Content area
Abstract
The United States Supreme Court requires that waivers of constitutional rights, including the rights described by the Miranda warnings, be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The Court and state courts have repeatedly invoked the requirements when determining the validity of Miranda waivers; however, the distinction between the two cognitive requirements (knowing and intelligent) has not been clearly delineated. The current study examined whether judges distinguish between knowing and intelligent when they make determinations of Miranda waiver validity. It was hypothesized that judges would distinguish between the knowing and intelligent requirements, which would be reflected by differences in judges' ratings of waiver validity for hypothetical defendants with different levels of Miranda rights comprehension. It was hypothesized that defendant's age would moderate the relationship between Miranda comprehension and judges' ratings of Miranda waiver validity. Participants were 124 judges randomly selected from 49 U.S. states, each of whom received a packet of materials by mail containing a hypothetical capacity to waive Miranda rights evaluation report, a questionnaire about the validity of the hypothetical defendant's Miranda waiver, and a demographics survey. Analysis of variance of judges' ratings of waiver validity on a continuous scale revealed that judges distinguished between knowing and intelligent, but suggested that defendant age may not moderate the relationship. Logistic regression of a dichotomous valid/invalid rating indicated that Miranda comprehension and defendant age were significant predictors of judges' decisions about waiver validity.
