Recent Supreme Court of Canada rulings on criminal defendants' right to counsel

References

• Boxer, D. (2008). Miranda with precision: Why the current circuit split should be solved in favor of a uniform requirement of an explicit Miranda warning of the right to have counsel present during interrogation. Southwestern University Law Review, 37, 425.
   Google Scholar
• California v. Beheler. (1983). 463 U.S. 1121.
   Google Scholar
• Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1982). Part I of the Constitution Act.
   Google Scholar
• Cape, E., Namoradze, Z., Smith, R., & Spronken, T. (2010). Effective criminal defence in Europe: Executive summary and recommendations. Antwerp, Belgium: Intersentia.
   Google Scholar
• Dearborn, D. C. (2011). “You have the right to an attorney,” but not right now: Combating Miranda's failure by advancing the point of attachment under article XII of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Suffolk University Law Review, 44, 359.
   Google Scholar
• Eastwood, J., & Snook, B. (2010). Comprehending Canadian police cautions: Are the rights to silence and legal counsel understandable?. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 366–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards v. Arizona. (1981). 451 U.S. 477.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2011). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. [2011/0154(COD)]. Brussels: Author.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2012). Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs. Draft Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest. [COM(2011)0326 – C7-0157/2011 – 2011/0154(COD)].
   Google Scholar
• Escobedo v. Illinois. (1964). 378 U.S. 478.
   Google Scholar
• Gudjonsson, G. H., & MacKeith, J. A. C. (1988). Retracted confessions: Legal, psychological and psychiatric aspects. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 28, 187–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. E., & Jayne, B. C. (2005). Essentials of the Reid Technique: Criminal interrogation and confessions. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?. American Psychologist, 60, 215–228. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303. doi:10.2307/1144028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lööf, R. (2006). Shooting from the hip: Proposed minimum rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU. European Law Journal, 12, 421–430. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2006.00324.x
   Google Scholar
• Miranda v. Arizona. (1966), 384 U.S. 436.
   Google Scholar
• Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19, 453–471. doi:10.1002/bsl.453
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oregon v. Bradshaw. (1983). 462 U.S. 1039.
   Google Scholar
• Oregon v. Elstad. (1985). 470 U.S. 298.
   Google Scholar
• Patry, M. W., Stinson, V., & Smith, S. M. (2008). The reality of the CSI effect. In J. Greenberg & C. Elliott (Eds.), Communication in question: Competing perspectives on controversial issues in communication studies (pp. 291–298). Scarborough: Thompson-Nelson.
   Google Scholar
• Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327–337. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Police and Criminal Evidence Act. (1984). Retrieved October 24, 2013 from https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-current-versions
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Dix. (2000). Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta 663.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. McCrimmon. (2010). Supreme Court of Canada 36.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Mentuck. (2000). Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba 155.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Oickle. (2000). Supreme Court of Canada 38.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Rothman. (1981). Supreme Court Reports 640.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Singh. (2007). Supreme Court of Canada 48.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Sinclair. (2010). Supreme Court of Canada 35.
   Google Scholar
• R. v. Willier. (2010). Supreme Court of Canada 37.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R. (2011). Getting it wrong about Miranda rights: False beliefs, impaired reasoning, and professional neglect. American Psychologist, 66, 728–736. doi:10.1037/a0024988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., Hazelwood, L. L., Sewell, K. W., Harrison, K. S., & Shuman, D. W. (2008). The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: A replication and vocabulary analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 32(2), 124–136. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9091-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). ‘Everyone knows their Miranda rights’: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 300–318. doi:10.1037/a0019316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobogin, C. (2004). An empirically based comparison of American and European regulatory approaches to police investigation. In P. J. van Koppen & S. D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 27–54). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M., Patry, M. W., & Stinson, V. (2007). But what is the CSI effect? How crime dramas influence people's beliefs about forensic evidence. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 5, 187–195.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. W. (2009). The Mr. Big technique: Successful innovation or dangerous development in the Canadian legal system? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 168–193. doi:10.1037/a0016962
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. W. (2012). Confession evidence in Canada: Psychological issues and legal landscapes. Psychology, Crime and Law, 18, 317–333. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2010.486380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, S. M., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. W. (2010). High risk interrogation: Using the “Mr. Big” technique to elicit confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 39–40. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9203-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stansbury v. California. (1994). 511 U.S. 318.
   Google Scholar
• Stinson, V., Patry, M. W., & Smith, S. M. (2007). The CSI effect: Reflections from police and forensic investigators. Canadian Journal of Police and Security Services, 5, 125–133.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, L. A. (1983). Fifth amendment: Fifth amendment exclusionary rule: The assertion and subsequent waiver of the right to counsel. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 1315–1333. doi:10.2307/1143055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar