Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors, juries, and judges

Woody, William Douglas; Stewart, Joshua M.; Forrest, Krista D.; Camacho, Lourdes Janet; Woestehoff, Skye A.; Provenza, Karlee; Walker, Alexis T.; Powner, Steven

doi:10.1080/23311908.2018.1528744

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond jurors, a recent study of sitting judges revealed that judges view expert testimony as relevant for jurors; 72.7% of responding judges reported that they would allow an expert to educate the court about the police interrogation techniques and the possibility of false confessions (Woody et al, unpublished). Additionally, Woody et al (unpublished) found that judges recognize the deception inherent in FEPs but that judges do not perceive FEPs as coercive; judges, however, were less likely to recommend conviction after reading expert testimony. Experts who present the risks of FEPs to courts have the potential to affect individual judges as well as to shape legal precedents and the larger legal landscape regarding police interrogation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Education of courts and of jurors is paramount due to the prevalence of the myth of psychological interrogation, the belief that innocent people will not falsely confess in the absence of physical coercion or serious mental illness (Leo, ; Woody & Forrest, ; see also Chojnacki, Cicchini, & White, ) and the demonstrated impacts of expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions and trial decisions (Blandon‐Gitlin et al, ; Gomes et al, ; Leo & Liu, ; Woody & Forrest, ). Beyond jurors, a recent study of sitting judges revealed that judges view expert testimony as relevant for jurors; 72.7% of responding judges reported that they would allow an expert to educate the court about the police interrogation techniques and the possibility of false confessions (Woody et al, unpublished). Additionally, Woody et al (unpublished) found that judges recognize the deception inherent in FEPs but that judges do not perceive FEPs as coercive; judges, however, were less likely to recommend conviction after reading expert testimony.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The prevalence of false confessions in experimental laboratory simulations: A meta‐analysis

Stewart

Woody

Pulos

2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed experimental false confession studies using a meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of false confessions across methodologies and several moderator variables. False confessions were more likely in typing task studies than in collaborative or individual cheating studies. In typing studies, speed of typing did not affect false confession rates, but placement of the forbidden key in locations that rendered errors less plausible lowered the false confession rates. False-evidence ploys increased the likelihood of false confessions. We explore implications for courts, expert witnesses, scholars, and police interrogators.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of false confessions in experimental laboratory simulations: A meta‐analysis

Stewart

Woody

Pulos

2018

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Soon after, two studies (i.e. Bland on-Gitlin, Sperry, & Leo, 2011;Woody & Forrest, 2009) found exactly the opposite: mock jurors who read expert testimony rated the same interrogation as more coercive and less often judged the defendant as guilty (for partial replications with deliberating juries and judges, see Woody et al, 2018). In a series of studies, Henderson and Levett (2016) found that expert testimony both did (Study 3) and did not (Study 2) affect ratings of a confessor's trustworthiness and concomitant verdicts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the ‘common sense’ hypothesis

Grove

Kukucka

2020

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a survey of confession experts, 94% agreed that youth is a risk factor for false confession, but only 37% felt that jurors understand this. To date, no study has tested the latter by comparing laypeople's perceptions of juvenile and adult suspects. To address this gap, Experiment 1 participants read a lengthy (i.e. interrogation and confession) or abridged (i.e. confession-only) transcript of an ostensibly juvenile or adult suspect's interrogation. Transcript length affected perceived pressure but not guilt judgments. Suspect age had little effect, with 75% of participants misjudging the juvenile as guilty. Experiment 2 then tested how expert testimony affects judgments of juvenile suspects. Participants read a lengthy or abridged interrogation transcript, with or without testimony from a juvenile confession expert. Expert testimony somewhat impacted guilt judgments but did not influence perceptions of the interrogation. Implications for interrogation practices, trial procedure and future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…Because individual juror verdicts do not always predict jury verdicts (for a review, see Salerno & Diamond, 2010), examining jury deliberations strengthens ecological validity and adds to the limited research regarding jury decisions in cases involving confessions. Indeed, we know only one study in which both mock jurors and deliberating mock juries perceived an interrogation as more coercive—but were not less likely to convict—when police did, versus did not, use a false-evidence ploy (Woody et al, 2018). The researchers suggested that jurors fell prey to the fundamental attribution error by devaluing the influence of the false-evidence ploy on the defendant’s likelihood of confessing, convicting him regardless of its presence.…”

Section: Study Overview Theoretical Model and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Stevenson¹,

McCracken²,

Watson³

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Because confessions are sometimes unreliable, it is important to understand how jurors evaluate confession evidence. We conducted a content analysis testing an attribution theory model for mock jurors’ discussion of coerced confession evidence in determining verdicts. Hypotheses: We tested exploratory hypotheses regarding mock jurors’ discussion of attributions and elements of the confession. We expected that jurors’ prodefense statements, external attributions (attributing the confession to coercion), and uncontrollable attributions (attributing the confession to defendant naivety) would predict more prodefense than proprosecution case judgments. We also expected that being male, politically conservative, and in support of the death penalty would predict proprosecution statements and internal attributions, which in turn would predict guilty verdicts. Method: Mock jurors (N = 253, Mage = 47 years; 65% women; 88% White, 10% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% listed “other”) read a murder trial synopsis, watched an actual coerced false confession, completed case judgments, and deliberated in juries of up to 12 members. We videotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded deliberations. Results: Most mock jurors (53%) rendered a guilty verdict. Participants made more prodefense than proprosecution statements, more external than internal attributions, and more internal than uncontrollable attributions. Participants infrequently mentioned various elements of the interrogation (police coercion, contamination, promises of leniency, interrogation length) and psychological consequences for the defendant. Proprosecution statements and internal attributions predicted proprosecution case judgments. Women made more prodefense and external attribution statements than men, which in turn predicted diminished guilt. Political conservatives and death penalty proponents made more proprosecution statements and internal attributions than their counterparts, respectively, which in turn predicted greater guilt. Conclusions: Some jurors identified coercive elements of a false confession and rendered external attributions for a defendant’s false confession (attributing the confession to the coercive interrogation) during deliberation. However, many jurors made internal attributions, attributing a defendant’s false confession to his guilt—attributions that predicted juror and jury inclinations to convict an innocent defendant.

show abstract

Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors, juries, and judges

Cited by 6 publications

References 67 publications

The prevalence of false confessions in experimental laboratory simulations: A meta‐analysis

The prevalence of false confessions in experimental laboratory simulations: A meta‐analysis

Do laypeople recognize youth as a risk factor for false confession? A test of the ‘common sense’ hypothesis

An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About