Courts have argued that (1) psychiatric evaluations result in real rather than testimonial evidence, (2) a defendant in a criminal proceeding who places his mental condition at issue by claiming incompetency to stand trial, diminished capacity, or insanity, automatically waives the Miranda privilege, (3) the best evidence of a defendant's mental state will be made available only if prosecution experts have an opportunity to examine the defendant, and (4) psychiatric evaluation results are not incriminating within the meaning of the fifth amendment, but help the courts determine the fitness of defendants to stand trial or decide how to dispose of cases of defendants found guilty of committing criminal acts as charged. Mental health departments in all 50 States were surveyed about whether the right to remain silent was extended during psychiatric examination or to defendants whose competency to stand trial or responsibility for criminal acts was in question. Findings showed that (1) implementation of the right to remain silent did not prevent involuntarily committed patients from cooperating with hospital staff during psychiatric evaluations, (2) committed patients understand and recall little of what they are told on admission, and (3) a single Miranda warning given at the time of admission should not be expected to have a major effect. 59 footnotes.