Regarding Juvenile Comprehension of Miranda

 Does anyone love the SCOTUS audios more than me? Yeah, I doubt it too. There’s actually a lot of laughs in here. No, I don’t get out much, why do you ask?

“The issue before the Court is simple: must the age of a minor be taken into account in deciding whether the youth, about to be questioned by police about a crime, is “in custody” and so is entitled to be told about his legal rights before any questions may be asked? “

It’s really not simple since the attributes to consider in this question include age, willingness to please authority, comprehension, voluntariness, freedom of movement, what constitutes a confined/custodial situation for children and are they allowed the same rights to waive Miranda as adults when being questioned. What would happen if Miranda was extended to juveniles? My initial thought is an extreme increase in Huntley Hearings by public defenders looking to get info/confessions tossed out based on one or more of the above mentioned criteria not being met. Many adults struggle to understand Miranda, or what custody means, how can we expect kids to understand, cognitively underdeveloped as they are and in addition, more emotionally sensitive to such a situation that interrogation imposes on memory, movement and coercion.

The Justices wanted to pin this down as using “objective circumstances” to determine if the child in question will understand and need to be Mirandized and if so, how. Some state’s court jurisdiction uses the age test (13, 14, 15 years old) or reasonable man test- which is up to the well trained (we hope) arresting cop/det. or interrogator to decide how to proceed based on how old the child appears and what would the normal 8 or 11 yr old understand.  Most the time, this is not an issue in court since these guys are trained to work with kids and take the precautions called for. However, it happens enough and if Miranda is extended aforementioned characteristics must be considered, which could speak toward coercion (lack of or opportunity to call a parent, police dominated interrogation, length of time, general holding conditions) leading to a possible back log in Huntley hearings and more time in detention for kids who would benefit more from rehabilitation, counselling, educational/skill based programs, or that are just needlessly being held, i.e.:

The justices then urged “…what would happen to the Miranda regime if the Court were now to clutter it up with requiring police to imagine how a suspect’s” unique characteristics” would shape his reaction to being confined for questioning.”

Characterics like, understanding English, cognitive disabilities, mental illness and age related susceptibility as in Alvarado.  It is clear and refreshing that the Justices were aware of these red flags and that counsel was encouraging of letting experts decide details, not the law. P.S. the same scenario applies to adults with mental illness or mental retardation.

There is literally decades worth of great research that sheds light on just how far this grey area of psychological coercion pertaining to juveniles in custodial situations in re: to Miranda expands. Social science to the rescue? Not entirely of course, but they can provide alternative methods, tests, and empirical evidence to what works and what doesn’t. For example, in NY and (perhaps not used enough) we have typed out Miranda in English and Spanish that the child/parent have to sign before taking the juvenile into custody, and even that is debatable. This would assume the parent or interested guardian is available and also understands what they are signing  and that they may be an acting as an agent of the police. Wouldn’t the easiest temp solution- if there is concern, be (assuming time is not of the essence) no questioning at all until at least legal rep. shows up, even if the parent is there? This essentially protects the child’s rights as well as the integrity of the police leading to what info the police can legally use in trial or for the investigation. Win/win?  We’ll hear what the Justices have to say about it later in the year.