Miranda Rights Psychological Evaluations

Psycholegal Assessments, Inc., specializes in conducting comprehensive Miranda Rights psychological evaluations to determine whether an individual has knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived their constitutional rights during police interrogations.  Forensic psychologist Dr. Steven Gaskell's evaluations are grounded in empirical methods and tailored to address the complexities of each case.​

Understanding Miranda Rights Evaluations

Miranda Rights psychological evaluations assess a defendant's capacity to comprehend and waive their Miranda rights, including evaluating the individual's understanding of their right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the consequences of waiving these rights. Miranda rights psychological evaluations are crucial in cases where the validity of a confession is in question, particularly if the defendant may have cognitive impairments or has mental health issues.​

Our Evaluation Process

Our approach to Miranda Rights psychological evaluations includes:​

• Clinical Interviews: Interview to assess the defendant's mental state and comprehension abilities.  Explore the defendant's recollection of Miranda rights waiver.  Assess the defendant's competency to waive their Miranda rights
• Review of written, video, or audio records regarding the defendant's waiver of Miranda rights, including details of the police interrogation
• Standardized Testing: Utilization of validated instruments including cognitive measures, personality instruments, and measures of interrogative suggestibility.  Use of such widely-used instruments as the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), and the Gudjonsson Scales.
• Record Review: Examination of police interrogation records, police reports, and other relevant documents.
• Collateral Information: Gathering data from family members or mental health professionals to provide additional context.
• Assessment of malingering and deception

Dr. Gaskell's expertise ensures a meticulous approach.  Dr. Gaskell provides the courts with reliable and objective findings regarding the defendant's capacity to waive their Miranda rights.​

Miranda Rights Research

Confessions and other self-incriminating statements to law enforcement officials are a strong source of evidence against a defendant at a trial. Confessions are produced in about 50% of criminal cases. Suspects who provide self-incriminating statements are 26% more likely to be found guilty and convicted (Leo, 2006).  Miranda v. Arizona (1966) described a defendant’s confession as “the most compelling possible evidence of guilt.” The Supreme Court ruled in the Miranda case that any statement made in custodial police interrogation would be presumed inadmissible unless the police provided four warnings (some jurisdictions added a fifth) to remind the defendant of his or her constitutional rights.

An individual cannot waive their Miranda rights unless they are able to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily do so. "Knowingly" refers to an individual's ability to understand the language in which the Miranda rights were read or written. "Intelligently" refers to the individual's ability to comprehend the meaning of the warning. "Voluntarily" means that the individual waived his or her rights without being coerced by the police to do so.