Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

requires individuals to consider various options

throughout the interrogation process (e.g., whether to

talk with the police about the crime) and to weigh the

short- and long-term consequences of each option

(e.g., talking with the police now may lead to imme-

diate release, but it also may result in one’s statements

being used against one in court at a later date).

Assessment of Relevant Capacities

In the 1970s, Thomas Grisso developed a series of instru-

ments, the Instruments for Assessing Understanding and

Appreciation of MirandaRights,designed to assess the

capacities previously described. Briefly, these instru-

ments are composed of four discrete measures to assess

different capacities.

First, Comprehension of MirandaRights (CMR) is

designed to assess examinees’ basic understanding of

each of the warnings. Examinees are read out each

warning and asked to paraphrase the meaning of the

warning. Second, Comprehension of MirandaRights–

Recognition (CMR–R) is also designed to assess

examinees’ understanding of their rights, but this mea-

sure does so without reliance on verbal expressive

abilities; examinees must only identify whether a

series of statements means the same thing as, or some-

thing different from, the warnings. Thus, it provides

the opportunity for examinees with difficulties articu-

lating their understanding to demonstrate their

comprehension. Third, Comprehension of Miranda

Vocabulary (CMV) evaluates examinees’ understand-

ing of six words found in the Mirandawarnings by

asking them to define the following terms: consult,

attorney, interrogation, appoint, entitled, and right.

Last, the Function of Rights in Interrogation (FRI) is

the only measure that assesses examinees’ appreciation

of the significance of the warnings. Evaluators present

four short vignettes with illustrations of police, legal,

and court proceedings to examinees. After reading

each vignette, examiners ask open-ended questions

about the vignette (e.g., If the judge finds out that the

defendant would not talk to the police, then what

would happen?).

The first three measures of the Instruments

for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of

MirandaRights,the CMR, CMR–R, and CMV, assess

capacities related to the knowing element of the stan-

dard for a valid waiver of rights. The final measure in

the instruments, the FRI, primarily assesses capacities

related to the intelligent element of the standard.

Importantly, questions about the validity of a defen-

dant’s waiver of rights may be raised at any point dur-

ing the legal process, even weeks, months, or years

after the waiver was provided. Consequently, the

instruments provide direct information about exami-

nees’ understanding and appreciation of their rights at

the time of the evaluation, not at the time of testing;

data from testing must be extrapolated to estimate

understanding and appreciation at the time the actual

Mirandawaiver was provided.

To increase the accuracy of a defendant’s estimated

capacities at the time of the Mirandawaiver, forensic

evaluators generally consider idiographic information

in conjunction with the information obtained from

Grisso’s instruments. Additional measures typically

include a clinical interview and measures of intellec-

tual functioning, academic achievement, and symp-

toms of mental illness. In addition, collateral interviews

are conducted and relevant records reviewed. For

juvenile defendants, specific measures related to cog-

nitive functioning and developmental maturity are

also often administered.

Naomi E. Sevin Goldstein

and Rachel Kalbeitzer

See also Capacity to Waive MirandaRights; Forensic

Assessment; Grisso’s Instruments for Assessing

Understanding and Appreciation of MirandaRights

Further Readings

Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota,

FL: Professional Resource Press.

Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding

and appreciation of Mirandarights. Sarasota, FL:

Professional Resource Press.

CAPITAL MITIGATION

Capital mitigation consists of evidence that is pre-

sented in a death penalty trial to obtain a sentence

other than death. In the bifurcated trial process that

characterizes modern capital cases (in which a second

penalty or sentencing phase occurs only if the defen-

dant has been convicted of a crime for which the death

penalty may be imposed), mitigation typically is

introduced in the second stage of the trial. Its purpose

60 ———Capital Mitigation

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 60