Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-qr8hc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-12-09T09:56:14.592Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Index

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2023

Marianne Mason
Marianne Mason
Affiliation:
James Madison University, Virginia

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Police Interrogation, Language, and the Law
The Invocation Game
 , pp. 182 - 190
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

Index

This index is organized in word-by-word order. All case names are in italics. Tables are indicated by the word “(table)” in parentheses.

42 U.S. Code § 1983, 11–12
admissibility of statements
Dickerson v. United States, 12
Edwards v. Arizona, 26
Fare v. Michael C., 19
Owen v. Alabama, 33
United States v. Alamilla-Hernandez, 63–67
United States v. Fouche (Fouche II), 30, 31
Ainsworth, J., 8
Alvarez v. Gomez, 95
ambiguousness, 29, 32, 33, 35, 43, 44–45, 50, 51, 64, 117, 150–151. See also equivocal invocations for counsel
appeals. See also United States court of appeals
criminal appeals, grounds for, 5–7
for the Armed Forces, 4–5, 117, 120
asymmetrical status of interrogator and suspect. See also isolation of suspects
control of interrogation, 96–99
exemplar interaction of, 111
face work, indirectness and, 98–99
HIG report and, 69
indirect invocations and, 104–105
informational isolation and, 1, 149
invocation game and, 9–10, 72–76, 79
Reid technique, and, 91
Strategic Discourse Model (SDM) and, 102
Baker, L., 157–158
Baldwin, J., 137
Ball v. State, 82
Bayesian game analysis
invocation game and, 105–106
perceptions of discursive strategies and, 106
pragmatic behavior and, 102
surface game in, 106–107
behavioral analysis
background, 68–69
interview, 70–72. See also Reid technique
techniques, 10–11, 89
Bennett, P. G., 9, 92–93, 107
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 59
Bidirectional Optimality Theory, 101
Blutner, R., 101
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 135
bright-line Edwards’ rule. See also unequivocal invocations for counsel
application of, 28, 42
defined, 27
implementing, 151
Nash v. Estelle, 24
Poyner v. Murray, 41
Smith v. Illinois, 30, 33
United States v. Santistevan, 61–63
Brown, P., 97–98
Bull, R., 157–158
Burton rule, 20
Cannady v. Dugger, 36, 39
Cape v. Francis, 34
Cason, T. N., 103
Chen, T., 149–152
Clanton v. Cooper, 76
clarification standard. See also reforms
Alvarez v. Gomez, 95
Davis v. United States and, 41–46, 52
in post-Davis rulings, 44, 55, 95–96, 149–152
ineffectiveness of, 149–152
judicial debate about, 51–52
Lord v. Duckworth, 53–54
Nash v. Estelle, 23
Owen v. Alabama, 33–34
Poyner v. Murray, 40
pre- and post-Davis comparison, 44–45, 46–47, 52
Soffar v. Cockrell, 55–57
statistical analysis of, 130–131
“threshold-of-clarity” and, 43–44
United States v. Brown, 60–61
United States v. De La Jara, 36–37
United States v. Feyler, 54
United States v. March, 38–40
United States v. Posada–Rios, 49
clarification, need for. See also invocations for counsel
follow-ups contrasted with, 124–125, 161
hypergame theory and, 111–112, 113–115
legal barriers to, 100
Nash v. Estelle, 24–25
Smith v. Endell (Smith II), 32–33
Smith v. Illinois (Smith I), 29
United States v. Feyler, 54
United States v. Prestigiacomo, 28–29
United States v. Santistevan, 61–63
clarifications, requests for
follow-ups contrasted with, 124–125, 161
mutuality of understanding and, 99–100
Clark v. Murphy, 92
coercion. See also interrogation reform
physical coercion
false confessions and, 81–82, 141
judicial rulings on, 35–36, 49, 54, 76
Miranda rights and, 23–25
Nash v. Estelle, 24
Reid technique and, 81–82, 89
safeguards against, 161
Smith v. Illinois (Smith I), 29–30
voluntariness and, 15
cognitive interview (CI) techniques, 68–69, 84, 85, 90, 141–142
cognitive load, 88, 89
Commission on Civil Rights, 68
communication
discursive games and, 102–103
pragmatic behavior model and, 102–103
strategic conversations and, 102
Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM), 90–91. See also interrogation reform
confession culture, 161
confessions. See also false confessions
evidentiary uses of, 2
HIG Report and, 69
inadmissible, 150
physical coercion and, 68
reliability of, 152–153
supression of, 34
used to impeach suspect, 2
voluntariness of, 15, 49
confrontation, interrogator use of, 74–76
Connecticut v. Barrett, 31–32, 35, 37, 39
constitutional right, what constitutes, 12–13
conversational implicature, 93–97
corruption, 139
counsel. See right to counsel, waiver of counsel
Crawford, V. P., 101
Credible Message Rationalizability (CMR), 101
criminal justice system, suspect experience with, 21, 40, 54
custodial interrogation. See also asymmetrical status of interrogator and suspect, invocation game, L2 speakers of English, Reid technique
booking exceptions to, 25–26
legal assistance in custody, 154–157, 159–160
limitations on, 14
state versus individual interests balance, 8, 17–18, 40, 82, 157
what constitutes, 16, 19, 25–26
custodial interviews, approaches to. See also cognitive interview (CI) techniques, PEACE investigative model
Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM), 90–91
Cylindrical Model interviewing technique, 85
influencing strategies, 86
information-gathering, 82–83
interrogating cross-culturally, 87–88
Observing Rapport-Based Interview Techniques (ORBIT), 87
Phased Interview Model for Suspects, 82–83
rapport-based, 86, 89–90
Scharff technique, 87
Statement Analysis Field Examination Technique (SAFE-T), 88
Davis v. United States. See also post-Davis rulings
ethical and legal issues raised, 45–46
revisiting, 10, 11, 12–13, 157, 160
ruling, 11, 44–45
unequivocal/unambiguous standard and, 2, 8–9
unsettled questions in, 52
voluntariness of waiver in, 53
DEA (United States Drug Enforcement Administration), 68–69, 120–121
deception
police, 121–
truth detecting techniques, 71, 88–89, 90–91
Dekker, P., 101
detention, 6. See also habeas corpus, writ of
Dickerson v. United States, 12, 92
direct invocations, 50
direct/indirect meaning, 48, 49–50
dual presentation of rights, 147–148, 159
Edwards v. Arizona
cited in Cannady v. Dugger, 36
cited in Poyner v. Murray, 41
cited in Sessoms v. Runnels, 59
cited in United States v. De La Jara, 37
cited in United States v. Santistevan, 62
clarification standard, 62
issues raised in, 30
ruling, 35
summary, 26–27
en banc hearings, 4, 19
equivocal invocations for counsel
clarification standard and, 34, 39
“Miranda divide” and, 15–16
Nash v. Estelle, 21–24, 30
Owen v. Alabama, 33–34
Rodriguez v. Mcdonald, 105–106
Smith v. Endell (Smith II), 32–33
United States v. De La Jara, 36–37
United States v. Fouche (Fouche II), 30–31, 33
United States v. March, 38–40
United States v. Posada–Rios, 49
United States v. Salazar-Orellana, 49–50
face work, 97–98
failure to suppress, 34
false confessions
coercion and, 81–82, 141
confession culture and, 161
juveniles and, 159
L2 speakers of English and, 80–81
reducing rates of, 68–69, 143, 152–154
Reid technique and, 80–82, 89
third degree and, 68
Fare v. Michael C., 19–21
Farrell, J., 101
FBI interrogation practices, 38–40, 68–69, 85
invocations for counsel and, 17
Miranda warning and, 17
Statement Validity Analysis (SVA) and, 88
federal court system, 3–5
Fifth Amendment. See also right to silence
clarification of invocations and, 151
Davis v. United States and, 43
defined, 14–15
equal protection rule of, 18–19
Fare v. Michael C., 19, 20–21
Miranda per se rule and, 160–161
Sessoms v. Runnels, 59
United States v. Al-Saimari, 67
United States v. Fouche (Fouche II), 30
United States v. Garibay, 63
violation of constitutional rights and, 11–12
Wood v. Ercole, 50
Flores v. Muniz, 76–
Frazier v. Cupp, 76
Fry v. Pliler, 135
game theory. See also invocation game
discursive games and, 102
failure of game form recognition in, 106–107
game model, 103–106
institutional power in, 107
invocation game as surface game, 105–106
invocations for counsel and, 92–93
misperception, 103
gaming model
waivers of counsel and, 105–106
Garrett, B. L., 81
Gee, H., 58
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, 141
Gibbon, R., 101
Grice, H. P., 93–97, 98
Gudjonsson, G., 81
Guidelines for Communicating Rights to Non-native Speakers, 147–148
habeas corpus, writ of, 6, 22, 33, 34–35, 54, 125
Owen v. Alabama, 33, 34
harmless error, 33, 34, 37, 50, 135–136
Harris v. New York, 2
Heydon, G., 7
HIG Report, 8, 69, 85–89, 91, 141–142
High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, 8, 69, 141–142
high-value detainees, 86
Holtgraves, T. M., 93–94
hypergame theory. See also asymmetrical status of interrogator and suspect
dynamics of, 107–108
exemplars, 109–111
explained, 9–10
invocation clarification and, 111–112, 113–115
invocation games and, 107–115
invocations for counsel and, 9–10, 92–93
notation of, 109
Illinois v. Perkins, 2
imprisonment, 6
Inbau, F. E., 7–8, 71, 80, 92
indirect invocations, 48. See also invocation game, invocations for counsel
as speech act/conversational implicature, 93–97
by police officers as suspects, 124
comprehension of, 94–95
deemed equivocal, 9
defined, 46–47
hypergame dynamics and, 107–115
linguistic formulations of, 50, 121–123
politeness strategies and, 97–99, 100, 104–105
post-Davis rulings on, 49–50
racialized groups and, 151
United States v. Ogbuehi, 48
initiation of talk with interrogators, 26–27, 28, 35, 44, 45–46
intellectual limitations, 24–25, 28, 81, 82, 136–137
voluntariness of waiver and, 24–25
interrogation reform. See also state versus individual interests balance
barriers to, 157–158
coercion and, 141–142, 158, 159
confession culture and, 83, 137, 140–141, 152–154, 157, 161
custodial, 10–11, 142, 157
general, 10, 136
in Europe and UK, 10
in United States, 10–11, 12–13. See reforms
investigator training and, 144, 158
juveniles and, 159–160
L2 speakers of English and, 136–137, 158–159
legislative change and, 160
rapport-based interviewing and, 68–69
interrogation tactics. See also coercion, physical coercion, Reid technique
empathy, use of, 77–79, 80–81, 83, 91
investigator training and, 144
manipulation, 91–93
police deception, 36, 45–46, 76, 81–82, 91
pressure, 55–57, 59, 76, –80–81
interrogator behavior, 55–58, 62
interrogators, types of (table), 120–121
investigative interview. See also behavior analysis techniques, custodial interrogation, interrogation tactics, Reid technique
centrality of, 7
information-gathering approaches to, 89–91
PEACE model of, 83–84, 137–139
invocation game
asymmetrical status of interrogator and suspect, 9–10, 72–76, 79
custodial interrogation as, 92–93, 160
Davis v. United States and, 12
discursive analysis of, 104–107
hypergame theory and, 107–115
Miranda language, clarification of and, 149–152
preponderance of evidence argument and, 135–136
pre-requests for counsel and, 99–100, 123–124
as surface game, 135–136
suspects’ preference shifts and, 106–107, 113–116
invocations for counsel. See also asymmetrical status of interrogator and suspect, clarification standard, indirect invocations, “talismanic” requests for counsel
clarification of, need for, 95–96
conditional, 32–33, 121
context of, 36–37
Fare v. Michael C., 19
formulated as inquiries, 48
game theory analysis of, 103–106
hedged, 36, 46–47, 104–105, 121, 123, 132
in ordinary people’s language, 35, 37, 39, 46–47, 48
judicial debate about, 15–16, 35, 51–52
judicial rulings on type of (table), 121
L2 speakers of English and, 36–37, 63–67, 121, 133–134
Lord v. Duckworth, 52–54
post-Davis standard, 49, 51–52
post-Davis rulings, 8–9, 149–152
Poyner v. Murray and, 41
pre-Davis and post-Davis rulings (table), 121
pre-waiver, 2, 58–60, 123
Sessoms v. Runnels, 58–60
Soffar v. Cockrell, 55–57
as stage of police interrogation, 2–3
standing of, 45
status of in custodial setting, 45
types of (table), 121
United States v. Smith, 57–58
waiver distinguished from, 29
what constitutes, 28–29, 34, 35, 39, 40–41, 46–50, 52–54
isolation of suspects, 1, 74, 123, 149
Johnson v. Booker, 72–74
judicial debate
invocations for counsel, what constitutes, 15–16, 35, 51–52. See also invocations for counsel
Miranda rights, 35, 45–46
right to counsel provision, 18–19, 151
judicial opinions, types of, 126
judicial rulings
statistical analysis of, 116–129
variables in, overview, 9–10
judiciary views on
language use, 9, 99
on mendacity, 45–46
“Miranda divide, ” 63–67, 145–147
justice reforms. See reforms
juveniles in custodial settings, 141, 144–145, 159–160
Kahneman, D., 103
Klopf, G., 88
Kozinski, W., 81
Kyger v. Carlton, 135
L2 speakers of English. See also non native speakers of English
Guidelines for Communicating Rights to Non native Speakers, 147–148
international police reforms and, 136–137
invocations for counsel and, 36–37, 63–67, 133–134
legal interpreting in custodial settings, 148
linguistic manipulation of suspect, 91–92
Miranda comprehension by, 145–147
police reforms and, 136–137
Reid technique and, 80–81
speaker proficiency and understanding, 11, 63–67
language use
bias and profiling, 91–92
linguistic clarification of Miranda warning, 151–152
judiciary view of, 9, 99
Language Style Matching (LSM), 85–86
ordinary people’s language, 35, 37, 39, 46–47, 48
synchronized language, 85–86
legal assistance in custody, 154–157, 159–160
Leo, R. A., 71, 74, 142, 152, 162
Levinson, S. C., 97–98
linguistic proficiency, 11, 63–67
Lopez v. Janda, 77–79
Lord v. Duckworth, 52–54
lying. See deception
Maryland v. Shatzer, 28
Mason, M., 9
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 39
memory and recall, 83–84, 86–87
Mendez Principles, 143–144
Michigan v. Mosley, 23
Michigan v. Tucker, 33
minimization of crimes, 72, 79, 80–81, 89, 115, 144–145
Miranda per se rule
Davis ruling comparison, 160–161
effect of case law on, 149–152
ineffectiveness of, 149–152
judicial departure from, 29–30
judicial rulings on, 20–24, 30–31
Nash v. Estelle, 24
United States v. Priest, 24
Miranda rights
broad versus narrow interpretations of, 31–32, 35, 38–46
Cannady v. Dugger, 36
circumventing, 57–58
coercion and, 23–25
comprehension of by L2 speakers, 63–67, 144–145
Connecticut v. Barrett, 31–32
constitutionality of, 12–13, 32
Davis v. United States, 41–46
defined, 1–2
dialogic approach to, 147–148
Edwards v. Arizona, 26–27
Fare v. Michael C., 19
invocation game theory and, 115
judicial debate about, 35, 45–46
Nash v. Estelle, 21–25
as obstacle to investigation, 8
overview, 8–9
Owen v. Alabama, 58–60
Poyner v. Murray, 40–41
protection of, 7, 148–149, 158–159
Reid technique and, 72–74
Smith v. Endell (Smith II), 32–33
Smith v. Illinois (Smith I), 29
United States v. Al-Saimari, 65–67
United States v. De La Jara, 36–37
United States v. Fouche (Fouche II), 30–31
United States v. Lux, 35–36
United States v. March, 38–40
United States v. Prestigiacomo, 27–29
United States v. Santistevan, 62–63
violation of, 36
Miranda v. Arizona
cited in Cannady v. Dugger, 36
cited in Sessoms v. Runnels, 59
cited in United States v. De La Jara, 37
dissenting opinions in, 12, 18–19, 136
Miranda rights and, 16–17
Miranda warning and, 1–2
narrowed scope of, 19
Reid technique and, 69–70
Miranda violations, 3, 6–7, 12, 125
Miranda warning
background, 1–2
definition of, 25–26
exceptions to, 2
FBI practices and, 17
purpose of, 18
Missouri v. Seibert, 70
Moran v. Burbine, 45
Mosteller, R. P., 8
motions to suppress
case rulings (table), 125
Davis v. United States, 42
explained, 6–7
failure to suppress, 6–7, 34, 48
Miranda v. Arizona, 16
Owen v. Alabama, 33–34
Smith v. Endell (Smith II), 32
United States v. Alamilla-Hernandez, 63, 65
United States v. Al-Saimari, 65, 66, 67
United States v. Brown, 60–61
United States v. Cheely, 48
United States v. De La Jara, 36–37
United States v. March, 40
United States v. Posada–Rios, 49–50
United States v. Santistevan, 62
United States v. Smith, 57
Vega v. Tekoh, 12
Wood v. Ercole, 50
mutuality of understanding, 99–100. See also non-mutuality of understanding
Nash v. Estelle, 19, 21–25
New York v. Quarles, 2
Newell v. Ryan, 14
non-mutuality of understanding, 100–101
non native speakers of English. See also L2 speakers of English
non native speaking custodial suspects
Guidelines for Communicating Rights to Non-native Speakers, 147–148
invocations for counsel and, 28, 34
Miranda rights, dialogic approach to, 147–148
speaker proficiency and understanding, 11, 63–67
Oregon v. Elstad, 19
overreaching
by police interrogators, 30
in court rulings, 35
Owen v. Alabama, 33–34
PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984), 10, 137
Parikh, P., 101–102
Pavlenko, A., 11, 146–148
PEACE investigative model, 83–84, 89, 90, 137–139, 141–142
PEACE Plus, 91
Pearse, J., 81
People v. Portelli, 68
per curiam opinions, 126
per se standard. See Miranda per se rule
physical coercion, 68
Pinker, S., 102
Plott, C. R., 103
Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), 10, 137
police interrogation. See interrogation tactics, interrogator behavior
politeness strategies, 97–99, 100, 104–105
post-Davis rulings
invocations for counsel, 8–9, 149–152
Lord v. Duckworth, 52–54
overview, 46–47
Sessoms v. Runnels, 58–60
United States v. Alamilla-Hernandez, 65
United States v. Brown, 60–61
United States v. Cheely, 47–48
United States v. Hunter, 51–52
United States v. Ogbuehi, 48
United States v. Posada–Rios, 48–50
United States v. Salazar-Orellana, 49–50
United States v. Santistevan, 61–63
Wood v. Ercole, 50
Poyner v. Murray, 40–41
Prates, R. C., 107
preference shifts, 27, 107, 113–115. See also hypergame theory
pre-requests for counsel, 99–100, 123–124. See also pre-waiver invocations
presidential appointments to court, 126, 127–128, 134–135
pressure tactics. See interrogation tactics
pre-waiver invocations, 2, 58–60, 123. See also pre-requests for counsel
Principles (interview reform initiative), 143–144
proficiency and understanding of English, 143
Rabin, M., 101
racialized groups, treatment of, 141
rapport-based interviewing techniques, 160
rational choice theory, 103
recall and memory, 83–84, 86–87
reforms. See also interrogation reform
justice, 10–11, 12–13, 140–141, 161–162
legal, 11, 148–149, 157, 160, 161–162
of investigative interview, 142, 157, 161
Reid technique. See also false confessions
background, 70
coercion, use of, 81–82
confrontation, use of, 74–76
deception detection and, 71
deceptive practices and, 17–18
empathy, use of, 77–79
investigative interview and, 70–72, 74
manual for, 69–79
Miranda rights and, 72–74
objectives of, 7–8
phases of, 70–72
pressure tactics, use of, 76–
prevalence of, 68–69
principles of, 80
United States v. Jacques, 82
Renteria v. Foulk, 74
Rhode Island v. Innis, 2, 19, 25–26, 58
right to counsel. See also “talismanic” request for counsel, waiver of counsel
evolution of, 14
invocation of rights and, 8–9
judicial debate about, 18–19
Soffar v. Cockrell, 55–57
United States v. Al-Saimari, 65–67
United States v. Santistevan, 61–63
violations of, 65–67
right to silence, 8–9, 14–15, 54–55
Robinson v. Borg, 34–35
Robinson, L. O., 157–158
Rodriguez v. McDonald, 81–82, 103–106
SAFE-T (Statement Analysis Field Examination Technique), 88
Salduz Act (2011), 145
Salduz v. Turkey, 145, 154
Schlangen, D., 95–96
SDM (Strategic Discourse Model), 101–102
Sessoms v. Runnels, 58–60
silence. See right to silence
Simon, D., 82
Sixth Amendment rights
Skelton, M. S., 2
Smith v. Endell (Smith II), 32–33, 39
Smith v. Illinois (Smith I), 30, 34, 39, 51
Snook, B., 7
Sobel, J., 101
Soffar v. Cockrell, 55–57, 59
Stansbury v. California, 70
State v. Blackburn, 44
State v. Carrillo, 82
State v. Harris, 82
State v. Melton, 82
State v. Rettenberger, 82
state versus individual interests balance, 8, 17–18, 40, 82, 157
Statement Analysis Field Examination Technique (SAFE-T), 88
Statement Validity Analysis (SVA), 88
statistical analysis
difference in proportion test of corpus, 129–135
of judicial rulings, 116–129
Stevens, J. S., 102–103
Strategic Discourse Model (SDM), 101–102
Sundby, S. E., 15
suppression. See motions to suppress
Supreme Court of the United States, 5. See also federal courts
suspect(s)
defined, 1
isolation of, 14–15
SVA (Statement Validity Analysis), 88
tactics. See interrogation tactics
“talismanic” requests for counsel. See also invocations for counsel
Nash v. Estelle, 23
post-Davis rulings on, 46–47
“talismanic effect” argument and, 30, 36
United States v. Cheely, 47
United States v. Fouche (Fouche II), 30
United States v. Hunter, 51
United States v. Jardina, 40
Taylor v. Jackson, 98–99
“third degree,” 68
Tooke, A., 88
Tversky, A., 103
unequivocal invocations for counsel. See also bright-line Edwards’ rule, direct invocations, right to counsel
Davis v. United States, 2, 8–9
Fare v. Michael C., 19–21
standard for, 50–52, 53, 57
United States v. Alamilla-Hernandez, 65
United States v. Brown, 60–61
United States v. Prestigiacomo, 27–29
United States v. Santistevan, 61–63
Uniform Code of Military Justice, 5
United States court of appeals. See also federal courts
rarity of reversed rulings, 7
system structure, 4
United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 68–69, 120–121
United States v. Alamilla-Hernandez, 63–67
United States v. Al-Saimari, 65–67
United States v. Boyce, 82
United States v. Brown, 60–61
United States v. Cheely, 47–48
United States v. Crawford, 82
United States v. De La Jara, 36–37, 48
United States v. Feyler, 54–55
United States v. Fouche (Fouche II)
admissibility of statements, 30, 31
equivocal invocations for counsel, 30–31, 33
Miranda rights, 30–31
United States v. Fry, 44
United States v. Garibay, 63
United States v. Gray, 95
United States v. Hunter, 51–52
United States v. Jacques, 82
United States v. Jardina, 40
United States v. Lux, 35–36
United States v. March, 38–40
United States v. Monroe, 79
United States v. Ogbuehi, 48
United States v. Prestigiacomo, 27–29
United States v. Priest, 22–23, 24
United States v. Rodriguez, 44
United States v. Rutledge, 123
United States v. Salazar-Orellana, 49–50
United States v. Santistevan, 61–63
United States v. Smith, 57–58
United States v. Thompson, 8–9
United States v. Williams, 99–100
unequivocalness standard, 62–63
Urbanik, P., 147–148
van Rooij, R., 101
Vega v. Tekoh (2022), 12–13
voluntariness of waiver
coercion and, 15
Davis v. United States, 53
Edwards v. Arizona, 27
intellectual limitations and, 24–25
judicial debate about, 15–16
standard for, 27, 28
Miranda rights and, 16
Moran v. Burbine, 45
Nash v. Estelle, 21–24
non native speakers of English and, 65
post-Miranda rulings on, 19
prior criminal record and, 21. See also criminal justice system
Robinson v. Borg, 34–35
United States v. Al-Saimari, 66–67
United States v. Feyler, 54–55
United States v. Garibay, 63
United States v. Lux, 35–36
United States v. Posada–Rios, 48–50
United States v. Prestigiacomo, 28
Vrij, A., 71, 88–89
vulnerable populations
in custodial interrogation setting, 123–124
interrogation reform and, 10, 144–148
Principles (interview reform initiative) and, 143
Reid technique and, 80–81
waivers of counsel. See also voluntariness of waiver
asymmetry in interrogations and, 98–99
contrasted with invocations of counsel, 29
hypergames and, 113–115
legal standard for, 27
police officers as suspects and, 124
Rodriguez v. Mcdonald, 106
statistics on, 149
Taylor v. Jackson, 98–99
unbalanced game model and, 105–106
United States v. Williams, 100
written versus oral, 60–63
Walton, D., 70
Weisselberg, C.D., 8
Wood Royal Commission, 139
Wood v. Ercole, 50
Woosley v. McEwen, 1–2
Yuncker, T. J., 149–152

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Index
  • Marianne Mason, James Madison University, Virginia
  • Book: Police Interrogation, Language, and the Law
  • Online publication: 23 December 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052047.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Index
  • Marianne Mason, James Madison University, Virginia
  • Book: Police Interrogation, Language, and the Law
  • Online publication: 23 December 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052047.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Index
  • Marianne Mason, James Madison University, Virginia
  • Book: Police Interrogation, Language, and the Law
  • Online publication: 23 December 2023
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052047.010
Available formats
×