Search Results

U.S. criminal cases involving non-native English speakers are inherently complex, often requiring assessment of whether the accused has understood Miranda rights. Deciding whether a speaker has understood the Miranda warnings in English or in another language, necessarily involves detailed linguistic analysis. Adequate assessments of proficiency must take into account all available linguistic and contextual evidence. This chapter describes approaches used by linguists in three cases in Tennessee involving non-native English speakers as defendants. The 2003 case involved the English competence of a native speaker of Spanish accused and eventually convicted of murder; the 2012 case involved the English competence of a native speaker of German (with competence in Spanish, Polish, and Ukrainian) who was accused of attempted first-degree murder of his wife; the 2015 case involved the English competence of a Spanish-speaking woman from Mexico convicted of possession of a controlled substance (containing heroin) with intent to sell or deliver. Analysis by both prosecution and defense experts is discussed. Observations are made about how discourse analysis can aid in assessing proficiency in particular cases. The chapter concludes with recommendations for the giving of Miranda warnings to non-native English speakers and for assessing the adequacy of strategies used to deliver them.

This chapter examines juveniles' exercise of Miranda rights—whether they make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver by analyzing interrogations of 307 youths. It investigates how and when police administer Miranda warnings, where and when they question suspects, who is present at the interrogation, and how police predispose youths to waive. Developmental psychologists report that most sixteen and seventeen-year-olds can understand the words of a Miranda warning, even if they do not fully understand the concepts or appreciate the consequences of waiving. Additionally, the chapter explores how justice personnel perceive the relative competence of older adolescents, young adults, and younger offenders to exercise Miranda rights, and analyzes how youths who waive their rights differ from those who invoke them.

In contemporary jurisprudence, the right to remain silent has been valorized as foundational to human dignity and to human expressive freedom. The right to remain silent is also likely the criminal law doctrine most recognized by the American general public. In fact, given the worldwide marketing of American movies and television dramas, the Miranda warning, beginning, ‘You have the right to remain silent’, may well be the single most widely known principle of criminal law in the world. Yet, despite its deep roots in American legal history and its entrenched status in current popular culture, the right to silence as articulated in Miranda has been subject to a barrage of judicial limitations, qualifications, and exceptions in recent years, to the point where it currently can scarcely be said to provide any meaningful constraint on police interrogation at all. This chapter begins by tracing the origins of the Miranda rule. It then discusses remaining silent as an exercise of the right to remain silent; Berghuis v. Thompkins and its consequences for the right to remain silent; speaking to claim the right to remain silent; and whether Miranda warnings are still relevant.

Chapter 7 addresses other competency issues that may arise in conjunction with criminal justice proceedings. There are a range of such issues, and each potentially targets a different functional capacity. They include the competence to waive your Miranda rights and confess to a crime or make other self-incriminating statements; the competence to plead guilty and waive your right to a trial; the competence to waive your right to an attorney and represent yourself; and the competence to testify. This chapter provides a brief examination of the history and evolution of each of these competency issues, their governing standards, and related judicial procedures. To frame this discussion, an examination is provided of various potential impacts of mental disorders on each of these criminal trial-related competencies.

This chapter analyzes how police questioned the vast majority of youths who waived Miranda in the previous chapter. It investigates the process of interrogations—the types of tactics and Reid Method techniques police used. Miranda imposes a structure on interrogations based on warning, waiver, interrogation, and response. Police must build rapport, successfully negotiate a warning, and elicit a waiver before they begin questioning. The chapter also examines how police conclude an interview and demonstrate a voluntary waiver and statement. Any statement must be voluntary and not prompted by threats or promises. Some investigators concluded by asking suspects whether the officer used any coercive influences to elicit their statement.