Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Bang, B. L., Stanton, D., Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. K. (2018). Police recording of custodial interrogations: A state-by-state legal inquiry. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20, 3–18.

Abstract: The Supreme Court of the United States recognized in its seminal case Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) that police used overly coercive techniques during custodial interrogations to obtain confessions. Yet, post Miranda, police officers still utilize legal coercive and deceptive techniques during custodial interrogations. Unfortunately, some of these techniques have proven to be so coercive that they lead to false confessions and innocent people being convicted for crimes they did not commit. Some states have taken measures to protect the accused during custodial interrogations and require the police to record custodial interrogations under certain conditions. The policies and procedures that mandate interrogation recording vary in scope and by state. This article sheds light on the different statutes and policies implemented at the state level that regulate custodial interrogation recording.

Journal Article 2: Rogers, R., Sharf, A. J., Henry, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. (2018). Feigned Miranda impairment by legally involved juveniles: The vulnerability of forensic measures and the development of effective screens. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1269–1287.

Abstract: Forensic studies have almost entirely neglected research on adolescent offenders and their abilities to engage in malingering and other forms of deception. The present research represents the first empirical investigation into feigned Miranda-specific impairment by legally involved juveniles. Feigners (n = 62) were compared with archival data (n = 245) under genuine conditions. With virtually no preparation, juveniles effectively feigned major impairment on the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI) and most aggregate scores of the Juvenile Miranda Quiz (JMQ). Based on established detection strategies, feigning scales were examined for both the MRCI and JMQ. Consistent with adult detainee research, the JMQ floor effect (JMQ FE) yielded good sensitivities and very high specificities. Low scale scores on the MRCI Comprehension of Miranda Rights–Recognition-II (CMR-R-II) evidenced strong promise at identifying potential feigners for more extensive evaluations. As discussed, forensic evaluators cannot afford to ignore feigned legal incapacities when examining pre-adjudicated adolescents.