizes research addressing interrogations of youth and their abilities to provide a valid waiver. Research has identified that suspect-related factors, including age, IQ, and psychosocial maturity, as well as structural factors, such as the length, reading level, and content of the Miranda warnings, are related to Miranda comprehension and waiver decisions. The chapter also discusses the legal standard for judicial decisions related to the admissibility of confessions following Miranda waivers, as well as the factors that judges typically consider when making such decisions. Because research demonstrates that many suspects struggle when making Miranda waiver decisions, we conclude by making policy recommendations and identifying areas in which future research is needed.

Keywords

Miranda rightswaiverinterrogationlegal decision-makingpolice
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 129 - 143
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovitch, R., Higgins-Biss, K. L., & Biss, S. R. (1993). Young persons’ comprehension of waivers in criminal proceedings. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 35(3), 309–321.Google Scholar
Baker, S., Haney-Caron, E., Diaz Ortiz, E., & Hellgren, J. (2021, March). Race, perceptions of police legitimacy, and parent advice to children during interrogations. [Poster presentation]. American Psychology-Law Society Virtual Poster Session.Google Scholar
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).Google Scholar
Blackwood, H. L., Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2015). Investigating Miranda waiver decisions: An examination of the rational consequences. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.002.Google Scholar
Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2012). Emerging findings from research on adolescent development and juvenile justice. Victims & Offenders, 7(4), 428–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.713901.Google Scholar
Cleary, H. M. D. (2014). Police interviewing and interrogation of juvenile suspects: A descriptive examination of actual cases. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000070.Google Scholar
Cleary, H. M., & Warner, T. C. (2017). Parents’ knowledge and attitudes about youths’ interrogation rights. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(8), 777–793. http://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1324030.Google Scholar
Colwell, L. H., Cruise, K. R., Guy, L. S., et al. (2005). The influence of psychosocial maturity on male juvenile offenders’ comprehension and understanding of the Miranda warning. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 444–454.Google Scholar
Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2008). Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda rights. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9099-3.Google Scholar
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).Google Scholar
Domanico, A. J., Cicchini, M. D., & White, L. T. (2012). Overcoming Miranda: A content analysis of the Miranda portion of police interrogations. Idaho Law Review, 49(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Erickson, S. L., Salekin, K. L., Johnson, L. N., & Doran, S. C. (2020). The predictive power of intelligence: Miranda abilities of individuals with intellectual disability. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000356.Google Scholar
Evans, J. R., Schreiber-Compo, N., & Russano, M. B. (2009). Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(3), 194–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016837.Google Scholar
Farber, H. B. (2004). The role of the parent/guardian in juvenile custodial interrogations: Friend or foe? American Criminal Law Review, 41, 1277–1312.Google Scholar
Fare v. Michael C., 439 U.S. 1310 (1978).Google Scholar
Feld, B. C. (2013). Behind closed doors: What really happens when cops question kids. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23, 395–462.Google Scholar
Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24(2), 326–331.Google Scholar
Fulero, S. M., & Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19(5), 533–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499342.Google Scholar
Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. (2003). Juvenile offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10(4), 359–369.Google Scholar
Goldstein, N. E. S., Haney-Caron, E., Levick, M., & Whiteman, D. (2018). Waving good-bye to waiver: A developmental argument against youths’ waiver of their Miranda rights. NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, 21(1), 1–67.Google Scholar
Goldstein, N. E. S., Messenheimer, S., Romaine, C. L. R., & Zelle, H. (2012). Potential impact of juvenile suspects’ linguistic abilities on Miranda understanding and appreciation. Oxford Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles’ capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California Law Review, 68(6), 1134.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Grisso, T. (2013). Forensic evaluation of juveniles (2nd ed.). Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90035-4.Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales manual. Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. H., Vagni, M., Maiorano, T., & Pajardi, D. (2016). Age and memory related changes in children’s immediate and delayed suggestibility using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.029.Google Scholar
Guillot, C. R., Fanning, J. R., Bullock, J. S., McCloskey, M. S., & Berman, M. E. (2010). Effects of alcohol on tests of executive functioning in men and women: A dose response examination. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 18(5), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0021053.Google Scholar
Haney-Caron, E., & Fountain, E. (2021). Young, Black, and wrongfully charged: A cumulative disadvantage framework. Dickinson Law Review, 125, 653–726.Google Scholar
Hazelwood, L. L . (2009). Deficits in Miranda comprehension and reasoning: The effects of substance use and attention deficits. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).Google Scholar
Johnson, M. B., Citron-Lippmann, K., Massey, C., Raghavan, C., & Kavanagh, A. M. (2015). Interrogation expectations: Individual and race/ethnic group variation among an adult sample. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 13(1), 16–29. http://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2014.936641.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., et al. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5.Google Scholar
Leijenhorst, L. V., Moor, B. G., Macks, Z. A. O. D., et al. (2010). Adolescent risky decision-making: Neurocognitive development of reward and control regions. NeuroImage, 51(1), 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.038.Google Scholar
Leo, R. A. (2001). Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century. Michigan Law Review, 99(5), 1000–1029.Google Scholar
Leo, R. A., & White, W. S. (1999). Adapting to Miranda: Modern interrogators’ strategies for dealing with the obstacles posed by Miranda. Minnesota Law Review, 84, 397–472.Google Scholar
McLachlan, K., Roesch, R., & Douglas, K. S. (2010). Examining the role of interrogative suggestibility in Miranda rights comprehension in adolescents. Law and Human Behavior, 35(3), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9198-4.Google Scholar
McLachlan, K., Roesch, R., Viljoen, J. L., & Douglas, K. S. (2014). Evaluating the psycholegal abilities of young offenders with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000037.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(6), 757–780. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.774.Google Scholar
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).Google Scholar
Najdowski, C. J. (2011). Stereotype threat in criminal interrogations: Why innocent Black suspects are at risk for confessing falsely. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(4), 562–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023741.Google Scholar
NIDA. (2021, July 27). Drugs and the brain. www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/drugs-brain.Google Scholar
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979).Google Scholar
Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(4), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.453.Google Scholar
O’Connell, M. J., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2005). Miranda comprehension in adults with mental retardation and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 359–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-2965-y.Google Scholar
Powell, J. L. (2016). Do you understand your rights as I have read them to you: Understanding the warnings fifty years post Miranda. Northern Kentucky Law Review, 43, 435–464.Google Scholar
Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., & Steiner, H. (2003). Pre‐adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(3), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.543.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Gillard, N. D., Wooley, C. N., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2011). Decrements in Miranda abilities: An investigation of situational effects via a mock-crime paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9248-y.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2007). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9070-8.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Rogstad, J. E., LaFortune, K. A., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2010). The role of suggestibility in determinations of Miranda abilities: A study of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9186-8.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Harrison, K. S., & Shuman, D. W. (2008). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9091-y.Google Scholar
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Shuman, D. W., & Blackwood, H. L. (2008). The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14(1), 63–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013102.Google Scholar
Rost, G. C., & McGregor, K. K. (2012). Miranda rights comprehension in young adults with specific language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1044%2F1058-0360(2011%2F10-0094).Google Scholar
Scherr, K. C., & Madon, S. (2012). You have the right to understand: The deleterious effect of stress on suspects’ ability to comprehend Miranda. Law and Human Behavior, 36(4), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093972.Google Scholar
Scherr, K. C., & Madon, S. (2013). “Go ahead and sign”: An experimental examination of Miranda waivers and comprehension. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000026.Google Scholar
Steinberg, L. (2014). The science of adolescent brain development and its implication for adolescent rights and responsibilities. In Bhabha, J. (Ed.), Human rights and adolescence (pp. 59–76). University of Pennsylvania Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2.Google Scholar
Viljoen, J. L., Roesch, R., & Zapf, P. A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between competency to stand trial, competency to waive interrogation rights, and psychopathology. Law and Human Behavior, 26(5), 481–506. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020299804821.Google Scholar
Woolard, J. L., Cleary, H. M., Harvell, S. A., & Chen, R. (2008). Examining adolescents’ and their parents’ conceptual and practical knowledge of police interrogation: A family dyad approach. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37(6), 685–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9288-5.Google Scholar
Zelle, H., Romaine, C. L. R., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2015). Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors. Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000116.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×