The Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) enshrined the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Miranda established two fundamental rights: the right to silence and the right to an attorney. While not specifying the wording, it requires that Miranda warnings be given to suspects in clear and unequivocal language (p. 468). The Supreme Court recognized that these rights must be clearly understood and rationally applied. Otherwise, they become empty formalities (Miranda, p. 466). Clear and easily understood Miranda warnings are critical to the goals of justice. Defense attorneys want their clients' rights to be rigorously protected. Judges share this goal in ensuring that the criminal justice system is fairly administered. Prosecutors also have a vested interest in protecting Miranda rights so that pivotal confessions are not disallowed. The Supreme Court allowed individual jurisdictions to establish the specific wording and content of the Miranda warnings. Our previous NSF award evaluated the range and complexity of Miranda warnings currently used in American jurisdictions. That study found 532 distinct Miranda versions that differed substantially in their complexity, language, and content. Miranda warnings and waivers range from 49 to 547 words. For adequate comprehension, required reading levels ranged dramatically from grade 2.8 to postgraduate education. The content of Miranda warnings also varied significantly in the types of information that is included. A critical issue to the pursuit of justice is identifying which Miranda warnings can be easily understood. Because Miranda warnings may be given verbally (as often occurs in community arrests) or in a written format, it is essential to test how defendants' reading and listening comprehension affect their ability to understand Miranda rights. One important contribution of this study is its systematic evaluation of representative Miranda warnings for defendants of different educational and ethnic backgrounds. A potential outgrowth of this research is a set of model warnings that can be comprehended by most suspects in custody. A more immediate achievement will be the identification of warnings that cannot be understood because they are highly abstract or require college-level abilities.
Broader Impacts: Basic Reasoning and Miranda Waivers. The Supreme Court understood the importance of Miranda rights and insisted that any surrender of these rights must be done intelligently. Recently, the Supreme Court in Iowa v. Tovar (2004) insisted that a valid waiver required that the defendant knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open." This study is the first extensive investigation of a defendant's basic reasoning about Miranda waivers. Vitally important, any decision must be based on an awareness of the choices. Evaluated within several days of their arrest, we will examine what factors appear to determine whether defendants think rationally about their decisions.
Mental Capacities and Miranda Decisions. Many criminal defendants are limited in their academic achievement and intellectual abilities. Small numbers are highly suggestible and typically go along with persons in authority. Another 10 to 15% have serious mental disorders that affect their day-to-day functioning. Which of these deficits are important to Miranda decisions? An appropriate societal concern is whether defendants will claim impaired capacities, based on any psychological abnormality. The research in this study represents an important first step in identifying the very small number of defendants (estimated at 2.8%), whose Miranda abilities are likely to be compromised.
