“Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence.

Abstract

In its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States buttressed the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by requiring as a procedural safeguard that various aspects of this privilege be clearly communicated to custodial suspects. Members of the public often believe that their continually media-fueled familiarity with Miranda warnings results in an adequate understanding of Miranda rights-a frequently erroneous assumption that may diminish counsel's motivation to investigate Miranda waivers and may influence court rulings on the validity of such waivers. The current investigation examined Miranda rights misconceptions held by two groups of pretrial defendants: those arrested more recently (i.e., less than 2 weeks ago) and those arrested less recently (i.e., 4 weeks ago or more). The misconceptions of these groups were then contrasted with those of undergraduate students representing a more educated and comparatively unstressed segment of American society. Results revealed a host of widely-held misconceptions, including a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the "right to remain silent" as a legal protection. Moreover, many misconceptions appeared unrelated to intelligence, education, or prior contacts with the criminal justice system. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the validity of Miranda waivers.

Investigating the Effects of Repeated Miranda Warnings: Do They Perform a Curative Function on Common Miranda Misconceptions?

“…On average, they evidenced only 2.11 (SD = .90) Miranda misconceptions. Comparatively, this percentage of high performers is slightly higher than found with college undergraduates in general (i.e., 48.7%; see Rogers et al, ). However, a high performance (≥80%) does not entirely prevent faulty Miranda reasoning.…”

“…Recognizing the need for more systematic appraisals of Miranda misconceptions, Rogers and his colleagues (Rogers et al, ) developed the Miranda Quiz (MQ).The MQ includes items that address requisite Miranda warning components, general misconceptions about Miranda , and permissible police practices during interrogation that may directly affect Miranda waiver decisions. As summarized by Rogers, Sewell, Drogin and Fiduccia (), the 15 MQ primary items effectively discriminate between defendants with failed versus adequate (a) Miranda vocabulary ( d = 0.93), (b) Miranda comprehension ( d = 0.61), and (c) Miranda reasoning ( d = 0.70).…”

“…Thus, the MQ primary items assess Miranda ‐relevant abilities. Interestingly, many MQ misconceptions are commonly espoused by undergraduates, sometimes at percentages comparable to those of actual pretrial defendants (Rogers et al, ).…”

Recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings on criminal defendants' right to counsel

“…Both laboratory studies and field studies yield similar results: the majority of suspects do not fully understand the warning, and they waive Miranda rights. Research has also demonstrated that innocent suspects are most likely to waive their rights, and those who waive their rights are more likely to confess to crimes they did not commit (Rogers, 2011;Rogers, Hazelwood, Sewell, Harrison, & Shuman, 2008;Rogers et al, 2010). For example, Leo (1996) found that 80% of suspects waived their rights and participated in interrogations without their lawyer present.…”

Language Impairments in Youths With Traumatic Brain Injury

“…Even for healthy adults, comprehension of Miranda warnings and the underlying concepts is hugely variable, 48 and research has shown that individuals with mental illness or intellectual disabilities show poorer understanding of Miranda warnings. Even for healthy adults, comprehension of Miranda warnings and the underlying concepts is hugely variable, 48 and research has shown that individuals with mental illness or intellectual disabilities show poorer understanding of Miranda warnings.…”