Competency to waive Miranda rights: clinical and legal issues.

Abstract

There is a substantial body of case law addressing compe tency to confess. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona1 announced a new approach to the admissibility of con fessions, rejecting a case-by-case determination of whether a confession was voluntarily given. The Court ruled that any state ment stemming from the custodial interrogation of a suspect would be presumed involuntary and, thus, inadmissible unless the police first provided the suspect with four warnings?( 1 ) that the suspect has the right to remain silent; (2) that any statements he/she makes can be used as evidence against him/her; (3) that he/she has the right to the presence of an attorney during ques tioning; and (4) that an attorney will be appointed if he/she can not afford one. The Court also ruled that the defendant may waive these Miranda rights, provided the waiver is made volun tarily, knowingly, and intelligently.2