For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 3 - 23

justifications for the suspect. These techniques can also
be used to implore a youth to waive their Miranda
rights.31 Police officers will minimize the importance
of the Miranda rights by framing them as "just
part of the procedure" or "just paperwork," often
including the rights as a part of causal demographic
questions and booking information.32 In some cases,
the officer will read the Miranda rights and then
commence the interrogation without waiting for a
response.33 The legal standard of Miranda requires
any suspect to explicitly invoke their rights, something
impressionable adolescents with respect for the
police-and limited understanding of what waiving
one's rights mean-are often unable to do.34
Another interrogation technique that can be
especially persuasive to youth is the false evidence
ploy, which involves the police falsely informing
a suspect that they have obtained incriminating
evidence. Given youths' susceptibility to suggestion,
this type of technique can be very misleading,
particularly since the majority of youths believe the
police are not allowed to lie to them.35 Research has
found that when the police use deceptive techniques
like false evidence ploys with young suspects, the risk
of false confession rise significantly.36
Although these techniques are often used with
adults as well, adults are more likely to withstand
the pressure whereas adolescents, who have
underdeveloped cognitive reasoning skills and are
particularly susceptible to persuasion and pressure
from an authority figure, are often unable to assert
their rights. Taken together, youths' tendency to obey
authority and their suggestibility to manipulative
police tactics make them likely to waive their rights,
not by their own free will, but by the coercive pressure
of the interrogation and the police.
Beyond the pressure from police to waive Miranda
rights, youth can be pressured by their peers. Due to
teenagers' particular susceptibility to peer pressure,
they are also more likely than adults to commit
crimes in groups. The consequence of this is that an
adolescent defendant often has co-defendants who
the police can use as an additional source of pressure.37
The police can use peers to further minimize the
youth's involvement, suggesting it was all the fault of
that friend. They can also claim the friend has already
spoken to the police and encourage the youth to tell
their version of the story.
An additional source of pressure on youth in an
interrogation is the presence of a parent or guardian.
Pennsylvania statute requires a parent or guardian
to be notified if their child is arrested but does not
require parental presence during the questioning
of the child or adolescent.38 However, Pennsylvania
courts weigh the presence of an "interested adult" as
a protective factor in the totality of the circumstances

analysis, assuming a parent or guardian can adequately
protect the youth's rights and lessen potential coercive
pressures from the police.39 However, this notion is
problematic for several reasons. First, adults are often
unaware of police techniques and allowed tactics.40 As
such, they, too, may be subject to pressure from police.
In fact, research has shown that the presence of an
interested adult can sometimes put additional pressure
on an adolescent,41 since parents or guardians present
during an interrogation are often stuck in conflicting
roles. Although they want to protect their child, they
may also see the police as an ally in teaching their
child a lesson. Studies have shown that parents often
implore their children to "tell the truth" and take
responsibility, consistent with common child rearing
priorities.42 The desire to make the interrogation into
a teachable moment can clash with the parent's desire
to protect their child, making the parent yet another
source of pressure that can undermine the youth's
autonomy in a waiver decision.43 A majority of parents
report that they would advise their child to waive their
Miranda rights if their child was ever questioned by
the police.44 Essentially, when parents are present in
the interrogation room with their children they most
commonly stay completely silent-but, when they
do speak, it is most often to encourage their child to
confess. Several studies have found that many parents
do not agree that their children should be able to
withhold information from the police.45 Moreover,
many officers are trained in how to use parents to
further their interests, which is getting youth to waive
their rights and make incriminating statements to the
police.46
In sum, even though some older adolescents may
have the cognitive capability to understand the
Miranda warnings, they are subject to immensely
persuasive techniques from police and pressure from
peers. Additionally, the presence of a parent or
guardian, which may seem like a protective factor, can
actually exacerbate the pressure and make it more
likely for a child or adolescent to waive their rights
and potentially incriminate themselves. In the face of
the factors discussed above, a truly voluntary waiver
from youth is difficult to obtain, especially without the
assistance of counsel.

Recommendations for Policy
The research on child and adolescent brain
development and how it influences decision making
and behavior has clearly shown that youths cannot be
held to the same knowing, intelligent, and voluntary
standard as adults, particularly when it comes to
waiving Miranda rights.47 Legislative fixes are needed
to protect children and adolescents in the legal
system. Researchers and scholars in this area have
recommended the following:48
*	 Make any waiver of Miranda rights by youth
14 and younger per se inadmissible if made in

Vol. 5, Issue 3 l For The Defense

23
For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 3

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Vol. 5, Issue 3
