Minnesota Law Review

Juveniles’ Competence to Exercise Miranda Rights: An Empirical Study of Policy and Practice

The Supreme Court does not require any special procedural safeguards when police interrogate youths. Instead, it uses the adult standard—“knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under the totality of the circumstances”—to gauge the validity of juveniles’ waivers of Miranda rights. Developmental psychologists have examined adolescents’ capacity to exercise or waive Miranda rights. Their research questions whether juveniles possess the cognitive ability and adjudicative competence necessary to exercise legal rights, and contends that their immaturity and vulnerability make them uniquely susceptible to police interrogation tactics.

In the four decades since the Supreme Court decided Miranda, we have almost no empirical research about what actually occurs when police interview criminal suspects and we have no research about how police routinely question juveniles. Since 1994, the Minnesota Supreme Court has required police to record all interrogations of criminal suspects including juveniles. This Article begins to fill the empirical void about adolescents’ competence to exercise Miranda rights in the interrogation room. It analyzes quantitative and qualitative data—interrogation tapes and transcripts, police reports, juvenile court filings, and probation and sentencing reports—of routine police interrogation of sixty-six juveniles sixteen years of age or older and charged with felony-level offenses. It provides the first empirical test of adolescents’ ability to understand and to waive or invoke their Miranda rights. The article concludes with a discussion of policy implications and directions for further research.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]