Miranda in Actual Juvenile Interrogations

• Published date: 01 March 2016
• Date: 01 March 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016814538650
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Miranda in Actual Juvenile

Interrogations: Delivery,

Waiver, and Readability

Hayley M. D. Cleary

1

and Sarah Vidal

2

Abstract

Though laboratory and self-report research proliferates on youths’ Miranda comprehension and

reasoning, little is known about how Miranda actually takes place inside the juvenile interrogation

room. This study is among the first to present data on the Miranda processes and outcomes that

occur in actual juvenile interrogations. Fifty-seven electronically recorded police interrogations with

juvenile suspects were coded using software designed especially for observational research; this arti-

cle examines a subset of those interrogations (N¼28) that contained a filmed Miranda component.

Key variables include the manner of Miranda delivery, youths’ behavioral indicators of comprehen-

sion, and Miranda waiver rates. Additionally, the language used to present Miranda warnings to juve-

nile suspects was transcribed and analyzed. Results indicate that Miranda delivery typically occurred

in a neutral manner, immediately upon interview commencement or after a brief period of booking

questions. Miranda warnings were presented in various formats (verbal, written, and combination),

and youth-specific modifications to the standard Miranda language were uncommon. The Miranda

waiver rate in our subsample was 90%. The specific Miranda language used in these interrogations

read approximately at a seventh-grade reading level. Implications of Miranda delivery, waiver, and

readability are discussed.

Keywords

juvenile justice, police processes, law enforcement/security, legal issues, courts/law

Introduction

In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal suspects in police custody must be advised of

certain rights to protect themselves against self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). While the

same Miranda rights are extended to adolescent suspects, researchers have questioned whether cog-

nitive and social vulnerabilities unique to this developmental period may disadvantage youth in the

1

L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

2

Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Hayley M. D. Cleary, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, Virginia Commonwealth University, P.O.

Box 842028, Richmond, VA 23284, USA.

Email: hmcleary@vcu.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2016, Vol. 41(1) 98-115

ª2014 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016814538650

cjr.sagepub.com

interrogation room relative to their adult counterparts (Grisso, 1981; Viljoen & Roesch, 2005).

Addressing this question requires greater knowledge about the manner and context in which these

rights are administered as well as adolescent suspects’ behavior in actual interrogations. To date,

most research on juvenile suspects and Miranda has focused on youths’ capacities to comprehend

and waive their Miranda rights and has occurred in laboratory-based settings using self-report or

vignette measures. Very little is known about the actual context of the Miranda exchange between

adolescent suspects and police investigators—for example, the strategies police employ to obtain

Miranda waivers, youths’ responses to those strategies, or the frequency with which youth waive

their Miranda rights in real interrogation settings.

Though progress has been made in the domain of youths’ Miranda comprehension as well as the

content of standardized juvenile Miranda language, research has yet to explore fundamental ques-

tions about how Miranda warnings are actually administered to juvenile suspects in real interroga-

tions. Rigid requirements for specific Miranda language do not exist, and departmental templates

vary widely (Rogers, Hazelwood, Sewell, Shuman, & Blackwood, 2008), suggesting that juvenile

suspects may encounter substantially different Miranda experiences. Though minor variations in

wording or framing may seem insignificant, prior research has demonstrated that adolescent sus-

pects often misunderstand even basic components of typical Miranda warnings (Grisso, 1981). It

is important to examine Miranda administration in context in order to document the actual Miranda

experiences youth encounter—from actual police officers—in real interrogation settings. To date,

only a few studies have documented Miranda administration and waiver using actual juvenile cases

(Feld, 2006, 2013).

This study addresses this gap by examining electronically recorded juvenile interrogations to

explore juvenile Miranda warnings in context. First, it characterizes police officers’ portrayal of

Miranda warnings to juveniles, building on the few existing field studies of juveniles and Miranda

(Feld, 2006, 2013) by drawing from a diverse multijurisdictional sample of police agencies. Second,

it adds to vignette-and self-report studies of Miranda waiver (e.g.,Grisso et al., 2003; Viljoen, Klaver,

& Roesch, 2005) by documenting how frequently and in what manner youth waive their Miranda

rights in actual interrogation settings. Finally, the study augments existing research on Miranda

warning readability (Rogers et al., 2008) by generating estimates of approximate reading grade

level and reading difficulty based on warnings delivered in actual interrogations, since the Miranda

language spoken in vivo during interrogations may vary widely from standard department templates.

Literature Review

Juvenile Miranda Delivery and Comprehension

The timing and manner in which police administer Miranda warnings have been the subject of much

debate and speculation. Though Miranda is constitutionally required prior to any accusatory custo-

dial questioning, police are legally permitted to ask routine booking questions (e.g., age, address,

level of education) before warnings are administered and questioning commences (Pennsylvania

v. Muniz, 1990). Some legal scholars have argued that police use this ambiguous preinterrogation

period as an opportunity to establish rapport with the suspect, not only to facilitate conversation, but

especially to encourage Miranda waivers (Feld, 2013; Leo & White, 1999). Rapport building is one

of the numerous tactics police may use to ‘‘predispose’’ suspects to waive their rights, sometimes

quite skillfully; Leo and White (1999) argued that ‘‘interrogators are able to de-emphasize the warn-

ings to such an extent that suspects often perceive that waiver of their rights is the natural and

expected course of action’’ (p. 413).

Because such strategies may be particularly problematic with young suspects, it is important to

examine law enforcement interactions with actual juvenile suspects during interrogations. Currently,

Cleary and Vidal 99