The Submission Agreement in Contract Arbitration

Garrett, Sylvester; Handsaker, Morrison; Handsaker, Marjorie

doi:10.2307/1226101

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a lack of reporting may mask important implications that can be drawn from empirical findings directly attesting to real-world issues. For example, content analyses have revealed that known false confessions often include accurate, nonpublic crime details (Appleby et al, 2013;Garrett, 2010Garrett, , 2015. Such details in a false confession presumably stem from police contaminating the confession via suggestive or leading questions.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of confession evidence on jurors’ verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mindthoff,

Ferreira,

Meissner

2024

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Over the past 4 decades, discrepant research findings have emerged in the juror-confession literature, prompting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the effect of confession evidence (coerced or noncoerced) on conviction rates and the efficacy of trial safeguards. Hypotheses: We did not predict any directional hypotheses. Some studies show increased convictions when a confession is present (vs. not), regardless of whether that confession was coerced; other studies demonstrate that jurors are able to discount coerced confessions. Studies have also demonstrated sensitivity effects (safeguards aided jurors in making appropriate decisions), skepticism effects (safeguards led jurors to indiscriminately disregard confession evidence), or null effects with regard to expert testimony and jury instructions. Method: We identified 83 independent samples (N = 24,860) that met our meta-analytic inclusion criteria. Using extracted Hedges' g effect sizes, we conducted both network meta-analysis and metaregression to address key research questions. Results: Coerced and noncoerced confessions (vs. no confession) increased convictions (network gs = 0.34 and 0.70, respectively), yet coerced (vs. noncoerced) confessions reduced convictions (network g = −0.36). When jury instructions were employed (vs. not), convictions in coerced confession cases were reduced (this difference did not emerge for noncoerced confessions; a sensitivity effect). Expert testimony, however, reduced conviction likelihood regardless of whether a confession was coerced (a skepticism effect). Conclusion: Confession evidence is persuasive, and although jurors appear to recognize the detrimental effect of coercive interrogation methods on confession reliability, they do not fully discount unreliable confessions. Educational safeguards are therefore needed, but more research is encouraged to identify the most effective forms of jury instructions and expert testimony. One potential reform could be in the interrogation room itself, as science-based interviewing approaches could provide jurors with more reliable defendant statement evidence that assists them in reaching appropriate verdict decisions. Public Significance StatementConfession evidence typically increases the likelihood that jurors will render a guilty verdict, despite jurors being able to appropriately distinguish between confessions that were elicited via coercive interrogation methods (i.e., methods that increase the risk of false confession) and those that were noncoercive. Possible avenues for educating jurors include expert testimony and jury instructions; more research is, however, needed to identify the most effective forms of these safeguards. One solution to ensure that jurors make the best decisions possible is to present jurors with reliable defendant statements that can be obtained via science-based approaches to interviewing.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of confession evidence on jurors’ verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mindthoff,

Ferreira,

Meissner

2024

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet the studies invoked have been strongly criticized by experts in the field of confessions . Case in point, the quality control used in the systematic review by Edwards et al cited by Leventhal et al simply states, “The level of detail in a confession may be a reflection of the quality of the confession.” Yet the confessions in the reviewed studies did not provide details, and further, it is known that false confessions can provide a lot of detail, especially when those details are fed to the accused. An important (unanswered) question is who first suggested the shaking mechanism, the interviewer or the accused?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%