Feigned incompetence

The pitfalls of evaluating Miranda comprehension in non-native speakers of English

Resumo

In 1966 the US Supreme Court ruled that custodial suspects should be
advised of their rights, including the right to silence and the right to an attorney,
before questioning begins. If they waive their rights and the defense can prove
that they did not do so voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, their confession
may be excluded from the evidence. Judges consider many factors in their decisions
on motions to suppress, including expert testimony. In this paper, I discuss
a case where two experts evaluated language prociency of the same suspect and
arrived at radically dierent conclusions regarding her ability to understand the
warnings. I will show why one assessment was superior to the other, but the true
signicance of the case is in showing that a dialogic approach to delivery of the
rights can reduce linguistic guesswork and help safeguard the integrity of the investigation
and due process.