Eric Y. Drogin

JUVENILE MIRANDA WARNINGS Perfunctory Rituals or Procedural Safeguards

The American Bar Association, via its newly adopted policy, seeks fundamental changes in procedural justice with respect to juvenile Miranda warnings. It calls for understandable Miranda warnings to educate youth in custody regarding the relevant Constitutional protections. In surveying prosecutors and public defenders, the authors collected 293 juvenile Miranda warnings that are intended specifically for youthful offenders. Length and reading levels were analyzed and compared to an earlier survey. Nearly two thirds (64.9%) of these warnings were very long (> 175 words), which hinders Miranda comprehension. In addition, most juvenile warnings (91.6%) require reading comprehension higher than a 6th-grade level; 5.2% exceed a 12th-grade reading level. Combining across two surveys, more than half of juvenile Miranda warnings are highly problematic because of excessive lengths or difficult reading comprehension. However, simple and easily read Miranda components were identified that could be used to improve juvenile advisements. Breaking new ground, Miranda waivers were examined for both juveniles and their parents/interested adults. Interestingly, most juvenile versions emphasized waivers in positive terms (e.g., “an opportunity”) and downplayed the potential for negative consequences.

Mobile Mental Health: Navigating New Rules and Regulations for Digital Tools

Mobile health (mHealth) apps are becoming much more widely available. As more patients learn about and download apps, clinicians are sure to face more questions about the role these apps can play in treatment. Clinicians thus need to familiarize themselves with the clinical and legal risks that apps may introduce. Regulatory rules and organizations that oversee the safety and efficacy of mHealth apps are currently fragmentary in nature and clinicians should pay special attention to categories of apps which are currently exempt from significant regulation. Uniform HIPAA protection does not apply to personal health data that are shared with apps in many contexts which creates a number of clinically relevant privacy and security concerns. Clinicians should also consider several relatively novel potential adverse clinical outcomes and liability concerns that may be relevant to specific categories of apps, including apps that target (i) medication adherence, (ii) collection of self-reported data, (iii) collection of passive data, and (iv) generation of treatment recommendations for psychotherapeutic and behavioral interventions. Considering these potential pitfalls (and disclosing them to patients as a part of obtaining informed consent) is necessary as clinicians consider incorporating apps into treatment.

Mired in Miranda Misconceptions: A Study of Legally Involved Juveniles at Different Levels of Psychosocial Maturity

The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that the vulnerabilities of juvenile offenders merit special protections due to deficits in experience and maturity. Appellate courts assume that Miranda warnings will inform juvenile suspects of their Miranda rights, and allow them to render knowing and intelligent waivers. This study examines Miranda misconceptions of legally involved juveniles (i.e., juvenile detainees and youth mandated to juvenile justice alternative education) at different levels of psychosocial maturity. These juveniles manifested an unexpectedly large frequency of erroneous Miranda beliefs; each group (low, middle, and high maturity) averaged a dozen or more misconceptions, thus overshadowing substantive differences between maturity groups. However, maturity played an important role in the immediate recall of a Miranda advisement. Alarmingly, both low- and middle-maturity groups displayed less than one-third immediate recall. The high-maturity group performed better, but still failed to recall almost half of the Miranda concepts. The overall findings are discussed with respect to juvenile Miranda comprehension and reasoning.

IQ Scores Should Not Be Adjusted for the Flynn Effect in Capital Punishment Cases

Atkins v. Virginia (2002) dramatically raised the stakes for mental retardation in capital punishment cases, but neither defined this condition nor imposed uniform standards for its assessment. The basic premise that mean IQ scores shift over time enjoys wide recognition, but its application— including the appropriateness of characterizing it in terms of an allegedly predictable “Flynn effect”— is frequently debated in the course of death penalty litigation. The scientifically and ethically sound approach to this issue is to report IQ scores as obtained and be prepared to address those factors that might affect their reliability. Altering the IQ scores themselves is insufficiently supported by professional literature, legal authority, or prevailing standards of practice.

From therapeutic jurisprudence...to jurisprudent therapy.

For nearly a decade, therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) has provided a theoretical framework within which legal rules, legal procedure, and legal roles are analyzed in terms of their therapeutic, neutral, or antitherapeutic effects. This article proposed jurisprudent therapy (JT), an extension of the TJ model, as a context for analyzing mental health science, mental health practice, and mental health roles in terms of their jurisprudent, neutral, or antijurisprudent effects. The JT perspective neither supplants nor supersedes TJ; rather, it mirrors and augments an established process for interdisciplinary contrast, comparison, and integration. Just as an empathic and evolving legal system provides psychological benefits, so does a legally informed and juridically compatible progression of social science promote principles of justice and human freedom. Consideration of these two complementary models in tandem yields an array of brainstorming devices, to synergistic effect, with heuristic implications for teaching, research, and service delivery.

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

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States required that custodial suspects be apprised of their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The Court could not have anticipated the rampant popularization of Miranda warnings in subsequent movies and television dramas. Influenced by public media, many arrestees assume that they already know their rights, with no awareness of their misconceptions. The current investigation examines whether repeated exposures to Miranda warnings performs any curative function (i.e., dispelling common Miranda misconceptions held by pretrial defendants). The accumulative effects of five different Miranda warnings were tested over a several-hour period on 260 detainees. For the nearly half (113 or 43.5%) with three or more misconceptions, improvement (i.e., ≥2 fewer misconceptions) occurred for only 35 defendants. Predictably, this improved group also tended to display a better understanding of Miranda-relevant vocabulary words and a better recall of the administered Miranda warnings than their unimproved counterparts. On average, the improved group also performed better on general measures of intelligence, and listening and reading comprehension, while still evidencing substantial cognitive deficits. The curative function of Miranda advisements is considered in light of these findings.

Psychiatric disorders in people with intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder): forensic aspects.

Purpose of the review Persons with intellectual disability come into frequent and underreported contact with the legal system. Advances in forensic psychiatry help better identify persons with intellectual disability in forensic contexts, inform evaluation and treatment, and elucidate unique characteristics of this population. With the release of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), forensic psychiatrists must adjust to changes in the diagnostic process. Recent findings This review examines the past years contributions to the literature, including predictors among offenders with intellectual disability, concurrent diagnoses, efficacy of competence restoration, means of studying individuals with intellectual disability, and impact of DSM-5. Summary Impoverished personal relationships are found to be an important predictor of offense among persons with intellectual disability. A Personality Disorder Characteristics Checklist allows screening for personality disorders (indicative of increased risk of violence) among intellectual disability offenders. Referrals to specialists for treatment more often occur for violent and sexual offenses than for other offenses. Competence restoration is historically low among those with intellectual disability, specially compared with those referred for substance abuse and personality disorders. However, the Slater Method results in higher rates of restoration than traditional training methods. DSM-5 alters the definition of intellectual disability, moving from an IQ-oriented diagnosis system to a multifaceted approach, introducing more flexibility and nuance.

Certainty and expert mental health opinions in legal proceedings.

This pilot study addresses the legal and scientific ramifications of the certainty expressed by mental health professionals when functioning as expert witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings. The sporadic attention paid to certainty in the professional literature has typically taken the form of general policy oriented analyses as opposed to empirical, data-driven investigations. In the current study, 25 doctoral and masters level mental health professionals were provided with 53 different statements. Some statements addressed certainty itself in the typical fashion (e.g., Reasonable Degree of Scientific Certainty, Reasonable Degree of Medical Certainty, and Reasonable Degree of Psychological Certainty). Other statements were confined to specifically legal standards of proof (e.g., Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Preponderance of the Evidence, and Clear and Convincing). Additional statements included those that bore at least some direct forensic relevance (e.g., Based upon All the Data at My Disposal, In My Medical Opinion, and In My Clinical Judgment), as well as those of a non-forensic nature (e.g., I Would Bet My Life Savings, On My Word of Honor, and I Am Personally Convinced). Ratings were provided on one form as if the participant had uttered the statement, and on another form as if another expert witness had uttered the statement. Overall, participants did not tend to identify traditional legal terms as expressing the highest level of certainty, and respondents tended to ascribe more certainty to the same terms when uttered by themselves as opposed to when uttered by other expert witnesses. Those providing forensic testimony will do well to accommodate the courts traditional requirements while developing and preparing to justify their own notions of just what certainty denotes in this context.

An Examination of Juveniles' Miranda Abilities: Investigating Differences in Miranda Recall and Reasoning.

Juvenile suspects are routinely expected to possess an accurate recall of written or oral Miranda warnings. This study addresses the Miranda-related comprehension recall and reasoning of legally involved juveniles. It is the first juvenile research to compare systematically two levels of complexity for Miranda warnings with the three modalities (oral, written, or combined) of administration. Unexpectedly, easily read written warnings marginally outperformed the combined modality. In order to examine Miranda reasoning, three juvenile groups were operationalized: impaired, questionable, and likely adequate. Predictably, the impaired and questionable groups possessed significantly lower verbal abilities than the likely-adequate reasoning group. In addition, the likely-adequate group exhibited the strongest appreciation of the adversarial context in which Miranda waiver decisions are rendered. The discussion addresses the marked disparities in Miranda recall from a total recall versus component-by-component understanding of Miranda rights. It also considers more generally how crucially important Miranda misconceptions might be remedied. Copyright

Evaluating Juvenile Detainees' Miranda Misconceptions: The Discriminant Validity of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz.

Most juvenile arrestees in custodial settings waive their Miranda rights almost immediately, and many then provide incriminating statements, if not outright confessions. Forensic practitioners are then asked to provide retrospective determinations regarding whether these waivers were effectuated knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. At present, the forensic assessment instrument for juvenile Miranda issues consists of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI)—which as its name implies—focuses mostly on Miranda comprehension with a de-emphasis of Miranda reasoning. In partially addressing this gap, the current study investigated the clinical utility of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz (JMQ) for evaluating key Miranda misconceptions, a critically important component of Miranda reasoning. Using data from 201 juvenile detainees, we evaluated the JMQ’s discriminability with regards to cognitive variables and MRCI scales. Many moderate effect sizes in the predicted direction were found for the JMQ Primary Total and Juvenile Total scores. Finally, these detainees were tested using a mock crime scenario with a representative Miranda warning plus a brief interrogation to evaluate whether they would waive their rights, and if so, whether they would confess. Using Miranda measures to predict problematic outcomes (i.e., impaired waivers followed by confessions), the JMQ Juvenile Total proved the most successful. These findings are discussed within the context of the “intelligent” prong of Miranda waivers.