Forensic assessment instruments: Their reliability and applicability to criminal forensic issues.

Forensic evaluations have advanced considerably with the development of specialized measures validated on forensic and correctional samples. Prior to this progress, such evaluations relied heavily on extrapolations from general psychological tests to crucial, legally relevant questions. Since then, decades of empirical work have produced forensic assessment instruments (FAIs) addressing psycholegal standards in addition to forensically relevant instruments (FRIs) examining issues central to forensic practice (e.g., malingering) but not the standards themselves. This article provides a critical examination of the development, validation, and modern applications of six published FAIs that each address one of three broad criminal forensic issues (i.e., insanity, competency to stand trial, and Miranda abilities and waivers). Evaluations of the measures' reliability and validity particularly in forensic samples are highlighted. To complement FAIs, FRIs related to response styles are briefly explored. As a primary goal, forensic practitioners are provided with the knowledge and background about FAIs to enhance their criminal forensic practices.

Forensic mental telehealth assessment (FMTA) in the context of COVID-19.

Due to the present COVID-19 pandemic, forensic mental telehealth assessment (FMTA) is an increasingly utilized means of conducting court-sanctioned psychiatric and psychological evaluations. FMTA is not a novel development, and studies have been published during the past two decades that opine on the positive and negative implications of conducting testing and interview procedures online, in forensic and traditionally clinical matters alike. The present article examines prospects for eventual legal challenges to FMTA, describes considerations for conducting FMTA in both institutional and residential settings, and concludes that FMTA is now-due to predicted accommodations on the part of courts, attorneys, institutions, and professional guilds-a permanent part of the forensic evaluation landscape, even once the present COVID-19 pandemic has subsided.

An Examination of Juveniles' Miranda Abilities: Investigating Differences in Miranda Recall and Reasoning.

Juvenile suspects are routinely expected to possess an accurate recall of written or oral Miranda warnings. This study addresses the Miranda-related comprehension recall and reasoning of legally involved juveniles. It is the first juvenile research to compare systematically two levels of complexity for Miranda warnings with the three modalities (oral, written, or combined) of administration. Unexpectedly, easily read written warnings marginally outperformed the combined modality. In order to examine Miranda reasoning, three juvenile groups were operationalized: impaired, questionable, and likely adequate. Predictably, the impaired and questionable groups possessed significantly lower verbal abilities than the likely-adequate reasoning group. In addition, the likely-adequate group exhibited the strongest appreciation of the adversarial context in which Miranda waiver decisions are rendered. The discussion addresses the marked disparities in Miranda recall from a total recall versus component-by-component understanding of Miranda rights. It also considers more generally how crucially important Miranda misconceptions might be remedied. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

One American Perspective on the Rights of Accused: An Initial Survey of Miranda Rights in a Broader Context.

In the wake of countless police dramas, commonly held misperceptions endure that the American public knows both Miranda warnings and concomitant rights. Past research has tested public knowledge of Miranda per se, without evaluating additional misconceptions. The current investigation utilizes the European Union's much more all-encompassing safeguards, as delineated in the EU's 2012 Directive and Letter of Rights. Besides knowledge of Miranda, the advisability of these enhanced rights and protections was also assessed. In order to obtain a cross-section of the community, 619 participants were recruited from actual jury pools. Interestingly, they believed that Miranda afforded arrestees many more protections than it actually does. In general, nearly all (>90%) agreed that the accused should be given accurate information (e.g., charges and alleged criminal acts) coupled with an absence of police deception. The potential implications of these findings are discussed as they relate to police practices and due process. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.