THE COMPREHENSIBILITY AND CONTENT OF JUVENILE MIRANDA WARNINGS

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 63-87

  Rogers, Richard ^a   Hazelwood, Lisa L ^a   Sewell, Kenneth W ^a   Shuman, Daniel W ^b   Blackwood, Hayley L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b SMU Dedman School of Law

Author keywords

confessions; juvenile evaluations; Miranda; self incrimination

Indexed keywords

EID: 50849112738     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0013102     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Abram K.M., Teplin L.A., McClelland G.M., and Dulcan M.K. Comorbid psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry 60 (2003) 1097-1108
2. California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
3. Cauffman E., and Steinberg L. (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescents: Why adolescents may be less culpable. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 18 (2000) 741-760
4. Colwell L.H., Cruise K.R., Guy L.S., McCoy W.K., Fernandez K., and Ross H.H. The influence of psychosocial maturity on male juvenile offenders' comprehension and understanding of the Miranda warning. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33 (2005) 444-454
5. Cooper, V. G., Zapf, P. A., & Griffin, M. P. (2003, August). Appreciation of Miranda rights in interrogation situations. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
6. Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2006).
7. Dale E., and O'Rourke J. The living vocabulary: A national vocabulary inventory (1981), World Book-Childcraft International, Chicago
8. Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
9. DuBay W.H. The principles of readability (2004), Impact Information, Costa Mesa, CA. http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:5881/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/31/a4/7f.pdf Retrieved September 23, 2006, from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:5881/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/80/31/a4/7f.pdf
10. Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).
11. Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
12. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting Program, 2005 (2005), Author, Washington, DC. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table38.html Retrieved September 9, 2007, from http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table38.html
13. Feld B.C. Juveniles' competence to exercise Miranda rights: An empirical study of policy and practice. Minnesota Law Review 91 (2006) 26-100
14. Ferguson A.B., and Douglas A.C. A study of juvenile waiver. San Diego Law Review 7 (1970) 39-54
15. Flesch R. Measuring the level of abstraction. Journal of Applied Psychology 34 (1950) 384-390
16. Grisso T. Juveniles' waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence (1981), Plenum Press, New York
17. Grisso T. The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 3 (1997) 3-32
18. Grisso T., and Pomicter C. Interrogation of juveniles: An empirical study of procedures, safeguards, and rights waiver. Law and Human Behavior 1 (1977) 321-342
19. Grisso T., Steinberg L., Woolard J., Cauffman E., Scott E., Graham S., et al. Juveniles' competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior 27 (2003) 333-363
20. Gudjoussou G.H. The psychology of interrogations and confessions handbook (2003), Wiley, London
21. Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (1948).
22. Harrison, K. S. (2007). Totality of the circumstances: Factors affecting competence to waive Miranda rights. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.
23. Helms J.L. Analysis of Miranda reading levels across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competence. Journal of Forensic Psychology and Practice 3 (2003) 25-37
24. Helms, J. L., & Kemp, D. J. (2005, March). Readability statistics of the juvenile Miranda warnings across jurisdictions. Paper presented at the conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, La Jolla, CA.
25. Hughes C.W., Rintelmann J., Emslie G.J., Lopez M., and MacCabe N. A revised and anchored version of the BPRS-C for childhood psychiatric disorders. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 11 (2001) 77-93
26. In re E. T. C., 449 A.2d 937 (Vt. 1982).
27. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
28. Kahn R., Zapf P.A., and Cooper V.G. Readability of Miranda warnings and waivers: Implications for evaluating Miranda comprehension. Law and Psychology Review 30 (2006) 119-142
29. Kassin S.M., Leo R.A., Meissner C.A., Richma K.D., Colwell L.H., Leach A.M., et al. Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior 31 (2007) 381-400
30. Keur v. State, 160 So.2d 546 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1963).
31. King K.J. Waiving childhood goodbye: How juvenile courts fail to protect children from unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary waivers of Miranda rights. Wisconsin Law Review 2006 (2006) 431-478
32. Larson K. Improving the "kangaroo courts:" A proposal for reform in evaluating juveniles' waiver of Miranda. Villanova Law Review 48 (2003) 629-668
33. Little v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 957 (1978).
34. McCann J.T. A conceptual framework for identifying various types of confessions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 16 (1998) 441-453
35. McLaughlin G. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12 (1969) 639-646
36. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
37. Oberlander L., and Goldstein N. A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19 (2001) 453-471
38. Osman, D. A. (2005). Relationship between academic achievement and Miranda rights: Comprehension and false confessions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Drexel University.
39. Owen-Kostelnik J., Reppucci N.D., and Meyer J.R. Testimony and interrogation of minors: Assumptions about maturity and morality. American Psychologist 61 (2006) 286-404
40. Paasche-Orlow M.K., Taylor H.A., and Brancati F.L. Readability standard for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine 348 (2003) 721-727
41. Redlich A.D., and Goodman G.S. Taking responsibility for an act not committed. Law and Human Behavior 27 (2003) 141-156
42. Redlich A.D., Silverman M., and Steiner H. Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juvenile and young adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21 (2003) 393-410
43. Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
44. Rogers R., Harrison K.S., Hazelwood L.L., and Sewell K.W. Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior 31 (2007) 401-418
45. Rogers R., Harrison K.S., Shuman D.W., Sewell K.W., and Hazelwood L.L. An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior 31 (2007) 177-192
46. Rogers R., Hazelwood L.L., Sewell K.W., Harrison K.S., and Shuman D.W. The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior 32 (2008) 124-136
47. Rogers R., and Shuman D.W. Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law (2005), Springer, New York
48. Schinka J.A., and Borum R. Readability of adult psychopathology inventories. Psychological Assessment 5 (1993) 384-386
49. Sevin Goldstein N.E., Condie L.O., Kalbeitzer R., Osman D., and Geier J.L. Juvenile offenders' Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false confessions. Assessment 10 (2003) 359-369
50. Shufelt J.L., and Cocozza J.J. Youth with mental health disorders in the juvenile justice system: Results from a multi-state prevalence study (2006), National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, Delmar, NY. http://ncmhjj.com/pdfs/publications/PrevalenceRPB.pdf Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://ncmhjj.com/pdfs/publications/PrevalenceRPB.pdf
51. State in Interest of Jones, 372 So.2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1979).
52. State v. Doe, 621 P.2d 519 (N.M. Ct. App. 1980).
53. State v. Jackson, 600 N.W.2d 39 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
54. Stewart v. State, 754 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 2001).
55. Texas Youth Commission. Commitment profile for new commitments: Fiscal years 2002-2006 (2006). http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/research/profile.html Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/research/profile.html
56. United States v. Kodzis, 255 F. Supp. 2d 1140 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
57. United States v. Toliver, 480 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Nev. 2007).
58. Viljoen J.L., Klaver J., and Roesch R. Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys and appeals. Law and Human Behavior 29 (2005) 253-277
59. Viljoen J.L., and Roesch R. Competence to waive interrogation rights and adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Cognitive development, attorney contact, and psychological symptoms. Law and Human Behavior 29 (2005) 723-742
60. Warren J.I., Aaron J., Ryan E., Chauhan P., and DuVal J. Correlates of adjudicative competence among psychiatrically impaired juveniles. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31 (2003) 299-309
61. West v. United States, 399 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1968).
62. Williams v. State, 433 N.E.2d 769 (Ind. 1982).