Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of Miranda v. Arizona and other appellate cases of significance for the proper and effective performance of Miranda evaluations. Its focus identifies and supplements the legally oriented knowledge base needed by forensic practitioners in evaluating Miranda warning content, Miranda rights knowledge, as well as the validity of Miranda waivers. Forensic practitioners need to bear in mind that their evaluations are only valuable to the extent that they respond to the criminal justice system’s need for scientifically informed answers to specific legal questions. An understanding of the requirements, priorities, and implicit boundaries of the criminal justice system is critical in providing services that will be welcomed, understood, acknowledged, and utilized by the courts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269 (1942).
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. (2005). Ethics guidelines for the practice of forensic psychiatry. Retrieved from http://www.aapl.org/ethics.htm.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf.
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).
Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199 (1960).
Blackwood, H. L., Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2015). Investigating Miranda waiver decisions: An examination of the rational consequences. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42–43, 11–18.
Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).
California v. Prysock, 453 U.S. 355 (1981).
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 207 (1940).
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
Daly, B., & Guyer, M. (2012). Provision of Miranda warning is age related. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40, 576–579.
Davies, A. L., & Worden, A. P. (2009). State politics and the right to counsel: A comparative analysis. Law & Society Review, 43, 187–220.
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994).
Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195 (1989).
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. 50 (2010).
Frantzen, D. (2010). Interrogation strategies, evidence, and the need for Miranda: A study of police ideologies. Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 11, 227–239.
Gillard, N. D., Rogers, R., Kelsey, K. R., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). An investigation of implied Miranda waivers and Powell wording in a mock-crime study. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 501–508.
Harryman v. Estelle, 616 F.2d 870 (1980).
Intravia, J., Wolff, K. T., & Piquero, A. R. (2018). Investigating the effects of media consumption on attitudes toward police legitimacy. Deviant Behavior, 39, 963–980.
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004).
J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011).
Justia. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436.
Knapp, A. J., Vande Creek, L. D., & Fingerhut, R. (2017). Informed consent, empowered collaboration, and shared decision making. In S. J. Knapp, L. D. Vande Creek, & F. Fingerhut (Eds.), Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach (3rd ed., pp. 83–95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Legal Information Institute. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979).
Oyez. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759.
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980).
Richards, M. M. (2009). Electronic medical records: Confidentiality issues in the time of HIPAA. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 550–556.
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2007). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 402–418.
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Harrison, K. S., & Shuman, D. W. (2008). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124–136.
Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y., Steadham, J. A., Clark, J. W., & Cramer, R. J. (2013). General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights: Are effective Miranda rights still necessary? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 432–442.
Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.
Shah, S. K., Hull, S. C., Spinner, M. A., Berkman, B. E., Sanchez, L. A., Abdul-Karim, R., Claypool, R., & Holland, S. M. (2013). What does the duty to warn require? American Journal of Bioethics, 13, 62–63.
United States Courts. (2018). Miranda v. Arizona. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-miranda-v-arizona.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rogers, R., Drogin, E.Y. (2019). Legal Framework for Miranda Assessments. In: Conducting Miranda Evaluations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13511-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13511-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13510-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13511-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)