Advertisement

Legal Framework for Miranda Assessments

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin
Chapter

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Confessions Miranda evaluations Miranda v. Arizona Miranda waivers Miranda warnings 

References

  1. Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942).Google Scholar
  2. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Retrieved from http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm.
  3. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf.
  4. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960).Google Scholar
  6. 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, 42–43, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).Google Scholar
  8. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).Google Scholar
  9. Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 207 (1940).Google Scholar
  10. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Davies, A. L., & Worden, A. P. (2009). State politics and the right to counsel: A comparative analysis. Law & Society Review, 43, 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).Google Scholar
  14. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).Google Scholar
  15. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).Google Scholar
  16. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).Google Scholar
  17. Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010).Google Scholar
  18. Frantzen, D. (2010). Interrogation strategies, evidence, and the need for Miranda: A study of police ideologies. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 11, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gillard, N. D., Rogers, R., Kelsey, K. R., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). An investigation of implied Miranda waivers and Powell wording in a mock-crime study. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870 (1980).Google Scholar
  21. Intravia, J., Wolff, K. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). Investigating the effects of media consumption on attitudes toward police legitimacy. Deviant Behavior, 39, 963–980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004).Google Scholar
  23. J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).Google Scholar
  24. Justia. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436.
  25. 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
  26. Legal Information Institute. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436.Google Scholar
  27. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
  28. North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979).Google Scholar
  29. Oyez. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.Google Scholar
  30. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).Google Scholar
  31. Richards, M. M. (2009). Electronic medical records: Confidentiality issues in the time of HIPAA. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 550–556.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., Steadham, J. A., Clark, J. W., & Cramer, R. J. (2013). General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights: Are effective Miranda rights still necessary? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 432–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.Google Scholar
  36. Shah, S. K., Hull, S. C., Spinner, M. A., Berkman, B. E., Sanchez, L. A., Abdul-Karim, R., Claypool, R., & Holland, S. M. (2013). What does the duty to warn require? American Journal of Bioethics, 13, 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Rogers
    • 1
  • Eric Y. Drogin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations