Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Psychiatric Patients’ Comprehension of Miranda Rights

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Seventy-five psychiatric inpatients were evaluated with respect to their Miranda-related abilities using Grisso’s (1998, Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press) instruments and Goldstein’s (2002, Revised instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights) revision to determine: whether different versions of Miranda warnings translate into differences in understanding; the influence of psychiatric symptoms, diagnostic categories, and IQ upon Miranda comprehension; and the relative performance of persons with psychiatric impairment on Miranda-relevant abilities. Results indicated that although the Miranda language used in Goldstein’s revision generally showed lower grade reading levels and higher reading ease scores than Grisso’s original instruments, this did not translate into improved understanding. In addition, psychiatric symptoms were negatively correlated with Miranda comprehension, even after controlling for IQ. Finally, results revealed that psychiatric patients’ understanding and appreciation was substantially impaired compared to Grisso’s adult validation samples, and was roughly comparable to Grisso’s juvenile validation sample. Implications of these results for policy reform are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The BPRS items included in the four scales are: Psychoticism (BPRS items: Hallucinations, Conceptual Disorganization, Unusual Thought Content); Hostility (BPRS items: Hostility, Suspiciousness, Uncooperativeness); Depression (BPRS items: Anxiety, Guilt, Depression) and Withdrawal (BPRS items: Motor Retardation, Blunt Affect, Emotional Withdrawal).

  2. The BPRS items included in the four scales are: Resistance (BPRS items: Uncooperativeness, Hostility, Excitement, and Grandiosity); Positive Symptoms (BPRS items: Unusual Thought Content, Conceptual Disorganization, Hallucinations, Suspiciousness, and Disorientation); Negative Symptoms (BPRS items: Blunted Affect; Emotional Withdrawal, and Motor Retardation); and Psychological Discomfort (BPRS items: Anxiety, Somatic Concern, Guilt, Tension, and Depression).

  3. Although not discussed here, participants were administered other instruments as part of a larger study, including measures of reading ability and comprehension.

  4. Individual item comparisons were also completed and are available from the first author.

References

  • Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M., Milstein, R., Beam-Goulet, J., Lysaker, P., & Cicchetti, D. (1992). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 180, 723–728.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Colorado v. Connelly. (1986). 479 U.S. 157.

  • Colorado v. Spring. (1986). 479 U.S. 157.

  • Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2003). Predictor variables in competency to stand trial decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 423–436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Coyote v. United States. (1967). 380 F.2d 305.

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). 113. S.Ct. 786.

  • Dickerson v. U.S. (2000). 166 F.3d 667.

  • Dingemans, M. A. J., Linszen, D. H., Lenior, M. E., & Smeets, R. M. W. (1995). Component structure of the expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychopharmacology, 122, 263–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Endicott, J., & Spitzer, R. (1978). A diagnostic interview: The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 837–844.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Everington, C., & Fulero, S.M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fare V. Michael C. (1979). 442 U.S. 707.

  • Feld, B. (2000). Juveniles’ waiver of legal rights: Confessions, Miranda, and the right to counsel. In T. Grisso, & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice (pp. 105–138). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellers v. U.S. (2004). 285 F. 3d 721.

  • Frye v. United States. (1923). 54 App. D.C. 47.

  • Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24, 326–331.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, I. B., & Garcia, A. (2003). Psychological evaluations and the competency to waive Miranda rights. The Champion, 45, 12–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S.M., & Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M., & Everington, C. (2004). Mental retardation, interrogations, and confessions. In R. Roesch (Series Ed.) & G. D. Lassiter (Vol. Ed.), Perspectives in law and psychology: Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (Vol. 20, pp. 163–179).

  • Goldstein, N. (2002). Revised instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. (Available from the author at Grad-Clinical and Health Psychology, Drexel University, Bellet Building, 1505 Race Street MS 626, Philadelphia, PA 19102).

  • Greenfield, D. P., Dougherty, E. J., Jackson, R. M., Podboy, J. W., & Zimmermann, M. L. (2001). Retrospective evaluation of Miranda reading levels and waiver competency. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19, 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluations of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (2004). Reply to a “a critical review of published competency-to-confess measures”. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 719–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1995). The MacArthur treatment competence study, III: Abilities of patients to consent to psychiatric and medical treatments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 149–174.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hafkenscheid, A. (1991). Psychometric evaluation of a standardized and expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 84, 294–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, J. L., & Vieweg, B. W. (1980). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS): A comprehensive review. Journal of Operating Psychiatry, 11, 48–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helms, J. L. (2003). Analysis of Miranda reading level across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoge, S. K., Poythress, N., Bonnie, R. J., Monahan, J., Eisenberg, M., & Feucht-Haviar, T. (1997). The MacArthur adjudicative competence study: Diagnosis, psychopathology, and competence-related abilities. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 329–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, V., Foister, K., Jenkins, K., Skene, L., Copolov, D., & Keks, N. (2005). Competence to give informed consent in acute psychosis is associated with symptoms rather than diagnosis. Schizophrenia Research, 77, 211–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R., Zapf, P. A., & Cooper, V. G. (2006). Readability of Miranda warnings and waivers: Implications for evaluating Miranda comprehension. Law and Psychology Review, 30, 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, S. R., Fiszbein, A., & Opler, L. A. (1987). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 261–276.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lachar, D., Bailley, S. E., Rhoades, H. M., Espadas, A., Aponte, M., Cowan, K. A., Gummattira, P., Kopecky, C. R., & Wassef, A. (2001). New subscales for an anchored version of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: Construction, reliability, and validity in acute psychiatric admissions. Psychological Assessment, 13, 384–395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 34, 491–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). 384 U.S. 436.

  • Missouri v. Seibert. (2004). 93 S.W. 3d 700.

  • Morlan, K. K., & Tan, S. (1998). Comparison of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the Brief Symptom Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 885–894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, R. A., & Kugler, K. E. (1991). Competent and incompetent defendants: A quantitative review of comparative research. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 355–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 453–471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberlander, L. B., Goldstein, N. E., & Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Competence to confess. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 335–357). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overall, J. E., & Gorham, D. R. (1962). The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychological Reports, 10, 799–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • People v. Higgins. (1993). 278 N.E.2d 68.

  • Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007a). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2007b). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, from http://www.springerlink.com/content/38415663284442x1/fulltext.html.

  • Rogers, R., Jordan, M. J., & Harrison, K. S. (2004). A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 707–718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryba, N. L., Brodsky, S. L., & Shlosberg, A. (2007). Competency to waive Miranda rights evaluations: A survey of practicioners’ use of the Grisso instruments. Assessment (in press).

  • Ventura, J., Green, M. F., Shaner, A., & Liberman, R. P. (1993). Training and quality assurance with the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: ‘The drift busters’. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 3, 221–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventura, J., Lukoff, D., Nuechterlein, K. H., Liberman, R. P., Green, M. F., & Shaner, A. (1993). Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) Expanded Version (4.0). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 3, 227–244.

    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, 481–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viljoen, J. L., Zapf, P. A., & Roesch, R. (2003). Diagnosis, current psychiatric symptoms, and legal abilities. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. I., Murrie, D. C., Chauhan, P., Dietz, P. E., & Morris, J. (2004). Opinion formation in evaluating sanity at the time of the offense: An examination of 5175 pre-trial evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 171–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. I., Murrie, D. C., Stejskal, W., Colwell, L. H., Morris, J., Chauhan, P., & Dietz, P. (2006). Opinion formation in evaluating the adjudicative competence and restorability of criminal defendants: A review of 8,000 evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 113–132.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • West v. United States. (1968). 399 F.2d 467.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1825 St. Julian Place, 1st floor, Columbia, SC, 29204, USA

    Virginia G. Cooper

  2. Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, 445 West 59th Street, New York, NY, 10019, USA

    Patricia A. Zapf

Authors
  1. Virginia G. Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia A. Zapf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Virginia G. Cooper.

Additional information

This paper is based on the first author’s dissertation. This research was supported in part by grants from the American Academy of Forensic Psychology and the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41. Portions of this research were presented at the annual convention of the American Psychology-Law Society in Scottsdale, AZ in March 2004 and at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in Toronto, ON in August 2003. This research would not have been possible without the assistance of the patients and staff at Bryce Hospital, especially Drs. John Toppins and Ron McCarver. Thanks are also extended to Dr. Naomi Goldstein for the use of her instruments.

About this article

Cite this article

Cooper, V.G., Zapf, P.A. Psychiatric Patients’ Comprehension of Miranda Rights. Law Hum Behav 32, 390–405 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9099-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9099-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation