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

Abstract

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.

Future of Youth Justice in Japan

“…This finding is consistent with the results in recent research (e.g. Eastwood et al, 2015; Zelle et al, 2015). This challenge facing young offenders is also recognised by lawyers.…”

Self-Perceived Likelihood of False Confession: A Comparison of Justice-Involved Juveniles and Adults

“…Finally, data collection for the juvenile sample spanned a period of 7 years, and data collection for the adult sample began several years later. Although analyses indicated no meaningful differences by juvenile justice site or time period of data collection (Zelle et al, 2015), results should be interpreted in the context of this limitation.…”

“…The data collection for the first 55 youth occurred between 1999 and 2000. The data collection for the remaining youth occurred between 2004 and 2006 (see Zelle, Romaine, & Goldstein, 2015, for additional detail regarding data collection for the juvenile sample). The second sample included 103 postsentencing adults recruited from two correctional facilities in an east coast state, within the same greater metropolitan area as 70.5% of the juvenile sample.…”

Cumulative Disadvantage: A Psychological Framework for Understanding How Innocence Can Lead to Confession, Wrongful Conviction, and Beyond

“…Subsequent court rulings have narrowed the protections to such an extent that legal scholars no longer see it as protective (e.g., Weisselberg, 2017; White, 2001). Meanwhile, research psychologists using standardized comprehension instruments have found that some people—notably young adolescents and cognitively impaired adults—do not comprehend the warnings they were given (e.g., Grisso, 1981; for a review, see Zelle, Romaine, & Goldstein, 2015; for findings mirrored by eye-tracking methodologies, see Scherr, Agauas, & Ashby, 2016); that the content, format, and language of these warnings vary across jurisdictions, resulting in disparities in difficulty level (Rogers, Harrison, Shuman, Sewell, & Hazelwood, 2007; Rogers, Hazelwood, Harrison, Sewell, & Shuman, 2008); and that the situational stress elicited by accusation can further impair comprehension (Rogers, Gillard, Wooley, & Fiduccia, 2011; Scherr & Madon, 2012). In short, empirical research has cast serious doubt on the protective adequacy of Miranda (for reviews, see Kassin, Scherr, & Alceste, 2019; Smalarz et al, 2016).…”