Adolescents' Miranda Rights Comprehension: The Impact of Verbal Expressive Abilities

Zelle, Heather; Romaine, Christina L. Riggs; Serico, Jennifer M; Wolbransky, Melinda; Osman, Douglas; Wrazien, Lindsey; Taormina, Stephanie; Goldstein, Naomi E. S.

doi:10.1037/e522092008-001

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, results pertaining to the CMV-II are presented first, because vocabulary comprehension is a prerequisite for both understanding and appreciation (Zelle et al, 2008), followed by results related to the understanding measures (CMR-II and CMR–R-II) and then by results related to the appreciation measure (FRI).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the distinction between the rights to silence and counsel, the field of forensic psychology has often considered the knowing and intelligent elements of the legal standard to correspond to two related but distinct types of comprehension, one reflecting a basic grasp of relevant concepts and one reflecting a more abstract grasp of how rights function (e.g., Grisso, 1998, 2003; Zelle et al, 2008). Practice among the courts, however, is more variable, with some courts interpreting knowing and intelligent to require only a basic understanding of the warnings (e.g., People v. Daoud , 2000; People v. Bernasco , 1990), whereas other courts require some level of appreciation of waiver consequences (e.g., Commonwealth v. DeJesus , 2001, People v. Young , 2006; State v. Stephenson , 1994).…”

Section: Understanding and Appreciation Of The Rights To Silence And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors.

Zelle¹,

Romaine²,

Goldstein³

2015

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined juvenile justice-involved youths' understanding and appreciation of the Miranda warnings' rights to silence and legal counsel using the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (Goldstein, Zelle, & Grisso, 2012). It also examined the relationships between totality of circumstances factors and understanding and appreciation of rights. Data were collected from 183 youths (140 boys) in pre- and postadjudication facilities in 2 states. Overall, youths demonstrated greater difficulty on measures of appreciation than understanding, with particular deficits in their abilities to comprehend the abstract concept of the right to silence. Results varied slightly by instrument, highlighting the importance of a multimodal assessment of these complex abilities. Examination of totality of circumstances factors identified relationships between some factors (e.g., age, verbal IQ, academic achievement) and Miranda comprehension, but revealed that other factors (e.g., gender, number of previous arrests) were not significantly related to Miranda understanding or appreciation. The findings support a nuanced conceptualization of Miranda rights comprehension that acknowledges the complexity of understanding and appreciating the warnings. Empirical analyses also support the continued use of some totality of circumstances factors and abandonment of others. Findings underscore the necessity of multimodal assessment and interpretation when conducting capacity to waive Miranda rights evaluations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Understanding and Appreciation Of The Rights To Silence And ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors.

Zelle¹,

Romaine²,

Goldstein³

2015

Law and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reading and listening skills are relevant to Miranda because the warnings may be delivered orally, in written format, or both, and the vocabulary and syntax of the Miranda warnings in many jurisdictions is above reading levels that may be expected of suspects with cognitive deficits (Fulero & Everington, 1995). One study found that academic achievement was a strong predictor of Miranda comprehension, even when controlling for the primary predictors of age and IQ (Zelle et al, 2008). In particular, juveniles with reading abilities that are at or below the fourth-grade level performed significantly worse on measures of Miranda comprehension than their peers with higher reading abilities.…”

Section: Research Addressing Capacity To Waive Mirandamentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal competencies.

Murrie¹,

Zelle²

2015

APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology, Vol. 1: Individual and Situational Influences in Criminal and Civil Contexts.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competence, in the context of criminal justice proceedings, refers to a defendant's capacity to meaningfully participate and make decisions during the criminal justice process. Competence is relevant at any stage of the process, from a defendant's first words to arresting officers, through that defendant's decision about pleas, until-in the gravest of cases-the moment of execution. Because questions about competence can be raised at any point in criminal justice proceedings, this chapter describes criminal competencies, and many scholars use broad terms such as adjudicative competence (see Bonnie, 1992) or competence to proceed, to cover the span from arrest to verdict to sentencing. Nevertheless, this chapter focuses primarily on the defendant's capacities that comprise his or her competence to stand trial because this is, by far, the most commonly adjudicated competence (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 2007), and far more scholarly research literature addresses this particular competence. Authorities estimate that at least 60,000 defendants-approximately 5% of all felony defendants-are evaluated for trial competence each year in the United States, making trial competence assessments the most common form of criminal forensic mental health assessment (Bonnie & Grisso, 2000;Poythress, Bonnie, Monahan, Otto, & Hoge, 2002). Most practicing clinical forensic psychologists evaluate trial competence on a routine basis. Indeed, evaluating, adjudicating, and restoring competence consumes most of the financial resources that jurisdictions devote to forensic mental health services (Golding, 1992).1 Although the Godinez decision has been understood as holding that the same competence standard applies to any actions that a defendant may take (i.e., waiving counsel and pleading guilty), a more recent case has modified this understanding. In Indiana v. Edwards (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court considered the unusual case of a mentally ill defendant who not only waived counsel but represented himself at trial (rather than simply pleading guilty, as in Godinez). The Court decided that the state could indeed limit this defendant's right to represent himself, even though he met the Dusky standard for trial competence, because self-representation in trial requires greater capacities. Thus, the recent Edwards decision suggests that the standard for competence may indeed vary in at least some circumstances.

show abstract

Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights and the Assessment of Susceptibility to Police Coercion

Goldstein

Zelle

et al. 2012

Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adolescents' Miranda Rights Comprehension: The Impact of Verbal Expressive Abilities

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors.

Juveniles’ Miranda comprehension: Understanding, appreciation, and totality of circumstances factors.

Criminal competencies.

Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights and the Assessment of Susceptibility to Police Coercion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About