Advertisement

Communication of Miranda Findings

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter provides detailed outlines for the effective communication of clinical and forensic findings as they relate to Miranda issues. Readers will learn to write thorough, well-balanced reports that can guide criminal attorneys step-by-step through sometimes intricate findings. As discussed in Chap.  2, legal strategies may extend far beyond suppression issues per se and factor relevantly into other aspects of the case. Thus, cases may often be encountered with mixed findings concerning Miranda comprehension and reasoning, but such findings may still relevant to retaining counsel. Beyond communication to courts and attorneys, Miranda reports are intended to serve as a practical template to be used in preparing for expert testimony in a suppression hearing. The care and thoroughness of the Miranda report will signal to counsel on both sides the value and substance of the forensic practitioner’s conclusions. Based on such attributes, the suppression hearing may sometimes be averted via by a mutually advantageous plea bargain. Regarding testimony, this chapter provides constructive guidelines for building the direct examination in order to present persuasive and coherent themes to the trial court. For cross-examination, the chapter anticipates challenges and vulnerabilities that may be encountered during the suppression hearing.

Keywords

Miranda comprehension Miranda reasoning Suppression hearing Forensic reports Expert testimony 

References

  1. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Retrieved from http://www.aapl.org/ethics-guidelines.Google Scholar
  2. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2014). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic assessment. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43, S3–S53.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Principles of medical ethics with annotations especially applicable to psychiatry. Retrieved from https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/ethics.Google Scholar
  4. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from https:/www.apa.org/ethics/codeGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkins, E. L., & Weiss, K. J. (2011). Competency to waive Miranda rights. In E. Y. Drogin, F. M. Dattilio, R. L. Sadoff, & T. G. Gutheil (Eds.), Handbook of forensic assessment: Psychological and psychiatric perspectives (pp. 25–48). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan, A. (2006). Psychiatric evidence on the ultimate issue. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 14–21.Google Scholar
  10. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).Google Scholar
  11. DeMier, R. L., & Otto, R. K. (2017). Forensic report writing: Principles and challenges. In R. Roesch & A. N. Cook (Eds.), Handbook of forensic mental health services (pp. 216–234). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drogin, E. Y., & Barrett, C. L. (2007). Off the witness stand: The forensic psychologist as consultant. In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles (pp. 465–488). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Drogin, E. Y., & Meyer, D. J. (2011). Psychiatric and psychological malpractice. In E. Y. Drogin, F. M. Dattilio, R. L. Sadoff, & T. G. Gutheil (Eds.), Handbook of forensic assessment: Psychological and psychiatric perspectives (pp. 543–570). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drogin, E. Y., & Williams, C. S. (2018). Malingering: Considerations in reporting and testifying about assessment results. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 514–529). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  15. Farrell, H. M., & Drogin, E. Y. (2016). Comparing psychiatric and psychological ethics in forensic practice. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 2, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, M., Beckley, K., & Bailey, J. (2017). Reporting in secure settings. In S. Brown, E. Bowen, & D. Prescott (Eds.), The forensic psychologists’ report writing guide (pp. 163–174). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  17. Frumkin, I. B. (2010). Evaluations of competency to waive Miranda rights and coerced or false confessions: Common pitfalls in expert testimony. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 191–209). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gold, L. H., & Davidson, J. L. (2007). Do you understand your risk? Liability and third-party evaluations in civil litigation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35, 200–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldstein, A. M., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gutheil, T. G. (1998). The psychiatrist as expert witness. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gutheil, T. G., & Drogin, E. Y. (2013). The mental health professional in court. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  25. Gutheil, T. G., & Simon, R. I. (1999). Attorneys’ pressures on the expert witness: Early warning signs of endangered honesty, objectivity, and fair compensation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27, 546–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1989). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  27. Heilbrun, K., DeMatteo, D., Holliday, S. B., & LaDuke, C. (Eds.). (2014). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
  29. Johnson, M. B., & Torres, L. (1992). Miranda, trial competency and Hispanic immigrant defendants. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 10(4), 65–80.Google Scholar
  30. Karson, M., & Nadkarni, L. (2013a). Culturally competent report writing. In M. Karson & L. Nadkarni (Eds.), Principles of forensic report writing (pp. 129–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karson, M., & Nadkarni, L. (2013b). Organization of the report. In M. Karson & L. Nadkarni (Eds.), Principles of forensic report writing (pp. 29–45). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karson, M., & Nadkarni, L. (2013c). Writing an effective report. In M. Karson & L. Nadkarni (Eds.), Principles of forensic report writing (pp. 145–153). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufmann, P. M. (2009). Protecting raw data and psychological tests from wrongful disclosure: A primer on the law and other persuasive strategies. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1130–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loe, S. A., Kadlubeck, R. M., & Marks, W. J. (2007). Administration and scoring errors on the WISC-IV among graduate student examiners. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marett, C. P., & Mossman, D. (2017). Considering work as an expert witness? Look before you leap! Current Psychiatry, 16, 44–48.Google Scholar
  36. Meharg, S. S. (2017). Forensic neuropsychological reports. In S. S. Bush (Ed.), APA handbook of forensic neuropsychology (pp. 397–411). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., Slobogin, C., Otto, R. K., Mossman, D., & Condie, L. O. (2018). Psychological evaluations for the courts (4th ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  38. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).Google Scholar
  39. Mossman, D., Noffsinger, S. G., Ash, P., Frierson, R. L., Gerbasi, J., Hackett, M., et al. (2007). AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 35, 3–72.Google Scholar
  40. Otto, R. K., DeMier, R. L., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2014). Forensic reports and testimony: A guide to effective communication for psychologists and psychiatrists. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  42. Rogers, R., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2015). Forensic assessment instruments. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 19–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  43. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  44. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Miranda and beyond: Competencies related to police investigations. In R. Rogers & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law (pp. 113–149). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., Hazelwood, L. L., Shuman, D. W., Hoersting, R. C., & Blackwood, H. L. (2009). Spanish translations of Miranda warnings and the totality of the circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Salekin, R. T. (2015). Report writing and testimony. In Forensic evaluation and treatment of juveniles: Innovation and best practice (pp. 171–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scott, C. L. (2018). Evaluation of competencies in the criminal justice system. In L. H. Gold & R. I. Frierson (Eds.), The American Psychiatric Association publishing textbook of forensic psychiatry (pp. 263–280). Arlington: American Psychiatric Association Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Segal, D. M., & Kinscherff, R. (in press). Recording routine forensic mental health evaluations should be a standard of practice in the 21st century. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.Google Scholar
  50. Shellow, J. E. (2003). The limits of cross-examination. Seton Hall Law Review, 34, 317–388.Google Scholar
  51. Soliman, S., & Resnick, P. J. (2018). Geriatric forensic report writing. In J. C. Holzer, R. Kohn, & J. M. Ellison (Eds.), Geriatric forensic psychiatry: Principles and practice (pp. 329–335). New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  52. Va. Code Ann. §19.2-169.1 (2018).Google Scholar
  53. Vanderpool, D. (2016). Professional liability for forensic activities: Liability without a treatment relationship. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, 13(7–8), 41–44.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle 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