WEEK 2 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 1

Week 2 Written Assignment

Xochitl Ibarra

Department of Clinical Forensic Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

PF 621 Mental Health Law

Dr. Emily Dixon

09/10/2023
WEEK 2 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 2

Week 2 Written Assignment

Title and Citation

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Facts of the Case

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested due to circumstantial evidence

concerning a kidnapping and rape in Phoenix, Arizona. The police did not inform Miranda of his

right to remain silent, to have an attorney present, or that his statements during the interrogation

could be against him in legal proceedings. After a two-hour interrogation, Miranda provided an

oral, written, and signed confession. The defense objected to introducing his confession into

evidence and argued that the ignorance of his rights rendered the confession involuntary. The

objection was overruled, and the jury found Miranda guilty of kidnapping and rape; he was

convicted and sentenced to 20-30 years of imprisonment for each count. On appeal, the Arizona

Supreme Court upheld Miranda's conviction, affirming that his constitutional rights were not

violated, and his confession was not involuntarily. The case reached the United States Supreme

Court, where Miranda successfully petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of

Arizona.

Issues

The issue brought forth in Miranda v. Arizona includes whether Miranda's statements

during his interrogation were admissible in court despite not having any procedural assurance of

his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In other words, does the Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination extend to police interrogation settings?

Decisions (Holdings)

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Miranda and

concluded that his interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment right. The court ruled that

procedural safeguards against self-incrimination are necessary and that individuals in custody

must be informed of their right to remain silent, anything they say could be used against them in

a court of law, they had the right to an attorney, and if they could not afford one, they could be

appointed a public defender prior to any questioning.

In their decision, the United States Supreme Court addressed three additional cases,

including Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart, that

involved custodial interrogations. Based on their holdings, the United States Supreme Court

overturned the rulings by the Arizona Supreme Court in the Miranda case, the New York Court

of Appeals in the Vignera case, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Westover case but

upheld the California Supreme Court in the Stewart case.

Reasoning (Rationale)

The United States Supreme Court majority argued that adequate safeguards are needed to

avoid self-incriminating statements, coerced statements, and involuntary confessions that result

from providing improper warning of constitutional rights. In this regard, the court concluded that

advising the individual of their rights and providing proper warnings ensures that the defendant

can subsequently knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their rights and provide a

statement that could be used in a trial or court of law.

Separate Opinions
WEEK 2 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 4

In the dissenting opinions, it was argued that the majority's opinion had overstepped in its

strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, that the ruling curtailed the police's ability to

execute their duties, and that although the state should have to prove that the defendant knew

their rights, a statement should not be excluded on the basis that they were not informed of their

rights. Furthermore, the dissenting opinion argued that there was no legal precedent to support

the majority's ruling and that custodial interrogations were not intrinsically coercive and did not

qualify for broad interpretation under the Fifth Amendment.

Analysis

The Miranda rights doctrine established through Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and the

doctrine of informed consent in professional psychological practice constitute two separate legal

and ethical concepts that share some vital similarities about guaranteeing that individuals are

entirely aware of their rights and choices in certain situations. For example, through Miranda v.

Arizona (1966), it was established that Miranda rights pertain to criminal investigations and

interactions with law enforcement; they exist to protect the individual's right to refrain from self-

incrimination and provide them with the information they need should they choose to speak to

law enforcement entities. Similarly, the doctrine of informed consent entails the mental health

care provider educating the service receiver about the risks, benefits, alternatives to mental

health treatment, and limits to confidentiality (American Psychological Association, 2017;

American Psychological Association, 2011); it ensures that the service receivers have the

necessary information needed to work collaboratively and make informed decisions regarding

their treatment. Overall, the distinct doctrines parallel each other in that they are legal and ethical

standards that address the disclosure of information, involve voluntary agreement to engage in

contextual proceedings, and the overall protection of rights.

Both doctrines bring up legal and ethical considerations that apply to professional

forensic psychological practice. For example, Baker and colleagues (2023) acknowledged that

juvenile justice reform is needed as the Miranda rights standard was extended to juveniles

without proper consideration of differences- compared to adults- in their cognitive and

socioemotional development and functioning. Additionally, the literature has documented that

constitutional safeguards are also needed for defendants with intellectual disabilities (ID) or

limited cognitive abilities, as they may experience compromised comprehension of Miranda

abilities (Tazi & Rogers, 2023; Erickson et al., 2020). In recognizing vulnerabilities among

specific populations, psychologists nevertheless have the ethical and legal requirements to

discuss inform consent to a feasible extent and obtain assent from forensic examinees or other

individuals who cannot legally consent (American Psychological Association, 2017; American

Psychological Association, 2011). When providing a psychological analysis of Miranda v.

Arizona (1966), Smalarz and colleagues (2016) noted that three critical issues involve the

dispositional and situational factors that influence the perception of freedom, the reinvocation of

Miranda rights, the individual's knowledge about their ability to re-invoke their Miranda rights

after signing the waiver, jury perceptions of voluntariness given the warning-and-waiver

procedure.
WEEK 2 WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT 6

References

American Psychological Association. (2011, January 1). Specialty guidelines for forensic

psychology. [Link]

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of

conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017).

[Link]

Baker, S., Tazi, K., & Caron, E. H. (2023). A critical discussion of youth Miranda waivers, racial

inequity, and proposed policy reforms. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 29(3), 320–

335. [Link]

Erickson, S., Salekin, K. L., Johnson, L., & Doran, S. C. (2020). The predictive power of

intelligence: Miranda abilities of individuals with intellectual disability. Law And Human

Behavior, 44(1), 60–70. [Link]

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Tazi, K., & Rogers, R. (2023). Falling through the cracks: Failing to identify compromised

Miranda abilities for defendants with limited cognitive capacities. Behavioral Sciences &

the Law. [Link]