Competence to Exercise the Right to Stay Silent

Defining Competence

General Definition: The ability to do something successfully.
Legal Definition: The legal authority of a court or other body to deal with a particular matter.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary: The quality or state of having sufficient knowledge, judgment, skill, or strength for a particular duty or in a particular respect.

Dusky Standards and the Right to Silence

Foundation: Previously explored as the foundation for competency to stand trial.
Origin: Implemented from Dusky versus United States in $1960$ .
Guidelines (Refresher):
- Capacity to understand the criminal process and ability to function within it.
- Ability to consult with counsel and understand proceedings.
- A reasonable degree of understanding.
- Rational and factual understanding.
Application to Right to Silence: These standards are carried over to assess the abilities needed for competence to exercise the right to stay silent, rather than focusing solely on competence to stand trial.

Historical Context: Evolution of Confession Law

Conflicting Factors in the Law of Confessions:
- Prosecutors need reliable confessions from guilty defendants.
- Confessions must be obtained fairly through effective interrogations, upholding citizens' constitutional rights.
Complexity: As Melton states in "Psychological Evaluations for the Courts," reviewing the evolution of standards for assessing confession admissibility clarifies the complexity in clinically evaluating a defendant's competence to confess.
Goal: To obtain reliable confessions.

Significant Cases Influencing Interrogation Practices

Brown versus Mississippi ( $1936$ ):
- Case Details: Three African-American defendants provided confessions under physical torture, severe beatings, and hanging.
- Ruling: Convictions were vacated because the defendants were deprived of the will to resist police. The court ruled these confessions, and others obtained through similar methods (e.g., questioning for hours without rest/food/water, threats about children, denying phone calls), were inadmissible.
Shift to Sixth Amendment Focus ( $1964$ ):
- Question: Was the $6$ th Amendment right to counsel violated by the failure to provide counsel during interrogations?
Miranda versus United States ( $1966$ ):
- Notable Shift: Led to the establishment of Miranda rights, a radical and transformative moment in American criminal law.
- Goal of Miranda Rights: To protect the innocent and prevent false confessions.
- Source: Stems from the Fifth Amendment, which states, "No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against him or herself."
- Safeguards: Miranda rights are safeguards to protect these pre-existing constitutional rights against self-incrimination.

Miranda Rights: Application and Invocation

When Miranda Applies: A suspect must be both:
- In Custody: A reasonable person in the suspect's position would not have felt free to leave.
- Subject to Interrogation: Direct questioning or words/actions by police known to be likely to elicit an incriminating response.
Purpose: Protects suspects from psychological tactics during interrogations, allowing them to invoke the right to counsel without needing to discern police intentions.
Explicit Invocation: Clear statements are required to invoke the right to remain silent, such as:
- "I'd like to have my lawyer present."
- "I'm choosing to remain silent."
- "I'm invoking my Fifth Amendment right."

The Law of Voluntariness

Crucial in Confession Admissibility: Once individuals are informed of their rights, statements are inadmissible unless they are spoken knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Court's Role: Ensures there is no extensive coercion or physical abuse to obtain statements or confessions.

Assessing Competence to Remain Silent

Nuance: Intellectual disability and mental illness do not automatically equate to incompetence.
Court's Interest: Primarily concerned with whether the individual understood their rights at the time of questioning.
Challenges for Mental Health Professionals (MHPs): Assessment can be tricky days or weeks after the interrogation.
Criterion for Incompetence: Individuals are typically found incompetent only if:
- Impairment is severe enough to indicate vulnerability to police, OR
- Police took advantage of their cognitive abilities or mental illnesses.
MHP Involvement: MHPs analyze the interrogation process and assist courts in assessing confessions, looking at:
- Cognitive functioning.
- Suggestibility.
- Comprehension.
- Situational factors at the time rights were given.

Mental Health Professionals' Role in Evaluation

MHPs evaluate confessions in three primary ways:

Suspect's Ability to Waive Rights Knowingly and Intelligently:
- Did the suspect understand that rights were waived?
- Were the rights delivered in a comprehensible manner?
- Did the individual have the capacity to use that understanding to make a rational decision?
Assessment of Confession Voluntariness:
- Examining the defendant's vulnerability.
- Assessing if the defendant understood the interrogator's intentions.
Providing Data on False Confessions:
- Offering specific examples of techniques used to obtain confessions or false confessions.

Challenges in Miranda Comprehension

Misunderstanding: Research indicates approximately a quarter ( $25\%$
) of adults do not understand the entirety of Miranda rights, often misunderstanding them.
Reading Level: Studies show individuals need at least a middle school reading comprehension level to grasp Miranda warnings.
Prior Involvement: Previous involvement in the criminal justice system or court proceedings does not guarantee knowledge or understanding of rights.

Evaluation Process by Evaluators

Current Understanding: Inquire about the individual's current understanding of their rights.
Interrogation Information: Gather details about the interrogation (e.g., choices suspects felt they had, perceived consequences).
Psychological Testing: May include specific tests to understand intellectual abilities or potential psychotic disorders.

Specific Assessment Instruments

Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights ( $1981$ ):
- Published by Dr. Thomas Grisso.
- Four Components:
  1. Comprehension of Miranda rights.
  2. Comprehension of Miranda rights recognition.
  3. Comprehension of Miranda vocabulary.
  4. Function of rights in interrogation.
- Purpose: Helps evaluators assess understanding levels (e.g., paraphrasing Miranda statements, understanding vocabulary).
- Update: Revised in $2012$ as the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instrument.
Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (Used Primarily with Adults):
- Five Instruments:
  1. Miranda Comprehension Template.
  2. Miranda Quiz.
  3. Miranda Vocabulary Scale.
  4. Miranda Acquiescence Questionnaire.
  5. Miranda Reasoning Measure.
- Coverage: Encompasses an interview about the interrogation, a quiz on Miranda rights knowledge, an exam to define words, a discussion about the interrogation, and an assessment of understanding self-incrimination, attitudes about attorneys, and law enforcement officers.

Factors Influencing Voluntariness Assessment

Difficulty: Ensuring voluntary statements can be challenging, even with interviews about the interrogation.
Suggestibility Assessment: Evaluators must assess suggestibility, considering factors such as:
- Age: Is the defendant a youth?
- Intellectual Disabilities: Does the defendant have intellectual disabilities?
- Substance Use: Were they under the influence of substances at the time of questioning or when rights were given? Do they have a history of substance use disorder?

Concluding Question

Given that MHPs typically assess competence after an interrogation or confession, a key question arises: How can police officers effectively gauge or analyze suspects in the moment to determine if they are truly understanding their rights?