Beyond Individual Miranda Cases: Other Professional Roles

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin


This book’s overriding objective is to convey how to conduct Miranda evaluations and consultations. Nonetheless, Miranda-experienced forensic psychologists and psychiatrists carry additional professional responsibilities for the further education and training of practitioners who seek to broaden their forensic competencies, and, this book is also dedicated to that goal. Beyond specialized training, the dissemination of Miranda-relevant knowledge extends to stakeholders in the criminal justice system, directly involving law enforcement, officers of the court, and all organizations dedicated to upholding Constitutional rights. Whether the role in question is that of a forensic practitioner or researcher, we submit that advocacy for fairness and transparency is both a desired aspiration as well as a professional obligation. Such initiatives may be undertaken at local, state, and national levels. Their objectives may range from policy change at the agency level to legislative action at the state or national level. For such objectives to be fully realized, they must consider fair procedural safeguards for arrestees as well as respect for the professional roles of those charged with protecting our society. Finally, the establishment of Miranda research agenda is a forward-looking process of examining priorities for the next generation of Miranda knowledge and problem-solving.


Miranda warnings Miranda waivers Simplified Miranda warnings Competencies in Miranda evaluation Advocacy for 5th Amendment protections 


  1. American Bar Association. (2010). Resolution 102B: Juvenile Miranda rights. Retrieved from
  2. American Psychological Association. (2008). Award for distinguished professional contributions to applied research. American Psychologist, 63, 773–787.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (2011). Richard Rogers: Award for distinguished contributions to research in public policy. American Psychologist, 66, 725–736.Google Scholar
  4. Balch, R. W., Giffiths, C. T., Hall, E. L., & Winfree, L. T. (1976). The socialization of jurors: The voir dire as a rite of passage. Journal of Criminal Justice, 4, 271–273.Google Scholar
  5. Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).Google Scholar
  6. Beyer, B. J., & Herndon, J. (2018). Interrogative specialists and false confessions: Debunking the con artist myth. Journal of Police & Criminal Psychology, 33, 233–243.Google Scholar
  7. Bull, R., & Milne, B. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181–196). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Cleary, H. M. D., & Warner, T. C. (2016). Police training in interviewing and interrogation methods: A comparison of techniques used with adult and juvenile suspects. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 270–284.Google Scholar
  9. Council of Europe. (2010). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Strasbourg. Retrieved from
  10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 506 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  11. De Angelis, J., & Wolf, B. (2016). Perceived accountability and public attitudes toward local police. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law & Society, 29, 232–252.Google Scholar
  12. Dertsakyan, S. S. (2013). Comprehension of the general Miranda warning and the proposed model Miranda warning. Unpublished dissertation, Alliant International University, Irvine.Google Scholar
  13. Devine, D. J., & Kelly, C. E. (2015). Life or death: An examination of jury sentencing with the capital jury project database. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(4), 393–406.Google Scholar
  14. Dickens, M., Harwood, K. A., & Cartier, F. A. (1955). Studies in listenability. Speech Monographs, 22(1), 49.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information. Retrieved from Scholar
  17. DuBay, W. H. (2007). The listenability of consumer- information phone scripts. Costa Mesa: Impact Information. Retrieved from Scholar
  18. Eastwood, J., & Snook, B. (2012). The effect of listenability factors on the comprehension of police cautions. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 177–183.Google Scholar
  19. Fang, I. E. (1966/1967). The ‘easy listening’ formula. The Journal of Broadcasting, 11, 63–68.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  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. Hall, D. E., Prochazka, A. V., & Fink, A. S. (2012). Informed consent for clinical treatment. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 184(5), 533–540.Google Scholar
  23. Harwood, K. A. (1955). Listenability and readability. Speech Monographs, 22, 49–53.Google Scholar
  24. Hentoff, N. (1999). Living the bill of rights. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hynes, C. J. (2010). Report on 102B: Juvenile Miranda rights. Retrieved from
  26. 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
  27. John E. Reid and Associates. (2001/2002). Survey results. Retrieved from
  28. Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249–253.Google Scholar
  29. Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221.Google Scholar
  30. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010a). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.Google Scholar
  31. Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Perillo, J. T. (2010b). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39–55.Google Scholar
  32. Kendeou, P., Smith, E. R., & O'Brien, E. J. (2013). Updating during reading comprehension: Why causality matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 854–865.Google Scholar
  33. Kovera, M. B. (2013). Voir dire and jury selection. In R. K. Otto & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, 2nd ed., pp. 630–647). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Lieberman, J. D. (2011). The utility of scientific jury selection: Still murky after 30 years. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 48–52.Google Scholar
  35. Magliocca, G. (2017). The heart of the constitution: How the bill of rights became the bill of rights. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Meissner, C. A., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. B. (2010). The need for a positive psychological approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 43–45.Google Scholar
  37. Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486.Google Scholar
  38. Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the effectiveness of suspect interrogations. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 11, 211–233.Google Scholar
  39. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2010). Right from the start: The CCC preliminary protective hearing benchcard; a tool for judicial decision-making. Reno: Author.Google Scholar
  40. Nevada Department of Education. (2010). Financial literacy for high school students: A guidance document to assist Nevada’s school districts in meeting the requirements under SB 317. Nevada Department of Education.Google Scholar
  41. Otal, T. K., Rogers, R., & Velsor, S. F. (2018). An investigation of the refutations method in dispelling Miranda rights misconceptions. Poster presented at the 2018 American Psychology Association (APA) Annual Convention, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  42. Otto, C. W., Applegate, B. K., & Davis, R. (2007). Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 502–517.Google Scholar
  43. Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327–337.Google Scholar
  44. Rigoni, M. E., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). Is it time for a revolution in the interrogation room? Empirically validating inquisitorial methods. Paper presented at Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville.Google Scholar
  45. Rogers, R. (2008). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing … Emerging Miranda research and professional roles. American Psychologist, 63, 776–787.Google Scholar
  46. Rogers, R. (2010). Simplified Miranda warnings by Miranda experts. Unpublished report, University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  47. Rogers, R. (2011). Getting it wrong about Miranda rights: False beliefs, impaired reasoning and professional neglect. American Psychologist, 66, 728–736.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  49. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2015). Miranda rights and wrongs: Matters of justice. Court Review, 51, 150–156.Google Scholar
  50. Rogers, R., & Otal, T. (2018). Effects of listenability and refutation on Miranda decision-making. Manuscript in preparation, University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
  51. Rogers, R., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). Do brief safeguards improve Miranda comprehension and reasoning? Unpublished data. Denton: University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  52. Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (2014). Legal decision making in the dark: Improving juveniles’ abilities to effectuate knowing and intelligent waivers. Denton: Unfunded grant proposal to the National Science Foundation; University of North Texas.Google Scholar
  53. Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Shuman, D. W., & Blackwood, H. L. (2008). The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 14, 63–87.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., Steadham, J. A., Clark, J. I., & Cramer, R. J. (2013a). General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights: Are effective Miranda advisements still necessary? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 432–442.Google Scholar
  57. Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Robinson, E. V., Steadham, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. (2013b). Investigating the effects of repeated Miranda warnings: Do they perform a curative function on common Miranda misconceptions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 31, 397–410.Google Scholar
  58. Rogers, R., Henry, S. A., Helfers, R. C., Williams, M. M., Drogin, E. Y., & Clark, J. I. (2016a). Law enforcement and the rights of the accused: Are the police getting a bad rap? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 200–207.Google Scholar
  59. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Clark, J. W., III, Drogin, E. Y., Winningham, D. B., & Williams, M. M. (2016b). One American perspective on the rights of accused: An initial survey of Miranda rights in a broader context. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 34, 477–494.Google Scholar
  60. Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Meyers, B., Drogin, E. Y., Henry, S. A., & Williams, M. M. (2018, March). Jeopardizing capital jury selection: Denials and deceptions of death penalty biases. Paper presented for the annual conference of the American-Psychology Law Society, Memphis.Google Scholar
  61. Rubin, D. L. (2012). Listenability as a tool for advancing health literacy. Journal of Health Communication, 17(Suppl. 3), 176–190.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Russell, J., & Summers, A. (2013). Reflective decision-making and foster care placements. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 127–136.Google Scholar
  64. Seltzer, R. (2006). Scientific jury selection: Does it work? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2417–2435.Google Scholar
  65. Sinatra, G. M., & Broughton, S. H. (2011). Bridging reading comprehension and conceptual change in science education: The promise of refutation text. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 374–393.Google Scholar
  66. Smithson, M. (1993). Ignorance and science: Dilemmas, perspectives, and prospects. Science Communication, 15, 133–156.Google Scholar
  67. Snook, B., Luther, K., Quinlan, H., & Milne, R. (2012). Let ‘em talk!: A field study of police questioning practices of suspects and accused persons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1328–1339.Google Scholar
  68. Snook, B., Eastwood, J., & Barron, W. T. (2014). The next stage in the evolution of interrogations: The PEACE model. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 18, 219–239.Google Scholar
  69. Snook, B., Luther, K., Eastwood, J., Collins, R., & Evans, S. (2016). Advancing legal literacy: The effect of listenability on the comprehension of interrogation rights. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21, 174–188.Google Scholar
  70. Son, S. J. (2004). Adequacy of voir dire questioning for selecting an impartial jury. Unpublished dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno.Google Scholar
  71. Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 305–321.Google Scholar
  72. 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, 61, 81–89.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