Advertisement

The Structure and Goals of Miranda Evaluations

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter adopts a “nuts-and-bolts,” highly practical approach to Miranda evaluations. Providing forensic services with an easily understood structure is vitally important, because even seasoned criminal attorneys may scarcely have considered Miranda issues, despite decades of practice. In light of widespread “professional neglect” by lawyers, psychologists and other mental health professionals are often placed in an informal educative role to legal professionals in the criminal justice system. When crafting referral questions, defense attorneys frequently need to overcome their own fundamental misconceptions, such as “everyone knows their Miranda rights.” Beyond referrals, the chapter outlines both core and applied issues, from accepting a Miranda case to conducting an assessment. Goals of Miranda consultations may go far beyond suppressing self-incriminating statements, potentially with a key role to play in plea bargaining as well as at trial.

Keywords

Miranda consultations Suppression of incriminating statements Miranda warnings Miranda misconceptions Criminal trial tactics 

References

  1. American Medical Association. (2008). Mental and behavioral disorder. In Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (6th ed., pp. 347–381). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).Google Scholar
  4. Baltodano, H. M., Harris, P. J., & Rutherford, R. B. (2005). Academic achievement in juvenile corrections: Examining the impact of age, ethnicity and disability. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 361–379.Google Scholar
  5. Bamford, C., Eccles, M., Steen, N., & Robinson, L. (2007). Can primary care record review facilitate earlier diagnosis of dementia? Family Practice, 24, 108–116.Google Scholar
  6. Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2008). Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda rights. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 390–405.Google Scholar
  7. Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976).Google Scholar
  8. Fink, J. W. (2017). Beyond the tests: Record review, interview, and observations in forensic neuropsychology. In S. S. Bush, G. J. Demakis, & M. L. Rohling (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic neuropsychology (pp. 295–308). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  9. Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24(2), 326–331.Google Scholar
  10. Garcia-Willingham, N. E., Bosch, C. M., Walls, B. D., & Berry, D. R. (2018). Assessment of feigned cognitive impairment using standard neuropsychological tests. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 329–358). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstein, A. M., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goldstein, N. E., Zelle, H., & Grisso, T. (2014). Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI): Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  14. Gutheil, T. G., Commons, M. L., Drogin, E. Y., Hauser, M. J., Miller, P. M., & Richardson, A. M. (2012). Do forensic practitioners distinguish between testifying and consulting experts? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35, 452–455.Google Scholar
  15. Hartman, D. E. (2009). Test review: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale IV (WAIS IV): Return of the gold standard. Applied Neuropsychology, 16, 85–87.Google Scholar
  16. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.Google Scholar
  17. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Second Edition (KTEA-II). Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
  18. Kay, S. R., Fiszbein, A., & Opfer, L. A. (1987). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 13, 261–276.Google Scholar
  19. Klinge, V., & Dorsey, J. (1993). Correlates of the Woodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension and Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in a forensic psychiatric population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 593–598.Google Scholar
  20. Maloff, D. (2017). Best practices in addressing psycho-legal referrals: A survey of ABPP psychologists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  21. McLachlan, K., Roesch, R., & Douglas, K. S. (2011). Examining the role of suggestibility in Miranda rights comprehension in adolescents. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 165–177.Google Scholar
  22. Miles, S., Fulbrook, P., & Mainwaring-Mägi, D. (2018). Evaluation of standardized instruments for use in universal screening of very early school-age children: Suitability, technical adequacy, and usability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36, 99–119.Google Scholar
  23. 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, 359–369.Google Scholar
  24. Otto, R. K., Musick, J. E., & Sherrod, C. B. (2010). ILK: Inventory of Legal Knowledge professional manual. Lutz: Professional Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  25. Pirelli, G., Gottdiener, W. H., & Zapf, P. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 1–53.Google Scholar
  26. Redlich, A. D., Yan, S., Norris, R. J., & Bushway, S. D. (2018). The influence of confessions on guilty pleas and plea discounts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 147–157.Google Scholar
  27. Roesch, R., McLachlan, K., & Viljoen, J. L. (2016). The capacity of juveniles to understand and waive arrest rights. In R. Jackson & R. Roesch (Eds.), Learning forensic assessment: Research and practice (pp. 251–271). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, R. (2008). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing … Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. American Psychologist, 63, 776–787.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, R. (2015, October). What do we know about Miranda? National trends and local data. Orlando: Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, R. (2018a). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 3–17). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, R. (2018b). Structured interviews and dissimulation. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 422–448). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2013). Evaluation of malingering and related response styles. In R. K. Otto & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (pp. 517–540). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Shuman, D. W., & Drogin, E. Y. (2008). Miranda rights… and wrongs: Myths, methods, and model solutions. Criminal Justice, 23, 4–9.Google Scholar
  35. Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., Hazelwood, L. L., Shuman, D. W., Hoersting, R. C., & Blackwood, H. L. (2009a). Spanish translations of Miranda warnings and the totality of the circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 61–69.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Blackwood, H. L., Rogstad, J. E., & Harrison, K. S. (2009b). Development and initial validation of the Miranda vocabulary scale. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 381–392.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010a). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights:” Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 300–318.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010b). Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-Second Edition (SIRS-2). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.Google Scholar
  39. 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, 392–401.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, R., Blackwood, H. L., Fiduccia, C. E., Steadham, J. A., Drogin, E. Y., & Rogstad, J. E. (2012a). Juvenile Miranda warnings: Perfunctory rituals or procedural safeguards? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 229–249.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012b). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  42. Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., & Gillard, N. D. (2014a). The SIMS screen for feigned mental disorders: The development of detection-based scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 455–466.Google Scholar
  43. Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., & Robinson, E. V. (2014b). Mired in Miranda misconceptions: A study of legally involved juveniles at different levels of psychosocial maturity. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 104–120.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, R., Henry, S. A., Sharf, A. J., Robinson, E. V., & Williams, M. M. (2017a). Dodging self-incriminations: An examination of feigned Miranda abilities on the SAMA. Assessment, 24, 975–986.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., & Henry, S. A. (2017b). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment, 24, 173–182.Google Scholar
  46. Rogers, R., Williams, M. M., Winningham, D. B., & Sharf, A. J. (2018). An examination of PAI clinical descriptors and correlates in an outpatient sample: Tailoring of interpretive statements. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 259–275.Google Scholar
  47. Ryba, N. L., Brodsky, S. L., & Shlosberg, A. (2007). Evaluations of capacity to waive Miranda rights: A survey of practitioners’ use of the Grisso instruments. Assessment, 14, 300–309.Google Scholar
  48. Salekin, K. L., Olley, J. G., & Hedge, K. A. (2010). Offenders with intellectual disability: Characteristics, prevalence, and issues in forensic assessment. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 3, 97–116.Google Scholar
  49. 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, 275–282.Google Scholar
  50. Scherr, K. C., & Madon, S. (2013). “Go ahead and sign”: An experimental examination of Miranda waivers and comprehension. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 208–218.Google Scholar
  51. Scheyett, A., Vaughn, J., Taylor, M., & Parish, S. (2009). Are we there yet? Screening processes for intellectual and developmental disabilities in jail settings. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 13–23.Google Scholar
  52. Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014a). Woodcock–Johnson IV Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows: Riverside.Google Scholar
  53. Schrank, F. A., Mather, N., & McGrew, K. S. (2014b). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Oral Language (WJ IV OL). Rolling Meadows: Riverside.Google Scholar
  54. Shafer, A., Dazzi, F., & Ventura, J. (2017). Factor structure of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—Expanded (BPRS-E) in a large hospitalized sample. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 93, 79–86.Google Scholar
  55. Sharf, A. J., Rogers, R., & Williams, M. M. (2017a). Reasoning your way out of Miranda rights: How juvenile detainees relinquish their Fifth Amendment protections. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 121–130.Google Scholar
  56. Sharf, A. J., Rogers, R., Williams, M. M., & Drogin, E. Y. (2017b). Evaluating juvenile detainees’ Miranda misconceptions: The discriminant validity of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz. Psychological Assessment, 29, 556–567.Google Scholar
  57. Snook, B., Eastwood, J., & MacDonald, S. (2010). A descriptive analysis of how Canadian police officers administer the right-to-silence and right-to-legal-counsel cautions. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52, 545–560.Google Scholar
  58. Spitzer, R. L., & Endicott, J. (1978). Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia Change Version (SADS-C). New York: Biometrics Research.Google Scholar
  59. Steinberg, G. (2015). Demand side reform in the poor people’s court. Connecticut Law Review, 47, 741–805.Google Scholar
  60. Tombaugh, T. N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 260–268.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.260.Google Scholar
  61. van Beek, J., Vuijk, P. J., Harte, J. M., Smit, B. L., Nijman, H., & Scherder, E. A. (2015). The factor structure of the brief psychiatric rating scale (expanded version) in a sample of forensic psychiatric patients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 743–756.Google Scholar
  62. Velsor, S. & Rogers, R. (in press). Differentiating factitious psychological presentations from malingering: Implications for forensic practice. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Viljoen, J. L., Zapf, P., & Roesch, R. (2007). Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda Rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  65. Wechsler, D. (2009). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test—Third Edition (WIAT-III). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
  66. Wechsler, D., Coalson, D. L., & Raiford, S. E. (2008). WAIS-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio: Pearson.Google Scholar
  67. Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2004). SIMS: Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology Professional Manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources Inc.Google Scholar
  68. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2017). Wide Range Achievement Test-5th edition (WRAT5) manual. Bloomington: Pearson.Google Scholar
  69. Winningham, D. B., Rogers, R., Drogin, E. Y., & Velsor, S. F. (2018). Missing out on Miranda: Investigating Miranda comprehension and waiver decisions in adult inpatients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  70. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., Schrank, F. A., & Mather, N. (2007). Woodcock–Johnson III normative update. Rolling Meadows: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar
  71. 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, 281–293.Google 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