Grant to fund Miranda warning study

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have a lawyer present with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you if you wish."

With characters on Law and Order and other television shows frequently quoting words like these, many Americans may believe that this version of the Miranda warnings, which warn a person accused of a crime against self-incrimination, is the only version.

But more than 100 different versions of the warning are used to inform an accused person of his or her rights. Some are simple, while others may require a high school education to be understood. The differences may result in defendants not completely understanding their rights to not make a confession without benefit of counsel, which may play an instrumental role in whether the person is convicted, says a UNT forensic psychologist.

Richard Rogers, professor of psychology, recently received a $129,000 two-year grant from the National Science Foundation to determine the comprehensibility of different Miranda versions, which he says may vary in reading level from fifth grade to 12th grade.

Rogers will conduct a survey of sheriffs and attorneys in 800 U.S. counties. He says a large number of defendants have either limited education or learning disabilities, and the study will determine the Miranda rights versions that are the easiest to understand for most defendants.

The Miranda warnings sprang from Miranda v. Arizona, a 1966 Supreme Court case. By a 5-4 majority, the court decided that the Constitution's Fifth Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination applied to an individual who was in police custody or "deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." To safeguard this right, the court ruled that before being questioned, a suspect must be informed of his or her rights to be silent and to have an attorney present during questioning.

Rogers says the Supreme Court decision determined only the components of the Miranda rights, not the actual language. As a result, different versions are used from county to county and even city to city, resulting in confusion for some of those in custody, he says.

"For example, some don't understand what ‘right to remain silent' means. They believe their silence can be interpreted as a sign of guilt because they have something to hide. If you believe this, do you really have the right to silence at all?" Rogers says.

Attorneys rarely question whether a defendant completely understands his or her Miranda rights after hearing them read by a law enforcement official, he says.

"We have to determine the reliability of the different versions. I'd like to offer models of what works," he says. "Defense attorneys may use the research to question a defendant's understanding of a very complicated waiver. But, more importantly, law officials and prosecutors can adopt a version that will result in fewer problems in comprehension."

BY NANCY KOLSTI nkolsti@unt.edu

Other featured articles in this issue

• Suggested healthy habits for the fight against the flu
• Grant to motivate young Americans into election process participation
• Study to help online retailers keep customers
• UNT to train Air Force logistics faculty
• UNT professor warns about the drawbacks of popular low carbohydrate diets
• Grant to train teachers of American history
• UNT toy and food drive begins Nov. 8
• Faculty Senate approves bylaws changes
• Staff awards presented at sack lunch
• American Heart Walk raises $50,000 plus

homepage