Secondary Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Unreliable Testimony

The Social Psychology of False Confessions

“…Over the years, mock jury studies have shown that confessions have a great impact on jury verdicts—a greater impact, for example, than eyewitness and character testimony (Kassin & Neumann, ). Research has also shown that people do not adequately discount confession evidence even when the confessions are perceived to have been coerced by police (Kassin & Sukel, ); even when jurors are told that the defendant suffers from a mental illness or interrogation‐induced stress (Henkel, ); even when the defendant is a juvenile (Redlich, Ghetti, & Quas, ; Redlich, Quas, & Ghetti, ); even when the confession was given not by the defendant but by a second‐hand informant who was motivated to lie (Neuschatz, Lawson, Swanner, Meissner, & Neuschatz, ; Neuschatz et al., ); and even, at times, when the confession is contradicted by exculpatory DNA (Appleby & Kassin, ).…”

Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?

“…Relatedly, cross-examination was thought to serve as a safeguard in that making a jury aware of the informant’s motivation for testifying or his testifying history would make jurors less likely to rely on his testimony (Bate et al, 2014). However, Neuschatz et al (2012) found that making an informant’s testifying history known did not influence mock jurors’ verdicts, even when he had testified 20 times in the past for an incentive. In addition, two studies (Maeder & Pica, 2014; Neuschatz et al, 2012, Experiment 2) have found that expert testimony did not influence jurors’ verdicts, even when the expert was a former jailhouse informant who explained the methods he used in the past to fabricate secondary confession evidence against multiple persons on trial.…”

“…Unfortunately, research has shown limited success of all previously tested safeguards. Several studies have shown that disclosure of incentives does not influence jurors’ verdicts (Neuschatz et al, 2008, 2012 but see Maeder & Pica, 2014). Relatedly, cross-examination was thought to serve as a safeguard in that making a jury aware of the informant’s motivation for testifying or his testifying history would make jurors less likely to rely on his testimony (Bate et al, 2014).…”

“…Results showed that although the mock jurors believed the incentivized informant to be significantly less interested in justice and more interested in serving his own interests than a nonincentivized informant, the mock jurors were equally likely to render a guilty verdict based on the two conditions and rated the informants as equally truthful. In fact, Neuschatz et al (2012, Experiment 1) found that informant testimony is so persuasive that mock jurors were equally likely to render a guilty verdict based on the testimony of an informant who had testified and received an incentive 20 times in the past as one who had never testified in the past. Mock jurors, again, were also just as likely to vote guilty whether or not the informant received an incentive for his current testimony.…”

“…A number of empirical studies have investigated the persuasiveness of a jailhouse informant, as well as the inadequacy of a number of the proposed safeguards. Several studies have found that jurors are more likely to find a person on trial guilty when they hear a jailhouse informant testify than when they do not (Maeder & Pica, 2014; Maeder & Yamamoto, 2017; Neuschatz et al, 2008, 2012; Wetmore et al, 2014). In Neuschatz et al (2008, Experiment 1), verdict rates revealed the overwhelming power of jailhouse informant testimony: 60% of participants who heard a jailhouse informant testify about a secondary confession in a murder case found a person on trial guilty, whereas only 32% of participants who heard the same trial without the jailhouse informant found him guilty.…”