False‐Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False‐Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

Forrest, Krista D.; Woody, William Douglas; Brady, Ellie; Batterman, C B S Keller; Stastny, Jarett; Bruns, Angela

doi:10.1002/bsl.1999

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings reinforce some observers’ concerns about the effects of FEPs, particularly because jurors and juries accept confessions and often convict defendants even when confessions result from FEPs (Woody & Forrest, ; Woody, Forrest, & Yendra, ). Further research, however, should seek to examine how types of FEPs, such as demeanor, testimonial, or scientific FEPs (see Forrest et al, ; Leo, ; Woody & Forrest, ) may differentially affect false confession rates. These meta‐analytic findings provide additional justification for courts to revisit the coerciveness of police deception during interrogation, particularly deception about evidence, (see Bandler, , ; McKinley, ; People v. Thomas , ) as well as for the calls by some scholars for the United States to follow Great Britain in the elimination of police deception during interrogation (e.g., Kassin et al, ; Kassin & Gudjonsson, ; Woody et al, ).…”

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

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: 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

“…The accusatorial interrogation is comprised of nine steps that were designed to elicit a confession from a detainee. The Reid technique, for example, starts with the conclusion that the detainee is guilty (by using the much-maligned BAI) and then proceeds to confirm this assumption through, for instance, the development of themes (which are essentially implicit promises of leniency, see kassin & McNall, 1991), prevention of denials, using objections to reinforce themes, the use of deception (e.g., pretending to be the detainee's advocate), the use of an alternative question technique (i.e., where both options result in an admission of guilt), and the use of (implicit) false evidence ploys (see Forrest et al, 2012).…”

Section: Accusatorial Interrogationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Lesson on Interrogations From Detainees

Snook¹,

Brooks

Bull

2015

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to predict confessions and cooperation from the elements of an interrogation was examined. Incarcerated men (N = 100) completed a 50-item questionnaire about their most recent police interrogation, and regression analyses were performed on self-reported decisions to confess and cooperate. Results showed that the likelihood of an interrogation resulting in a confession was greatest when evidence strength and score on a humanitarian interviewing scale were high, and when the detainee had few previous convictions or did not seek legal advice. We also found that the level of cooperation was greatest when the humanitarian interviewing score was high, and when previous convictions were low. The implications of the findings for interrogation practices are discussed.

show abstract

“…We used a three‐group design to directly compare judicial instruction and expert testimony, but future research could extend the present study's findings using different materials. For instance, different types of expert testimony, crimes, ploys (e.g., Forrest et al ., ), and forms of jury instructions may yield different results. Jurors' opinions of disputed confession evidence may differ depending on whether the expert offers general testimony pertaining to risk factors for false confession or the expert describes risk factors for false confession that are specific to the defendant in a given case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the judicial decision to substitute credibility instructions for expert testimony on confessions

Gomes

Stenstrom

Calvillo

2014

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The present study tested the judicial decision to deny false confession expert testimony on the basis that jury instructions are sufficient to aid jurors in their determinations of disputed confession evidence. Methods Three groups of mock jurors (N = 150) were presented with a trial summary that included a videotaped re‐enactment of an interrogation in which the interrogator used a maximization ploy. One group received expert testimony in the trial summary, another group received credibility instructions, and a control group received neither. All participants received standard reasonable doubt instructions at the end of the trial summary and then answered questions such as their verdict in the case, the defendant's likelihood of guilt, and the voluntariness of the defendant's confession. Results The results showed a high rate of conviction that was only reduced when participants received expert testimony. Across all measures, no significant differences were found between the control and credibility instruction groups. Conclusions The results suggest that credibility instructions are not comparable to expert testimony in influencing jurors' judgments of disputed confession evidence. These findings do not support the judicial decision to deny expert testimony on the basis that credibility instructions alone are sufficient to aid potential jurors in their evaluations of confession evidence. Avenues for future research on expert testimony and jury instructions in confession cases are discussed.

show abstract

False‐Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False‐Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

Cited by 14 publications

References 48 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

A Lesson on Interrogations From Detainees

Examining the judicial decision to substitute credibility instructions for expert testimony on confessions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About