An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 177-192

  Rogers, Richard ^a   Harrison, Kimberly S ^a   Shuman, Daniel W ^b   Sewell, Kenneth W ^a   Hazelwood, Lisa L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b SMU Dedman School of Law   (United States)

Author keywords

Confessions; Constitutional protections; Miranda warnings

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; CRIMINAL LAW; HUMAN RIGHTS; JURISPRUDENCE; READING; UNITED STATES;

CRIMINAL LAW; GUILT; HUMANS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33947278949     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Baddeley, A. (1994). The magical number seven: Still magic after all these years? Psychological Review, 101, 353-356.
2. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
3. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
4. Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 573 (1987).
5. Cooper, V. G., Zapf, P. A., & Griffin, M. P. (2003, August). Appreciation of Miranda rights in interrogation situations. Presented to the American Psychological Association Conference, Toronto, Canada.
6. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 443 (2000).
7. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).
8. England, G. W., Thomas, M., & Patterson, D. G. (1953). Reliability of the original and the simplified Flesch reading ease formulas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 111-113.
9. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221-233.
10. Flesch, R. (1950). Measuring the level of abstraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34, 384-390.
11. Greenfield, D. P., Dougherty, E. J., Jackson, R. M., Podboy, J. W., & Zimmermann, M. L. (2001). Retrospective evaluation of Miranda reading levels and waiver competency. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19, 75-86.
12. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
13. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The "notice to detained persons," PACE codes and reading ease. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 89-95.
14. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions handbook. London: Wiley.
15. Haigler, K. O., Harlow, C., O'Connor, P., & Campbell, A. (1992). Executive summary of literacy behind prison walls: Profiles of the prison population fromthe National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
16. Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.
17. Helms, J. L. (2003). Analysis of Miranda reading levels across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competency. Journal of Forensic Psychology and Practice, 3, 25-37.
18. Huck, S. W. (2004). Reading statistics and research (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19. Iowa v. Tovar, 124 S. Ct. 1379 (2004).
20. Klinge, V., & Dorsey, J. (1993). Correlates of theWoodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension and Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test in a forensic psychiatric population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 593-598.
21. Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. McLaughlin, G. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639-646.
23. Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433 (1974).
24. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81-97.
25. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
26. Oberlander, L. B., Goldstein, N. E., & Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Competence to confess. In A. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 11. Forensic psychology (pp. 335-357). New York: Wiley.
27. Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A., & Brancati, F. L. (2003). Readability standard for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 721-727.
28. Roberts v. State, 874 So.2d 1225 (2004).
29. Rogers, R. (2005). [Survey data on Miranda practices by attorneys of the California Association for Criminal Justice]. Unpublished raw data.
30. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Miranda and beyond: Competencies related to police investigations. In R. Rogers & D. W. Shuman (Eds.), Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law (pp. 113-149). New York: Springer.
31. Rubin, D. L., Hafer, T., & Arata, K. (2000). Reading and listening to oral-based versus literate-based discourse. Communication Education, 49, 121-133.
32. Savage, R. (2001). The 'simple view' of reading: Some evidence and possible implications. Educational Psychology in Practice, 17, 17-33.
33. Schinka, J. A., & Borum, R. (1993). Readability of adult psychopathology inventories. Psychological Assessment, 5(3), 384-386.
34. Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.