While Grisso's scales for the measurement of competency to waive Miranda rights were originally developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, they were published for commercial use in 1998. Similarly, the Gudjonsson scale for the measurement of interrogative suggestibility was developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but published for commercial use in 1997. Since that time, psychologists have sought to use these scales as the basis for expert testimony in cases involving a defendant's competency to waive Miranda rights, and in cases involving a defendant's confession in which the defense is based on the argument that the defendant was suggestible and therefore may have given a false confession. Such cases are beginning to be reported, as the use of the scales becomes more common, and as they are challenged under Daubert or Frye standards of admissibility. This article looks at the emerging case law in this area.
BlagroveM. (1996). The effects of sleep deprivation on interrogative suggestibility, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 48–59.
4.
BlagroveM.Cole-MartinD. & LambeH. (1994). Interrogative suggestibility: The effects of sleep deprivation and relationship with field dependence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 169–179.
5.
Canady v. State, 100 S.W.2 28 (Tex.App.-Waco 2002).
6.
ChengE. & YoonA. (2005). Does Frye or Daubert matter? A study of scientific admissibility standards. Virginia Law Review, 91, 471–513.
7.
ClareI. C. H., & GudjonssonG. H. (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.
8.
CloudM.ShepherdG.BarkoffA., & ShurJ. (2002). Words without meaning: The Constitution, confessions, and mentally retarded suspects, University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 495–624.
9.
Commonwealth v. Soames, 51 Mass.App.Ct. 273 (2001).
10.
DawesR. M.FaustD., & MeehlP. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668–1674.
11.
DeClueG. (2005a). Interrogations and disputed confessions: A manual for forensic psychological practice. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.
12.
DeClueG. (2005b). Psychological consultation in cases involving interrogations and confessions, Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 313–366.
13.
DeClueG. (2008, February). Interrogations and Disputed Confessions: Forensic Assessment, Consultation, and Testimony. Workshop at the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, New Orleans.
14.
EndresJ. (1997). The suggestibility of the child witness: The role of individual differences and their assessment. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Credibility, 1, 44–67.
15.
EveringtonC., & FuleroS. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.
16.
FrumkinB. (2000). Competency to Waive Miranda Rights: Clinical and Legal Issues, Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter, 24, 326–331.
17.
FrumkinB., & GarciaA. (2003). Psychological evaluations and the competency to waive Miranda rights. The Champion, 45, 12–23.
18.
FuleroS. (2004). Expert psychological testimony on the psychology of interrogations and confessions. In LassiterG. D. (Ed.), Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment (247–263). New York: Kluwer.
19.
FuleroS. (in press). Expert psychological testimony on the psychology of interrogations and confessions: Five years later. In LassiterK.D. & MeissnerC. (Eds.) Interrogations and Confessions: Current Research, Practices and Policy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
FuleroS. M., & EveringtonC. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533–543.
21.
FuleroS. M. & EveringtonC. (2004a). Mental retardation, competency to waive Miranda rights and false confessions. In LassiterG. D. (Ed.) Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. (pp. 163–180). New York: Kluwer.
22.
FuleroS. M. & EveringtonC. (2004b). Assessing the capacity of persons with mental retardation to waive Miranda rights: A jurisprudent psychology perspective. Law and Contemporary Problems, 28, 53–69.
Garner v. Mitchell (2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 21705; 2007 FED App. 0370P (6th Cir.), decided September 11, 2007).
25.
GreenfieldD. & WittP. (2005). Evaluating adult Miranda waiver competency. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 33, 471–490.
26.
GrissoT. (1980). Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California Law Review, 68, 1134–1166.
27.
GrissoT. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.
28.
GrissoT. (1986). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments. New York: Plenum.
29.
GrissoT. (1998). Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights.Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
30.
GudjonssonG. (1984a). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 303–314.
31.
GudjonssonG. H. (1984b). Interrogative suggestibility: Comparison between ‘false confessors’ and ‘deniers’ in criminal trials. Medicine, Science and the Law, 24, 56–60.
32.
GudjonssonG. (1987). A parallel form of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 215–221.
33.
GudjonssonG. H. (1991a). Suggestibility and compliance among alleged false confessors and resisters in criminal trials. Medicine, Science and the Law, 31, 147–151.
34.
GudjonssonG. H. (1991b). The effects of intelligence and memory on group differences in suggestibility and compliance. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 503–505.
GudjonssonG. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
37.
GudjonssonG.H., & ClarkN.K. (1986). Suggestibility in police interrogation: A social psychological model. Social Behaviour, 1, 83–104.
38.
GudjonssonG. H., & SinghK. K. (1984a). Interrogative suggestibility and delinquent boys: An empirical validation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 425–430.
39.
GudjonssonG. H., & SinghK. K. (1984b). The relationship between criminal conviction and interrogative suggestibility among delinquent boys. Journal of Adolescence, 7, 29–34.
40.
KassinS. & GudjonssonG. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.
41.
LallyS. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491–498.
42.
Martin v. State, 871 So.2d 693 (Miss. 2004).
43.
MeltonG.PetrilaJ.PoythressN., & SloboginC. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
44.
People v. Bennett, 376 Ill.App.3d 554, 876 N.E.2d 256 (2007).
45.
People v. Carroll (Illinois Ct App., Third District, 2001, unpublished opinion).
46.
People v. Cole, 24 A.D.3d 1021, 807 N.Y.S.2d 166 (2005).
47.
People v. Hernandez, 46 A.D.3d 574, 846 N.W.S.2d 371 (2007).
48.
People v. Jenkins, 122 Cal.App.4th 1160, 19 Cal. Rptr. 3d 386 (2004).
49.
People v. Phillips, 226 Ill. App. 3d 878, 882–83, 888, 589 N.E.2d 1107, appeal denied, 146 Ill. 2d 645, 602 N.E.2d 469 (1992).
People v. Wroten (Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, but see 2007 WL 4501776 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), decided December 26, 2007).
52.
Pritchett v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 182, 557 S.E.2d 205 (2002).
53.
R. v. Ashley King, E.W.J. No. 6913 (CA) at paragraphs 56–57 (1999).
54.
R. v. Fell, E.W.J. No. 1324 (CA) at paragraphs 108–109 (2001).
55.
R. v. L. (17 C.R. (5th) 70 (B.C.S.C. 1998).
56.
R. v. Roberts, EWCA Crim 998 at 15–16 (1998).
57.
R. v. Smith, E.W.C.A. Crim. 927 (April 2, 2003).
58.
R. v. Ward, 96 Cr. App. R. 1 (1992).
59.
R. v. Warren (35 C.R. 4th 347 (N.W.T.S.C.) aff'd (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 418 (N.W.T.C.A. 1995).
60.
RichardsonG., & KellyT. P. (1995). The relationship between intelligence, memory and interrogative suggestibility in young offenders. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 1, 283–290.
61.
Robinson v. United States., 928 A.2d 717 (D.C. 2007).
62.
RogersR.HarrisonK. S.ShumanD. W.SewellK. W., & HazelwoodL. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192.
63.
RybaN.L.BrodskyS.L., & ShlosbergA. (2007). Capacity to waive Miranda rights evaluations: A survey of practitioners' use of the Grisso instrument. Assessment, 14, 300–309.
64.
ScullinM.KanayaT., & CeciS. (2002). Measurement of individual differences in children's suggestibility across situations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 233–246.
65.
SharrockR., & GudjonssonG. H. (1993). Intelligence, previous convictions and interrogative suggestibility: A path analysis of alleged false-confession cases. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 169–175.
66.
Smith v. Mullin (379 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2004).
67.
State v. Bumgardner, 2008-Ohio-1778 (Court of Appeals of Ohio, 11th District, decided April 11, 2008).
68.
State v. Caldwell, 611 So. 2d 1149, 1150, 1152 (Ala. App. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 904, 114 S. Ct. 284, 126 L. Ed. 2d 234 (1993).
69.
State v. Carter, 697 So. 2d 529, 533 (Fla. App. 1997).
70.
State v. Free, 351 N.J.Super. 205, 798 A.2d 83 (2002).
71.
State v. Griffin, 265 Conn. 910, 831 A.2d. 252 (2003), aff'd No. 17052 (Conn. Sup. Ct. Apr. 5, 2005).
72.
State v. King (387 N.J.Super. 522, 904 A.2d 808 (2006).
