Skip to main content

Mental Retardation, Competency to Waive Miranda Rights, and False Confessions

  • Chapter
Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Law & Psychology ((PILP,volume 20))

Abstract

Persons with mental retardation are encountering the criminal justice system in increasing numbers. Persons with mental retardation who become suspects in criminal cases must deal with issues of competence to waive their right to remain silent upon police questioning, as well as the admissibility of any confession that is made as a result of that questioning. Unfortunately, we have begun to learn that confessions are frequently entered by persons with mental retardation in police interrogations without full understanding of their rights (Atchison & Keyes, 1996). In addition, because of the particular characteristics of those with mental retardation, statements that they may make must also be evaluated closely for reliability, even if their admissibility satisfies legal standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • American Bar Association (1989). Criminal justice mental health standards. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atchison, M., and Keyes, D. (1996). Why Johnny Lee Wilson went to prison. In D. S. Connery (Ed.), Convicting the innocent (pp. 118–126 ). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroff, G. S., and Freedman, S. C. (1988, April). Mental retardation and Miranda. The Champion, 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baroff, G. S., and 011ey, J. G. (1999). Mental retardation: Nature, causes, and management. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, G. S., and Zigler, E. (1992). Is outer directedness employed in a harmful or beneficial manner by students with and without mental retardation? American Journal of Mental Retardation 96512–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clare, I., and Gudjonnson, G. (1993). Interrogative suggestibility, confabulation, and acquiescence in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap): Implications for reliability during police interrogations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 295–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clare, I., Gudjonnson, G., Rutter, S. and Cross, P. (1994). The inter-rater reliability of the Gudjonnson Suggestibility Scale (Form 2). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33, 357–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cloud, M., Shepherd, G. B., Barkoff, A., N., and Shur, J. V. (2002). Words without meaning: The Constitution, confessions, and mentally retarded suspects. University of Chicago Law Review69,495–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly v. Colorado, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, C. J., and Hardman, M. L. (2000). Mental retardation: A life cycle approach ( 7th ed. ). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, L. M., and Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Third Edition (PPVT-III). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J., and Luckasson, R., A. (1985). Mentally retarded criminal defendants. George Washington Law Review53,414–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everington, C., DeBerge, K., and Mauer, D. (2000). The relationship between language skills and competence to stand trial abilities in persons with mental retardation. The Journal of Psychiatry and Law28, 475–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everington, C., and Fulero, S. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Everington, C., and Keyes, D. W. (1999). Diagnosing mental retardation in criminal proceedings: The critical importance of documenting adaptive behavior. The Forensic Examiner, 31–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everington, C., and Luckasson, R. (1989). Addressing the needs of the criminal defendant with mental retardation: The special educator as a resource to the criminal justice system. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinstein, C. S., Everington, C., Derning, T., and Keyes, D. (2003). Individuals with mental retardation: A guide for psychologists. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, W., and Lyons, E., (2002). Acquiescence in interviews with people who have mental retardation. Mental Retardation,40,14–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter24, 326–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fulero, S. M., and Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior19, 533–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, S. (2003). Perceived risk status as a key to defining mental retardation: Social and everyday vulnerability in the natural prototype. In H. N. Switzky and S. Greenspan (Eds.), What is mental retardation? Ideas for an evolving disability. Washington, DC: AAMR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenspan, S., Switzky, H. J., and Granfield, J. M. (1996). Everyday intelligence and adaptive behavior: A theoretical framework. In J. W. Jacobson and J. A. Mulick (Eds.) Manual of diagnosis and professional practice in mental retardation (pp. 127–136). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisso, T. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and

    Google Scholar 

  • instruments. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 303–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H. (1990). The relationship of intellectual skills to suggestibility, compliance, and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). Interrogative suggestibility: Factor analysis of the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale (GSS2). Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 479–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I., and Rutter, S. (1994). Psychological characteristics of suspects interviewed at police stations: A factor-analytic study. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 5, 517–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H., and Clare, I. (1995). The relationship between confabulation and intellectual ability, memory, interrogative suggestibility and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 333–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. H., Rutter, S. C., and Clare, I. (1995). The relationship between suggestibility and anxiety among suspects detained at police stations. Psychological Medicine, 25, 875–878.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt D. D., Brown, V. L., Larsen, S. C., and Wiederholt, J. L. (1994). Test of Adolescent and Adult Language (TOAL-3). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbau, F., Reid, J., and Buckley, J. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions ( 3rd ed. ). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. (2002). Juvenile Miranda law in New Jersey, from Carlo, 1966 to JDH, 2001: Therelevance of recording all custodial questioning. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 30, 3–57. Kassin, S. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A., and Kaufman, N. (1990). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: Amer-ican Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krezewinski, L. (2002). “But I didn’t do it”: Protecting the rights of juveniles during interrogation. Third World Law Journal, 22, 355–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckasson, R., Schalock, R.L., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Bunlinx, W.I-I.E., Coulter, D.L., Craig, E.M., Reeve, A., Snell, M.E., Spitalnik, D.M., Spreat, S., and Tasse, M.J. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports ( 10th ed. ). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, J. K. (1999). Individuals with mental retardation and the criminal justice system: A guide for law enforcement personnel. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, R. E. (2002). A proposal to strengthen juvenile Miranda rights: Requiring parental presence in custodial interrogations. Vanderbilt Law Review, 53, 1355–1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. (1996). Even Galileo confessed. In D. S. Connery (Ed.), Convicting the innocent (pp. 87–94 ). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • ONeill, T. P. (2002). Miranda’s illusion of fairness to mentally retarded. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 5, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, N. B., Ericson, K. I., Esses, V. M., and Issacs, B. J. (1994). The developmentally handicapped witness: Competency as a function of question format. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 171–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perske, R. (1991). Unequal justice? What can happen when persons with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities encounter the criminal justice system. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perske, R. (1994). Thoughts on the police interrogation of individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 32, 377–380.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. A., and Budd, E. D. (1982). Determinants of acquiescence and nay saying of mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 108–110.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, C. K., Budd, E. C., Spanel, C. L., and Schoenrock, C. J. (1981). When in doubt say yes: Acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 19, 53–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman, C. K., Winer, J. L., and Schoenrock, C. J. (1982). The responsiveness of mentally retardedpersons to questions. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 17, 120–124. Taylor, R. L. (1997). Assessment of individuals with mental retardation.

    Google Scholar 

  • San Diego, CA: Singular. Thorndike, R., Hagen, E., and Sattler, J. (1986). Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale(4th ed.). Chicago:Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale ( 3rd ed. ). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, H. R., and White, D. L. (1992). A model for habilitation and prevention for offenders with mental retardation: The Lancaster County (PA) Office of Special Offenders Services. In R. W. Conley, R. Luckasson, and G. N. Bouthilet (Eds.), The criminal justice system and mental retardation: Defendants and victims (pp. 153–165 ). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fulero, S.M., Everington, C. (2004). Mental Retardation, Competency to Waive Miranda Rights, and False Confessions. In: Lassiter, G.D. (eds) Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. Perspectives in Law & Psychology, vol 20. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-33151-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-38598-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics