Legal Framework for Miranda Assessments
This chapter provides an overview of Miranda v. Arizona and other appellate cases of significance for the proper and effective performance of Miranda evaluations. Its focus identifies and supplements the legally oriented knowledge base needed by forensic practitioners in evaluating Miranda warning content, Miranda rights knowledge, as well as the validity of Miranda waivers. Forensic practitioners need to bear in mind that their evaluations are only valuable to the extent that they respond to the criminal justice system’s need for scientifically informed answers to specific legal questions. An understanding of the requirements, priorities, and implicit boundaries of the criminal justice system is critical in providing services that will be welcomed, understood, acknowledged, and utilized by the courts.
KeywordsConfessions Miranda evaluations Miranda v. Arizona Miranda waivers Miranda warnings
- Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942).Google Scholar
- American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Retrieved from http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm.
- American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf.
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).Google Scholar
- Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960).Google Scholar
- Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).Google Scholar
- California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).Google Scholar
- Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 207 (1940).Google Scholar
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar
- Daly, B., & Guyer, M. (2012). Provision of Miranda warning is age related. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40, 576–579.Google Scholar
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).Google Scholar
- Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).Google Scholar
- Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).Google Scholar
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).Google Scholar
- Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010).Google Scholar
- Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870 (1980).Google Scholar
- Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004).Google Scholar
- J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).Google Scholar
- Justia. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436.
- Knapp, A. J., Vande Creek, L. D., & Fingerhut, R. (2017). Informed consent, empowered collaboration, and shared decision making. In S. J. Knapp, L. D. Vande Creek, & F. Fingerhut (Eds.), Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach (3rd ed., pp. 83–95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Legal Information Institute. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436.Google Scholar
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979).Google Scholar
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).Google Scholar
- Richards, M. M. (2009). Electronic medical records: Confidentiality issues in the time of HIPAA. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 550–556.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, 402–418.Google Scholar
- Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.Google Scholar
- United States Courts. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona.Google Scholar