Advertisement

Mental Retardation, Competency to Waive Miranda Rights, and False Confessions

  • Solomon M. Fulero
  • Caroline Everington
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 20)

Abstract

Persons with mental retardation are encountering the criminal justice system in increasing numbers. Persons with mental retardation who become suspects in criminal cases must deal with issues of competence to waive their right to remain silent upon police questioning, as well as the admissibility of any confession that is made as a result of that questioning. Unfortunately, we have begun to learn that confessions are frequently entered by persons with mental retardation in police interrogations without full understanding of their rights (Atchison & Keyes, 1996). In addition, because of the particular characteristics of those with mental retardation, statements that they may make must also be evaluated closely for reliability, even if their admissibility satisfies legal standards.

Keywords

Mental Retardation Criminal Justice Criminal Justice System Adaptive Skill Legal Counsel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Bar Association (1989). Criminal justice mental health standards. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  2. Atchison, M., and Keyes, D. (1996). Why Johnny Lee Wilson went to prison. In D. S. Connery (Ed.), Convicting the innocent (pp. 118–126 ). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.Google Scholar
  3. Baroff, G. S., and Freedman, S. C. (1988, April). Mental retardation and Miranda. The Champion, 6–9.Google Scholar
  4. Baroff, G. S., and 011ey, J. G. (1999). Mental retardation: Nature, causes, and management. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  5. Bybee, G. S., and Zigler, E. (1992). Is outer directedness employed in a harmful or beneficial manner by students with and without mental retardation? American Journal of Mental Retardation 96512–521.Google Scholar
  6. Clare, I., and Gudjonnson, G. (1993). Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation, and acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap): Implications for reliability during police interrogations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 295–301.Google Scholar
  7. Clare, I., Gudjonnson, G., Rutter, S. and Cross, P. (1994). The inter-rater reliability of the Gudjonnson Suggestibility Scale (Form 2). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 357–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cloud, M., Shepherd, G. B., Barkoff, A., N., and Shur, J. V. (2002). Words without meaning: The Constitution, confessions, and mentally retarded suspects. University of Chicago Law Review69,495–624.Google Scholar
  9. Connelly v. Colorado, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar
  10. Drew, C. J., and Hardman, M. L. (2000). Mental retardation: A life cycle approach ( 7th ed. ). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Dunn, L. M., and Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  12. Ellis, J., and Luckasson, R., A. (1985). Mentally retarded criminal defendants. George Washington Law Review53,414–493.Google Scholar
  13. Everington, C., DeBerge, K., and Mauer, D. (2000). The relationship between language skills and competence to stand trial abilities in persons with mental retardation. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law28, 475–492.Google Scholar
  14. Everington, C., and Fulero, S. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everington, C., and Keyes, D. W. (1999). Diagnosing mental retardation in criminal proceedings: The critical importance of documenting adaptive behavior. The Forensic Examiner, 31–34.Google Scholar
  16. Everington, C., and Luckasson, R. (1989). Addressing the needs of the criminal defendant with mental retardation: The special educator as a resource to the criminal justice system. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 193–200.Google Scholar
  17. Feinstein, C. S., Everington, C., Derning, T., and Keyes, D. (2003). Individuals with mental retardation: A guide for psychologists. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.Google Scholar
  18. Finlay, W., and Lyons, E., (2002). Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation,40,14–29.Google Scholar
  19. Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter24, 326–331.Google Scholar
  20. Fulero, S. M., and Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior19, 533–543.Google Scholar
  21. Greenspan, S. (2003). Perceived risk status as a key to defining mental retardation: Social and everyday vulnerability in the natural prototype. In H. N. Switzky and S. Greenspan (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas for an evolving disability. Washington, DC: AAMR.Google Scholar
  22. Greenspan, S., Switzky, H. J., and Granfield, J. M. (1996). Everyday intelligence and adaptive behavior: A theoretical framework. In J. W. Jacobson and J. A. Mulick (Eds.) Manual of diagnosis and professional practice in mental retardation (pp. 127–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  23. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  24. Crisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  25. Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and Google Scholar
  26. instruments. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1990). The relationship of intellectual skills to suggestibility, compliance, and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). Interrogative suggestibility: Factor analysis of the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale (GSS2). Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 479–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I., and Rutter, S. (1994). Psychological characteristics of suspects interviewed at police stations: A factor-analytic study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 5, 517–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gudjonsson, G. H., and Clare, I. (1995). The relationship between confabulation and intellectual ability, memory, interrogative suggestibility and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gudjonsson, G. H., Rutter, S. C., and Clare, I. (1995). The relationship between suggestibility and anxiety among suspects detained at police stations. Psychological Medicine, 25, 875–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hammitt D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., and Wiederholt, J. L. (1994). Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-3). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  34. Inbau, F., Reid, J., and Buckley, J. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions ( 3rd ed. ). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  35. Johnson, M. (2002). Juvenile Miranda law in New Jersey, from Carlo, 1966 to JDH, 2001: Therelevance of recording all custodial questioning. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 30, 3–57. Kassin, S. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.Google Scholar
  36. Kaufman, A., and Kaufman, N. (1990). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: Amer-ican Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  37. Krezewinski, L. (2002). “But I didn’t do it”: Protecting the rights of juveniles during interrogation. Third World Law Journal, 22, 355–387.Google Scholar
  38. Luckasson, R., Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bunlinx, W.I-I.E., Coulter, D.L., Craig, E.M., Reeve, A., Snell, M.E., Spitalnik, D.M., Spreat, S., and Tasse, M.J. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports ( 10th ed. ). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
  39. McAfee, J. K. (1999). Individuals with mental retardation and the criminal justice system: A guide for law enforcement personnel. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.Google Scholar
  40. McGuire, R. E. (2002). A proposal to strengthen juvenile Miranda rights: Requiring parental presence in custodial interrogations. Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 1355–1387.Google Scholar
  41. Miller, A. (1996). Even Galileo confessed. In D. S. Connery (Ed.), Convicting the innocent (pp. 87–94 ). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.Google Scholar
  42. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
  43. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).Google Scholar
  44. ONeill, T. P. (2002). Miranda’s illusion of fairness to mentally retarded. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 5, 6.Google Scholar
  45. Perlman, N. B., Ericson, K. I., Esses, V. M., and Issacs, B. J. (1994). The developmentally handicapped witness: Competency as a function of question format. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 171–188.Google Scholar
  46. Perske, R. (1991). Unequal justice? What can happen when persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities encounter the criminal justice system. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Perske, R. (1994). Thoughts on the police interrogation of individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 32, 377–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Shaw, J. A., and Budd, E. D. (1982). Determinants of acquiescence and nay saying of mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 108–110.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sigelman, C. K., Budd, E. C., Spanel, C. L., and Schoenrock, C. J. (1981). When in doubt say yes: Acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 19, 53–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sigelman, C. K., Winer, J. L., and Schoenrock, C. J. (1982). The responsiveness of mentally retardedpersons to questions. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 17, 120–124. Taylor, R. L. (1997). Assessment of individuals with mental retardation.Google Scholar
  51. San Diego, CA: Singular. Thorndike, R., Hagen, E., and Sattler, J. (1986). Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale(4th ed.). Chicago:Riverside.Google Scholar
  52. Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ( 3rd ed. ). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  53. Wood, H. R., and White, D. L. (1992). A model for habilitation and prevention for offenders with mental retardation: The Lancaster County (PA) Office of Special Offenders Services. In R. W. Conley, R. Luckasson, and G. N. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation: Defendants and victims (pp. 153–165 ). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solomon M. Fulero
    • 1
  • Caroline Everington
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySinclair CollegeDaytonUSA
  2. 2.Richard W. Riley College of EducationWinthrop UniversityRock HillUSA

Personalised recommendations