Differences in the Prongs of the Miranda Warnings

Abstract

In 1998 Grisso compiled a set of instruments to measure an individual's understanding of the rights afforded under Miranda v. Arizona (1966 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436. (1966) [Google Scholar]). Utilizing one of these instruments, each of the Miranda warnings was researched to see whether or not they significantly differed in relation to one another. Results indicate that the warning regarding the appointment of an attorney for indigent defendants is significantly less understood when compared to the other warnings. Implications of the results confirm that a partial understanding (potentially caused by a more difficult to understand prong of the warnings) and a unimodal assessment of understanding are insufficient given the necessity of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.