Miranda V. Arizona (1966)

Miranda v. Arizona was a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1966, in which the Court articulated the idea of “Miranda warnings.” In brief, the Miranda decision held that suspects questioned by police must be informed of certain rights; otherwise, any statements the suspects make will not be admissible in court. Although the Miranda rights are unquestionably important, suspects can—and often do— give them up (i.e., waive their rights) and talk with police. Thus, the underlying issue in cases involving Miranda warnings is whether the waiver was valid and whether the suspect’s statements (e.g., a confession) are therefore admissible. In some cases, forensic psychologists are brought in to help the court determine waiver validity by evaluating a suspect’s ability to waive the Miranda rights. This article focuses on the law surrounding Miranda warnings and waivers, and the role of psychologists in conducting research on and evaluations of Miranda warnings and waivers.

Miranda Warnings

The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based on the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s protection against self- incrimination—the right not to be forced to make incriminating statements against oneself. The decision resolved four consolidated criminal appeals; in each case, the defendant had been questioned at length by police without being satisfactorily notified of his right to remain silent or his right to a lawyer. The Court held that custodial interrogations by police are inherently coercive, and therefore, police must take certain steps to protect suspects. Specifically, suspects should be told of their rights so that they can make an informed decision about whether to exercise or waive them. The Court therefore recommended a set of warnings informing the suspect of (a) the right to remain silent, (b) use of the suspect’s statements against him or her at trial, (c) the right to a lawyer, and (d) the right to an appointed lawyer for indigent suspects. The Court also stated that suspects can invoke these rights at any point during an interrogation, though it did not specify whether police needed to inform suspects about the continuing nature of their rights. One year after Miranda, the Court extended the same rights to juvenile suspects with In re Gault. Although the Court specified the content of the warnings, as described earlier, it has taken a flexible approach with respect to the specific language used to communicate the warnings. Therefore, hundreds of different versions of the Miranda warnings are used across the country.

Two nuances are essential to appreciate how Miranda applies to the day-to-day practice of police work. First, Miranda did not establish a procedural rule that police are required to follow; rather, it created a rule of admissibility in court: A defendant’s statements cannot be admitted into evidence against him or her if he or she was not informed of her rights. Second, Miranda does not apply to every interaction between citizens and police; it only applies to custodial interrogations. In subsequent cases, custody was defined as whether, given the circumstances of the interrogation, a reasonable person would feel free to leave. Interrogation refers to both direct questioning and other comments or actions by police that are reasonably likely to elicit incriminating information from a suspect.

Miranda Waivers

In addition to describing the components of the Miranda warnings, the Court also identified the requirements for a valid Miranda waiver. Miranda waivers must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Broadly speaking, the knowing and intelligent elements refer to a suspect’s comprehension of the warnings; voluntariness requires that the waiver was made without police coercion. Therefore, to execute a valid waiver, suspects must have understood the meaning of the warnings and the implications of giving up their rights, and they must have made the decision to waive their rights free from pressure by the police.

Courts determine the validity of Miranda waivers using the totality of the circumstances approach. This approach, which courts use to evaluate several different types of legal questions, directs courts to examine all of the factors relevant to a given issue. For Miranda waivers, there are two broad categories of factors: those related to the interrogation and those related to the suspect. Interrogation-specific factors can include the length and timing of the interrogation, the number of officers present, and interrogation methods. Thus, lengthy interrogations that take place overnight, include several officers in the interrogation room, or employ psychologically coercive interrogation strategies could lead a court to find a waiver invalid. Suspect-specific factors often include age, intelligence, comprehension of rights, and prior experience with the justice system. Thus, a Miranda waiver by a young suspect with low intelligence and no prior experience with police will more likely be deemed invalid than a waiver by an older suspect of average intelligence and a history of arrests. However, courts are free to consider other factors they find relevant, and each analysis is individualized to the case at hand.

Miranda Research

Miranda research largely consists of studies evaluating how well people comprehend the Miranda rights, how people make the decision to waive or invoke their rights, and the Miranda warnings themselves. Much of the seminal research on comprehension of Miranda rights was conducted by Thomas Grisso. Key among his contributions in this area was the translation of the legal terms knowing and intelligent into the psychological terms understanding and appreciation, respectively. Understanding encompasses one’s basic grasp of the Miranda rights’ meaning, and appreciation refers to one’s ability to apply the rights to his or her situation and recognize the consequences of waiving or asserting the rights. With the concepts thus defined, Grisso established a set of instruments, the Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights, which allow reliable measurement of Miranda comprehension.

Over several decades of research, age and intelligence have consistently emerged as the factors most strongly associated with Miranda comprehension. Generally, youth under the age of 12 years rarely demonstrate adequate understanding of the Miranda rights, whereas youth in middle adolescence (i.e., ages 13–15) demonstrate variable understanding. Older adolescents’ Miranda comprehension more closely resembles that of adults, though age and intelligence together are better predictors than age alone among adolescents. Differences among adults are primarily due to differences in intelligence as opposed to differences in age. Not surprisingly, intelligence generally, and verbal intelligence specifically, is often correlated with Miranda comprehension among youth and adults. Finally, individuals with more severe intellectual impairments (e.g., intellectual disability) consistently demonstrate inadequate Miranda comprehension.

Academic achievement, particularly reading and listening comprehension, has also been found to predict Miranda comprehension in some studies. Although the results of studies evaluating the relationship between academic achievement and Miranda comprehension are more mixed, the inconsistent findings may be partially attributable to the wide variety of Miranda warnings described further later in this section. Researchers have also investigated the relationship between the presence of mental illness and Miranda comprehension. Generally, results of these studies indicate that the presence of psychotic symptoms and other symptoms of severe mental illness associated with inpatient hospitalization are related to Miranda comprehension, whereas symptoms of depression and anxiety are not. Finally, although courts often rely on experience with the justice system as an indicator of a particular defendant’s Miranda comprehension, research consistently indicates that prior justice system experience does not predict understanding or appreciation of the Miranda warnings.

Miranda researchers have also investigated the factors associated with decisions to waive the Miranda rights. Although the rates of Miranda waivers are difficult to estimate, research suggests that a high percentage of suspects—roughly 80% of adults and 90% of youth—do waive their rights. Overall, research indicates an inverse relationship between Miranda comprehension and waiver decisions. That is, an individual with lower Miranda comprehension is more likely to waive his rights, and vice versa. Furthermore, individuals less able to consider long-term consequences are more likely to waive their rights to avoid the negative immediate consequences of invoking their rights (e.g., stress associated with asserting oneself to police).

Finally, regarding the Miranda warnings themselves, researchers have found hundreds of different versions of the warnings with dramatic differences in their length and comprehensibility. For example, the reading comprehension levels of Miranda warnings can vary from approximately third grade to the postgraduate level. Existing research also suggests that there is variability among jurisdictions with respect to how the warnings are administered (i.e., oral, written, or both), though most officers report administering the warnings orally.

Forensic Evaluations of Miranda Waivers

Forensic mental health professionals are sometimes asked to evaluate a defendant’s ability to waive the Miranda rights. These professionals can be forensic psychologists, psychiatrists, and on occasion social workers, but the term forensic psychologist is used for this article. Although judges make the final determination on the waiver’s validity, forensic psychologists can inform courts about relevant totality of the circumstances factors, particularly a defendant’s understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights.

Typically, forensic psychologists receive referrals for evaluations of Miranda waivers from defense attorneys who are attempting to exclude their clients’ incriminating statements from trial. The forensic psychologist will review relevant records, including third-party or collateral information (i.e., information that does not come directly from the subject of the evaluation). This allows the psychologist to corroborate information provided by the defendant, which is particularly important in the context of forensic mental health assessment when the defendant may be motivated to distort facts or conceal information unhelpful to the case. For instance, consider a defendant who shows very poor understanding of the Miranda rights and scores low on an intelligence test administered during the evaluation. The forensic psychologist would likely reach different conclusions if the defendant had a history of special education or documented intellectual disability than if he had a history of high academic achievement and successful employment in a competitive field. In the context of Miranda evaluations, relevant records include school, employment, mental health, and medical records. Whenever possible, forensic psychologists will also review the Miranda waiver form the defendant signed and any audio or video recording of the interrogation.

The next step in the Miranda evaluation will be an interview with the defendant. The first part of the interview usually entails a thorough biopsychosocial history (an interview of an individual’s biological, psychological, and social history). Then the psychologist will ask for the defendant’s account of the arrest, interrogation, and administration of the Miranda warnings. If the psychologist was able to obtain the defendant’s actual waiver form or a printed version of the Miranda warnings used in that jurisdiction, he will then ask the defendant to read each right aloud and paraphrase it.

Many forensic mental health assessments include psychological testing, and evaluations of Miranda waivers are no different. Depending on the case, the forensic psychologist may determine that intelligence or academic achievement testing is necessary. For defendants with a history of psychiatric conditions or treatment, broad personality testing or specific symptom inventories may be useful. Finally, there are specialized forensic assessment instruments specifically designed to provide information about an evaluee’s understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights: the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments, an updated version of Grisso’s instruments, and the Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities. Although differences exist between these sets of instruments, both assess individuals’ abilities to put the Miranda warnings in their own words, define Miranda vocabulary terms, and appreciate the significance of waiving their rights.

Finally, the forensic psychologist will synthesize the information obtained into a report. As referenced earlier, the report will not address the validity of the waiver but rather the capacity of the defendant to provide a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights.

References:

1. Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2008). Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda Law and Human Behavior, 32, 390–405. doi:10.1007/s10979-007- 9099-3
2. Goldstein, A., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2010). Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3. Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2003). Juvenile offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment, 10, 359–369. doi:10.1177/1073191103259535
4. Goldstein, N. E. S., Zelle, H., & Grisso, T. (2014). The Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments: Manual for juvenile and adult evaluations. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
5. Grisso, T. (1998). Assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights: Manual and materials. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
6. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
7. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
8. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
9. Murrie, D. C., & Zelle, H. (2015). Criminal competencies. In B. L. Cutler & P. A. Zapf (Eds.), APA handbook of forensic psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 115–157). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
10. Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8
11. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012). Standardized assessment of Miranda abilities. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
12. Zelle, H., Riggs Romaine, C. L., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2015). Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors. Law and Human Behavior, 39(3), 281–293. doi:10.1037/lhb0 000116