Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 179–192 | Cite as

Secondary Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Unreliable Testimony

  • Jeffrey S. Neuschatz
  • Miranda L. Wilkinson
  • Charles A. Goodsell
  • Stacy A. Wetmore
  • Deah S. Quinlivan
  • Nicholaos J. Jones
Article

Abstract

Two experiments examined two potential safeguards intended to protect accused persons against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses. Participants in both experiments read a trial transcript where secondary confession evidence was presented from either a jailhouse informant (Experiment 1 and 2) or an accomplice witness (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, testimony history was manipulated so that participants were informed that the jailhouse informant had testified as an informant in 0, 5, or 20 previous cases. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who were exposed to secondary confession evidence were significantly more likely to vote guilty than were participants in the no secondary confession control group. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of guilty verdicts did not vary with incentive, testimony history, or expert testimony. Explanations for these results are discussed, as are the practical challenges of using testimony from cooperating witnesses.

Keywords

Jailhouse informants Accomplice witness Expert testimony Confessions 

References

  1. Anderson CA, Lindsay JJ, Bushman BJ (1999) Research in the psychological laboratory: truth or triviality? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell BE, Loftus EL (1988) Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony of mock jurors judgments. J Appl Soc Psychol 18:1171–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bloom RM (2002) Ratting: the use and abuse of informants in the American justice system. Praeger Publishers, WestportGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) 391 U.S. 123Google Scholar
  5. California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2006) Report and recommendations regarding informant testimony Google Scholar
  6. Cooper J, Neuhaus IM (2000) The “hired gun” effect: assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law Hum Behav 24:149–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. Devenport, J. L., & Cutler, B. L. (2004). Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569–576Google Scholar
  9. Devenport, J. L., Stinson, V., Cutler, B. L., & Kravitz, D. A. (2002). How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042–1054Google Scholar
  10. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgement. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215–228Google Scholar
  11. Gersham BL (2002) Symposium: effective screening for truth telling: Is it Possible? Witness coaching by prosecutors. Cardozo L Rev 23:829–863Google Scholar
  12. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) 405 U.S. 150Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 117:21–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert DT, Pelham BW, Krull DS (1988) On cognitive busyness: when person perceivers meet person perceived. J Pers Soc Psychol 54:733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Justice Project (2007) Jailhouse snitch testimony: a policy review. The Justice Project, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 187–296Google Scholar
  17. Kassin SM, McNall K (1991) Police interrogations & confessions: communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law Hum Behav 15(3):233–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kassin SM, Neumann K (1997) On the power of confession evidence: an experimental test of the “fundamental difference” hypothesis. Law Hum Behav 21:469–484PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kassin SM, Sukel H (1997) Coerced confessions and the jury: an experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law Hum Behav 21:27–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kassin SM, Wrightsman LS (1981) Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and juror verdicts. J Appl Soc Psychol 11:489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaufman F (1998) Report of the commission of proceedings involving Guy Paul Morin. Ontario Royal CommissionGoogle Scholar
  22. Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909–959Google Scholar
  23. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D. E., Rauch, S. M., & Seib, H. (2004) Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524–541Google Scholar
  24. Los Angeles County Grand Jury (1990) Investigation of the involvement of jailhouse informants n the criminal justices system in Los Angeles CountyGoogle Scholar
  25. Loftus, E. F. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9–15Google Scholar
  26. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., & West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207–229Google Scholar
  27. Marshall LC, Warden R, Geraghty TF, Van Zandt DE (2005) The snitch system: how snitch testimony sent Randy Steidl and other innocent Americans to death row. Center on Wrongful Convictions, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Myers DG, Lamm H (1975) The polarizing effect of group discussion. Am Sci 63(3):297–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Neuschatz JS, Lawson DS, Swanner JK, Meissner CA, Neuschatz JS (2008) The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law Hum Behav 32:137–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ogloff JRP, Rose GV (2005) The comprehension of judicial instructions. In: Brewer N, Kipling KD (eds) Psychology and law: an empirical perspective. Guilford, New York, pp 407–444Google Scholar
  31. Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J. & Loftus, E. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, pp. 385–395Google Scholar
  32. Rappold S (2005, Nov. 20). Jailhouse informers: a risky bet. The Gazette Google Scholar
  33. Rohrlich T (1988, Nov. 20) Jailhouse informant had allies on side of the law. Los Angeles Times, pp. 1, 28, 30.Google Scholar
  34. Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:174–221Google Scholar
  35. Sherrin C (1998) Jailhouse Informants. 40 Crim. L.Q. 157Google Scholar
  36. Skurka S (2002) Symposium: perspectives on the role of cooperators and informants: a Canadian perspective on the role of cooperators and informants. Cardozo L Rev 23:829–863Google Scholar
  37. Tenny ER, MacCoun RJ, Spellman BA, Hastie R (2007) Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Psychol Sci 18:46–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trope Y (1986) Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Psychol Rev 93:239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Neuschatz
    • 1
  • Miranda L. Wilkinson
    • 1
  • Charles A. Goodsell
    • 2
  • Stacy A. Wetmore
    • 3
  • Deah S. Quinlivan
    • 4
  • Nicholaos J. Jones
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHuntsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyCanisius CollegeBuffaloUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA
  4. 4.Department of PsychologyFlorida Southern CollegeLakelandUSA
  5. 5.Department of PhilosophyThe University of Alabama in HuntsvilleHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations