Minimal information is available regarding the frequency with which practitioners conduct evaluations of capacity to waive Miranda rights or what approaches they use in doing so. Grisso's Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights are the only published instruments designed specifically to assist practitioners in these evaluations. The instruments have been criticized for limited normative data in the test manual and the minimal guidance offered for interpreting results. A survey of practitioners was conducted to determine the nature and frequency of the use of these instruments. Of 401 respondents, 91% were engaged in forensic practice, and 26% had conducted evaluations of one's capacity to waive Miranda rights. Of those conducting Miranda evaluations, 44% had used Grisso's Miranda instruments. Practitioners' responses regarding the ways the instruments are used are reported. Suggestions are offered for informed practice, and related strengths and weaknesses of the instruments are identified.
Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations . Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 26, 465-473.
2.
Connecticut v. Griffin, S.C. 17053 (2005).
3.
Cooper, V.G. (2003). Waiver of Miranda rights in psychiatric patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa.
4.
Coyote v. United States, 380 F.2d 305 (1967).
5.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113. S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
6.
DeClue, G. (2005). Psychological consultation in cases involving interrogations and confessions. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 313-358.
7.
Everington, C., & Fulero, S.M. (1999). Competence to confess: Miranda understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212-220.
8.
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
9.
Frumkin, B. (2000). Competency to waive Miranda rights: Clinical and legal issues. Mental & Physical Disability Law Reporter , 42, 326-331.
10.
Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 47 (1923).
11.
Fulero, S.M., & Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waiver Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law & Human Behavior, 19, 533-543.
12.
Fulero, S.M., & Everington, C. (2004). Assessing the capacity of persons with mental retardation to waive Miranda rights: A jurisprudent therapy perspective. Law & Psychology Review, 28, 53-69.
13.
Goldstein, N.E., Condie.L.O., & Kalbeitzer, R. (2005). Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 357-369). New York: Guilford.
14.
Goldstein, N.E., 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.
15.
Greenfield, D.P., & Witt, P.H. (2005). Evaluating adult Miranda waiver competency. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 471-489.
16.
Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles' capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California Law Review, 68, 1134-1166.
17.
Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.
18.
Grisso, T. (1998a). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
19.
Grisso, T. (1998b). Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.
20.
Grisso, T. (2003). Waiver of rights to silence and legal counsel . In T. Grisso (Ed.), Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed., pp. 149-192). New York: Kluwer Academic.
21.
Grisso, T. (2004). Reply to “A critical review of published competence-to-confess measures.” Law & Human Behavior , 29, 719-724.
22.
Heilbrun, K., Marczyk, G.R., DeMatteo, D. (2002). Forensic mental health assessment: A casebook . London: Oxford University Press .
23.
Helms, J.L. (2003). Analysis of Miranda reading levels across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3, 25-37.
24.
Helms, J.L., & Godwin, C.D. (2002). Evaluating juvenile competency to waiver Miranda rights. In N. G. Ribner (Ed.), The handbook of juvenile forensic psychology (pp. 271-291). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Lally, S.J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 34, 491-498.
26.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
27.
Nicholson, R.A., & Norwood, S. (2000). The quality of forensic psychological assessments, reports and testimony: Acknowledge the gap between promise and practice. Law & Human Behavior, 24, 9-44.
28.
Oberlander, L.B., Goldstein, N.E., & Goldstein, A.M. (2003). Competence to confess . In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 11: Forensic psychology (pp. 335-357). New York: John Wiley.
29.
People v. Lara, 432 P.2d 202 (1967).
30.
Redlich, A.D., Silverman, M., & Steiner, H. (2003). Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 393-410.
31.
Rogers, R., Jordan, M.J., & Harrison, K.S. (2004). A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures. Law & Human Behavior, 28, 707-718.
32.
Ryba, N.L., Cooper, V.G., & Zapf. P.A. (2003). Juvenile competence to stand trial evaluations: A survey of current practice and test usage among psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice, 34, 499-507.
33.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Census regions and divisions of the United States. Retrieved January 14, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/geo/www./ua_regdiv.pdf
34.
Viljoen, J.L., Roesch, R., & Zapf, P.A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between competency to stand trial, competency to waive interrogation rights, and psychopathology . Law & Human Behavior, 26, 481-506.
