Do Juveniles Understand What an Attorney is Supposed to Do Well Enough to Make Knowing and Intelligent Decisions About Waiving Their Right to Counsel?: An Exploratory Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52935/Keywords:
Miranda, Waiver, Juveniles, Attorney-client privilege, Zealous representationAbstract
This study examines juveniles’ understanding of attorney-client privilege and zealous representation using a sample of committed juveniles. Since these attributes are what make an attorney’s assistance valuable, an understanding of these basic concepts should be a necessary pre-requisite for any juvenile’s valid waiver of the right to counsel under Miranda. The impact of respondents’ various demographic attributes, exposure to the legal system and attitudes regarding the fairness of court proceedings and the outcome of their own case on their understanding of the duty to zealously represent and attorney-client
privilege are analyzed. Findings suggest that even among juveniles who have been through the system, various aspects of zealous representation and attorney-client privilege are not fully understood. Greater experience with the system and living in an urban area tend to correlate with greater understanding of attorney-client privilege. Urban dwellers are, however, less likely to think that it is wise for defendants to tell their attorneys the whole story. The policy implications of these results are evaluated.
References
Abramovitch, R., Higgins-Bliss, K.L., Bliss, S.R., 1993. Young person’s comprehension of waivers in criminal proceedings. Canadian Journal of Criminology 35, 309-322.
Abramovitch, R., Peterson-Badali, M., Rohan, M., 1995. Young people’s understanding and assertion of their rights to silence and legal counsel. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 1-18.
American Bar Association, 1980. ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility. Retrieved from
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/mcpr.authcheckdam.pdf
Arenella, P., 1997. Miranda stories. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 20, 375- 387.
Boyd, N.F., 2004. “I didn't do it, I was forced to say that I did”: The problem of coerced juvenile confessions, and proposed federal legislation to prevent them. Howard Law Journal 47, 395- 427.
Burns, Susan A., 1996. Comment: Is Ohio juvenile justice still serving its purpose? Akron Law Review 29, 335-370.
Buss, E., 2000. The role of lawyers in promoting juveniles' competence as defendants, in: Grisso, T., Schwartz, R.G. (Eds.), Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 243-265.
Cantrell, C. 1984. Sanctions imposed for revealing attorney-client confidences. Journal of the Legal Profession 9, 167-174.
Cassell, P.G., 1997. Miranda's negligible effect on law enforcement: Some skeptical observations. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 20, 327-346.
Cleary, H.M.D., 2013. Police interviewing and interrogation of juvenile suspects: A descriptive examination of actual cases. Law and Human Behavior. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000070
Costantakes, C., 2007. Bearing the best interest: The guardian ad litem and the “CASA” volunteer in juvenile court proceedings. The Nebraska Lawyer 6, 6-13.
Drizin, S., Leo, R., 2004. The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review 82, 891-1003.
Feld, B., 2013. Real interrogation: What actually happens when cops question kids. Law & Society Review 47(1), 1-36.
Goldstein, A., Goldstein, N., 2010. Evaluating capacity to waive Miranda. Oxford University Press, New York.
Goldstein, N.E.S., Goldstein, A.M., Zelle, H., Condie, L.O., 2012. Capacity to waive Miranda rights and the assessment of the validity of a waiver, in: Otto, R.K. (Ed.), Handbook of Psychology, second ed., Volume 11, Forensic Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 381-411.
Grisso, J.T., Pomicter, C., 1977. Interrogation of juveniles. Law and Human Behavior 1(4), 321-342.
Grisso, T., 1980. Juveniles’ capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California Law Review 68, 1134– 1166. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.11.4.577
Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci, N.D., Schwartz, R., 2003. Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human
Behavior 27, 333–363.
Hazard, G., 1978. An historical perspective on the attorney-client privilege. California Law Review 66, 1061-1091.
Inbau, F., Reid, J., Buckley, J., Jayne, B., 2005. Essentials of the Reid Technique: Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Burlington.
Johnson, S.B., Blum, R.W., Giedd, G.N., 2009. Adolescent maturity and the brain: The promise and pitfalls of neuroscience research in adolescent health policy. Journal of Adolescent Health 45(3), 216–221.
Kassin, S., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo. R., Redlich, A., 2010. Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law Human Behavior 34, 3–38.
Kassin, S., Leo, R., Meissner, C., Richman, K., Colwell, L., Leach, A., La Fon, D., 2007. Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior 31, 381–400.
Kassin, S.M., Gudjonsson, G.H., 2004. The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(2), 33-67. doi:10.2307/40062301
Kassin, S.M., Norwick, R.J., 2004. Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior 28(2), 211-221.
Kramer, J.H., Delis, D.C., Kaplan, E., O'Donnell, L., Prifitera, A., 1997. Developmental sex differences in verbal learning. Neuropsychology 11(4), 577-584.
LaMontagne, L., 2013. Children under pressure: The problem of juvenile false confessions and potential solutions. Western State University Law Review 41, 29-56.
Leo, R.A., 1996. The impact of Miranda revisited. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86(3), 621-692.
Marrus, E., 2006. Can I talk now?: Why Miranda does not offer adolescents adequate protections. Temple Law Review 79, 515-534.
McGuire, D.M., 2010. Continuing constitutional controversy over interrogation: How to accommodate competing interests. PsycCritiques 55(46). doi:10.1037/a0021502.
McMullen, P., 2005. Questioning the questions: The impermissibility of police deception in interrogations of juveniles. Northwestern University Law Review 99(2), 971-1006.
Melton, G.B., 1980. Psycholegal issues in child victims' interaction with the legal system. Victimology 5, 274-284.
Meyer, J., Reppucci, D., 2007. Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25, 757–780.
Rogers, R., Blackwood, H., Fiduccia, C., Steadham, J., Drogin, E., Rogstad, J., 2012. Juvenile Miranda warnings: Perfunctory rituals or procedural safeguards?. Criminal Justice and Behavior 39, 229-249.
Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L.L., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., Shurman, D.W., 2008. The language of Miranda in American jurisdictions. Law & Human Behavior 32(2), 124-136.
Scott, E., Grisso, T., 1997. The evolution of adolescence: A developmental perspective on juvenile justice reform. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88, 137–89.
Scott, E., Steinberg, L., 2008. Rethinking juvenile justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Scott-Hayward, C., 2007. Explaining juvenile false confessions: Adolescent development and police interrogation. Law & Psychology Review 31, 53-76.
Smith, A., 2000. Defending defending: The case for unmitigated zeal on behalf of people who do terrible things. Hofstra Law Review 28, 925-961.
Sterling, R., 2009. Role of juvenile defense counsel in delinquency court. National Juvenile Defender Center, Washington.
Thompson, A., 2008. A child alone and without paper: A report on the return and repatriation of unaccompanied undocumented children by the United States. Center for Public Policy Priorities, Austin.
Viljoen, J., Roesch, R., 2005. Competence to waive interrogation rights and adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Cognitive development, attorney contact, and psychological symptoms. Law and Human Behavior 29(6), 723-742.
Viljoen, J.L., Klaver, J., Roesch, R., 2005. Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys and appeals. Law and Human Behavior 29,253-277.
Viljoen, J.L., Zapf, P., & Roesch, R., 2007. Adjudicative competence and comprehension of Miranda rights in adolescent defendants: A comparison of legal standards. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 25, 1-19.
Wrightsman, L., & Pitman, M., 2010. The Miranda ruling: Its past, present, and future. Oxford University Press, New York.
Table of cases
Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963)
Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S Ct 1017 (2013)
Davis v. Unites States, 512 US 452 (1994)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 US 428 (2000)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 US 477 (1981)
Fare v. Michael C., 442 US 707 (1979)
Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 US 52 (1961)
In re E.T.C., 141 VT 375, 449 A 2d 937 (1982)
In re Gault, 387 US 1 (1967)
In re K.W.B., 500 SW 2d 275 (Mo Ct App 1973)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 US 77 (2004)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S Ct 2394 (2011)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 US 458 (1938)
Lewis v. State, 288 NE 2d 138 (1972)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 US 98 (2010)
McGriff v. Dept. of Corrections, 338 F 3d 1231 (2003)
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 US 625 (1986)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 US 600 (2004)
New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 US 325 (1985)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005)
Smook v. Minnehaha County, 457 F 3d 806 (8th Cir 2006)
State ex rel. J.M. v Taylor, 276 S.E.2d 199 (W Va 1981)
State in Interest of Dino, 359 So 2d 586 (La 1978)
State v. Benoit, 490 A 2d 295 (N H 1985)
White v. Maryland, 373 U S 59 (1963)
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2015 Journal of Applied Juvenile Justice Services
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
