Psychological Consultation in Cases Involving Interrogations and Confessions

Abstract

Scientific investigation, including naturalistic observation and empirical research, is advancing our understanding of the psychology of interrogations and confessions. Psychological science enhances our understanding of why some people who initially claim innocence respond to interrogation procedures by confessing—sometimes to crimes they did not commit. Legal procedures allow three opportunities for a defendant to challenge confession evidence: whether there was a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary Miranda waiver; whether the confession was coerced (involuntary); and whether the confession is unreliable. Expert psychological or psychiatric testimony can assist courts in each of these determinations.

Admissibility of Expert Testimony Based on the Grisso and Gudjonsson Scales in Disputed Confession Cases

“…It is worth noting that the latter two empirical studies were cited in a footnote in the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court opinion of Atkins v. Virginia (2005). Finally, both instruments are recommended for use by practitioners in "how to" manuals (e.g., DeClue, 2005a), articles (e.g., DeClue, 2005b;Frumkin, 2000), and workshops (e.g., DeClue, 2008).…”

The Grisso Tests for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Warnings with a Forensic Sample

“…Courts have looked to forensic mental health specialists to help assist them in determining whether a Miranda waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. A number of authors (Brodsky & Bennett, ; DeClue, , ; Frumkin, , , ; Goldstein & Goldstein, ; Grisso, ; Oberlander, Goldstein, & Goldstein, ) have written guidelines on how to conduct evaluations of defendants’ ability to waive their rights and make a valid waiver, also sometimes referred to as competency to waive Miranda rights. The authors recommend that such evaluations include interviewing the defendant; administering cognitive and personality testing as well as tests of malingering, reviewing records, interviewing collateral sources, and reviewing recordings or transcripts of the interrogation.…”

“…The authors recommend that such evaluations include interviewing the defendant; administering cognitive and personality testing as well as tests of malingering, reviewing records, interviewing collateral sources, and reviewing recordings or transcripts of the interrogation. In addition, four tests jointly referred to as the Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights (referenced in this article and other publications as the Grisso tests; Grisso, ) are frequently recommended for use as a standard of practice in conducting these evaluations (DeClue, , ; Frumkin, , , ; Goldstein, Condie, & Kelbeitzer, ; Greenfield & Witt, ; Grisso, ; Oberlander et al, ). In a survey of board certified forensic psychologists (Lally, ), the Grisso tests were rated both acceptable and recommended by the majority of the respondents for evaluating competency to waive Miranda rights.…”

Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments

“…Mental health testimony has been used by the courts to assist in a determination of a defendant’s ability to have made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights at the time of the police interrogation. There is a body of literature that discusses methodology to be used in evaluating a defendant’s capacity to waive Miranda rights (Brodsky & Bennett, 2005; DeClue 2005a, 2005b; Frumkin, 2000, 2008, 2010; Frumkin, Lally, & Sexton, 2012; Goldstein & Goldstein, 2010; Grisso, 2003; Oberlander, Goldstein, & Goldstein, 2003; Rogers & Shuman, 2005). With the exception of Rogers and Shuman (2005), the aforementioned authors have recommended the use of the Grisso (1981, 1998) Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights (IAUAMR) as one component to a comprehensive psychological evaluation that includes a clinical interview, cognitive and personality testing, assessment for effort or malingering, record review, interviewing collateral sources as necessary, and reviewing recordings and/or transcripts of the interrogation.…”