Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: a comparison of legal standards

TLDR

Legal standards for juveniles’ comprehension of Miranda rights and adjudicative competence are highly variable and ambiguous. The study examined impairment rates across different proposed legal standards. 152 defendants aged 11–17 were evaluated using Grisso’s Miranda Instruments and the Fitness Interview Test—Revised. When adult norms were applied, more than half of 15‑year‑olds were deemed impaired, but fewer were classified as impaired under adolescent norms or a “basic understanding and communication” standard; similarly, requiring both understanding and appreciation identified more impairments than requiring only understanding. © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract

Abstract Currently, there is considerable variability and ambiguity in legal standards pertaining to juveniles' comprehension of Miranda rights and their adjudicative competence. This study investigated rates of impairment under various proposed legal standards. One hundred and fifty‐two young defendants aged 11–17 were assessed with Grisso's Miranda Instruments and the Fitness Interview Test—Revised. While over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in adjudicative capacities when adult norms were applied, significantly fewer adolescents were classified as impaired when adolescent norms were applied or a standard of “basic understanding and communication.” Also, while over half of defendants aged 15 and under were classified as impaired in their comprehension of Miranda rights when both understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights were required, significantly fewer youth were classified as being impaired when only understanding was required. The implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.