Differences in the Prongs of the Miranda Warnings
In 1998 Grisso compiled a set of instruments to measure an individual's understanding of the rights afforded under Miranda v. Arizona (1966). 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.
Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Helms, J., & Holloway, C. (2006). Differences in the prongs of the Miranda warnings. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(1), 77-84. doi:10.1080/14786010600616007.