The landmark Miranda decision established an explicit set of warnings that a criminal suspect must understand to insure that his statement to the police was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Mental health experts are routinely used to assist both prosecution and defense in determining whether the suspect's understanding of the Miranda warnings was sufficient to allow his statement into evidence. This article delineates issues and procedures to assist the evaluator in conducting such evaluations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984).
2.
BorumR. (2003). Not guilty by reason of insanity (Chapter 6). In Thomas Grisso, Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3.
DeClueG. (2005). Interrogations and confessions: A manual for practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
4.
FrederickR. I. (1997). Validity Index Profile manual. Minnesota, MN: National Computer Systems.
5.
GreenfieldD.P.DoughertyE.J.JacksonR.M.PodboyJ.W.ZimmermanM.L. (2001). Retrospective evaluation of Miranda reading levels and waiver competency,”American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19, 75–86.
6.
GreenfieldD.P.DoughertyE.J.JacksonR.M.PodboyJ.W.ZimmermanM.L. (2000). A checklist for evaluating Miranda waiver competency, American Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 21: 57–71.
7.
GrissoT. (1998). Assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights: Manual and materials. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
8.
GrissoT. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9.
GudjonssonG. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 303–314.
10.
GudjonssonG. H. (1987). A parallel form of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 215–221.
11.
GutheilT.G.ApplebaumP.S. (2000). Clinical handbook of psychiatry and the law (Third Edition), Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Williams.
12.
MartellD.A. (1996). Causal relation between brain damage and homicide: The prosecution, Seminars in Clinical Neuropsychiatiatry, 1, 184–194.
13.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
14.
OberlanderL. B.GoldsteinN. E.GoldsteinA. M. (2003). Competence to confess. In GoldsteinAlan M. (ed.) Handbook of psychology, Volume 11: Forensic psychology (pp. 335–357), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
15.
People v. Bernasco, 562 N.E.2d 958 (Ill. 1990).
16.
Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433 (1961).
17.
SlovenkoR. (2001). “Commentary: Holding the expert accountable,”Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 29, 543–574.
18.
StoneA. A. (1984). The ethics of forensic psychiatry: A view from the ivory tower” (pages 57–75), StoneA.A. (Ed.). Law psychiatry, and morality: Essays and analysis. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatry Press, Inc.
