Advertisement

Systematic Assessment of Miranda Comprehension

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter emphasizes ecological validity so that Miranda evaluations give full consideration to real-world circumstances within the boundaries of professional ethics. For Miranda comprehension, recall and understanding can often be tested via recordings by law enforcement and the advisement, pre-waiver interactions, and the subsequent waiver. Miranda abilities are best understood within a hierarchical model. An integrated understanding for Miranda rights depends on accurate recall; likewise, use of accurate recall relies on correct definitions of Miranda-relevant vocabulary. Sophisticated Miranda evaluations often include specialized Miranda measures that provide both nomothetic data as well as case-specific findings. In addition, open-ended (i.e., non-standardized) interviews and observations are essential in capturing the totality of circumstances as required by Miranda evaluations. Thus, this chapter provides a step-by-step approach for assessing Miranda comprehension and evaluating any efforts at feigned Miranda impairment.

Keywords

Miranda comprehension Miranda warnings Miranda Comprehension Template Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities 

References

  1. Chaulk, S. J., Eastwood, J., & Snook, B. (2014). Measuring and predicting police caution comprehension in adult offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56, 323–340.Google Scholar
  2. Childs, O. W. (1968). Intoxicated confessions: A new harbor in Miranda? Stanford Law Review, 20, 1269–1280.Google Scholar
  3. Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living vocabulary: A national vocabulary inventory. Chicago: World Book—Childcraft International.Google Scholar
  4. Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Chaulk, S. J. (2010). Measuring reading complexity and listening comprehension of Canadian police cautions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 453–471.Google Scholar
  5. Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2015). Measuring the reading complexity and oral comprehension of Canadian youth waiver forms. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 798–828.Google Scholar
  6. Engle, R. W., Nations, J. K., & Cantor, J. (1990). Is “working memory capacity” just another name for word knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 799–804.Google Scholar
  7. Foote, W. E., & Shuman, D. W. (2006). Consent, disclosure, and waiver for the forensic psychological evaluation: Rethinking the roles of psychologist and lawyer. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 437–445.Google Scholar
  8. Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24, 326–331.Google Scholar
  9. Frumkin, I. B., Lally, S. J., & Sexton, J. E. (2012). The Grisso tests for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda warnings with a forensic sample. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 673–692.Google Scholar
  10. 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.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, FL: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL US: Professional Resource Press/Professional Resource Exchange.Google Scholar
  14. Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228.Google Scholar
  15. Leo, R. A. (1996). Miranda’s revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law & Society Review, 30, 259–288.Google Scholar
  16. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  17. Merten, T., & Rogers, R. (2017). An international perspective on feigned mental disabilities: Conceptual issues and continuing controversies. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35, 97–112.Google Scholar
  18. Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).Google Scholar
  19. Parsons, T. D., & Phillips, A. S. (2016). Virtual reality for psychological assessment in clinical practice. Practice Innovations, 1, 197–217.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2015). Miranda rights and wrongs: Matters of justice. American Judges Association: Court Review, 51, 150–156.Google Scholar
  23. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2016). Miranda warnings and waivers: Often heard but seldom understood. Champion, 40, 38–45, 63.Google Scholar
  24. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2007a). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 401–418.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007b). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192.Google Scholar
  28. 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, 124–136.Google Scholar
  29. Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Blackwood, H. L., Rogstad, J. E., & Harrison, K. S. (2009). Development and initial validation of the Miranda vocabulary scale. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 381–392.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights:” Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3), 300–318.Google Scholar
  31. Rogers, R., Gillard, N. D., Wooley, C. N., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2011a). Decrements in Miranda abilities: An investigation of situational effects via a mock-crime paradigm. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 392–401.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Steadham, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. (2011b). In plain English: Avoiding recognized problems with Miranda miscomprehension. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 264–285.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). 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
  35. Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., Carter, R. M., Henry, S. A., Drogin, E. Y., & Robinson, E. V. (2016). An examination of juveniles’ Miranda abilities: Investigating differences in Miranda recall and reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 515–538.Google Scholar
  36. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Carter, R. M., Henry, S. L., Williams, M. M., & Robinson, E. V. (2017a). Validity and representative data of the MRCI with legally involved juveniles. Assessment, 24(5), 591–602.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, R., Henry, S. A., Sharf, A. J., Robinson, E. V., & Williams, M. M. (2017b). Dodging self-incriminations: An examination of feigned Miranda abilities on the SAMA. Assessment, 24, 975–986.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., & Henry, S. A. (2017c). Feigned adjudicative incompetence: Testing effectiveness of the ILK and SAMA with jail detainees. Assessment, 24, 173–182.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Carter, R. M., Henry, S. L., Williams, M. M., & Robinson, E. V. (2017d). Validity and representative data of the MRCI with legally involved juveniles. Assessment, 24, 591–602.Google Scholar
  40. Rogers, R., Robinson, E. V., Henry, S. A., & Drogin, E. Y. (2018a). Feigned Miranda impairment by legally involved juveniles: The vulnerability of forensic measures and the development of effective screens. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1269–1287.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Carter, R. M., Winningham, D. B., & Sternad, R. N. (2018b). The MRCI with juvenile detainees: Optimizing performance or emphasizing ecological validity? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36, 1–11.Google Scholar
  42. Rubin, D. L. (2012). Listenability as a tool for advancing health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 17(Suppl. 3), 176–190.Google Scholar
  43. Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49, 121–133.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Stahl, S. A. (2003). Vocabulary and readability: How knowing word meanings affects comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 241–247.Google Scholar
  46. Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2017). Wide Range Achievement Test-5th edition WRAT5™ manual. Bloomington: Pearson.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Zelle, H., Romaine, C. R., & Goldstein, N. 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