The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony

Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.; DeLoach, Danielle K.; Hillgartner, Megan A.; Fessinger, Melanie B.; Wetmore, Stacy A.; Douglass, Amy Bradfield; Bornstein, Brian H.; Grand, Alexis M. Le

doi:10.1080/13218719.2020.1805810

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such a finding across legal decision-making contexts argues strongly that jailhouse informant testimony is perceived as credible and serves to lower defendant credibility. This perception continues to be found in the lab (Le Neuschatz, 2008) and in the real world (Neuschatz et al, 2020), despite several studies showing that jailhouse informants are unreliable in a real-world context (Garrett, 2011;Natapoff, 2009). The latter includes overturned cases in which a jailhouse informant was found to have fabricated their testimony.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…It is possible that the impact of the jailhouse informant would be different in the context of additional evidence. However, as noted by archival analysis of DNA exonerations involving jailhouse informants, these witnesses usually testify when there is a lack of other evidence (see Neuschatz et al, 2020).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This witness claims to have obtained evidence (through a direct conversation or overhearing a conversation), while in custody, about a crime committed by a fellow inmate who is currently on trial (see Natapoff, 2009; Neuschatz & Golding, in press). The jailhouse informant’s testimony is typically offered in exchange for an incentive (e.g., reduced sentence or dropped charges; Roth, 2016), and these witnesses usually testify in the most serious cases (e.g., murder, rape) when there is a lack of other evidence (see Neuschatz et al, 2020). Jailhouse informant testimony is very influential at trial, even though jurors recognize informants have an incentive to lie (DeLoach et al, 2020; Jenkins et al, 2021; Neuschatz, 2008).…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The influence of jailhouse informant testimony on jury deliberation.

Golding¹,

Neuschatz²,

Rawn³

et al. 2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the impact of jailhouse informant testimony on mock juries. In addition to allowing for jury deliberations, individual judgments (as measured in most prior research) were examined. Two hundred ninety-one undergraduates, in fiveto six-member mock juries, heard a fictional murder trial summary in one of three conditions: jailhouse informant testified after receiving an incentive, jailhouse informant testified after receiving no incentive, or no jailhouse informant testimony. Participants made predeliberation judgments, deliberated on a verdict, and made postdeliberation judgments. The primary results showed that there were more guilty verdicts for juries that heard jailhouseinformant testimony than for those that did not hear such testimony. This relationship was fully mediated by perceptions of the defendant (e.g., sympathy for and credibility of). In addition, jury deliberations often produced a change in verdict; those who gave an initial guilty verdict were more likely to switch to not guilty after deliberation. Finally, cognitive network analyses showed that jailhouse informant testimony was the focus of jury deliberations for both guilty (viewed the testimony as reliable) and not guilty (viewed the testimony as unreliable) verdicts. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of how jailhouse informant testimony can influence jury deliberations in both a positive and negative way.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of jailhouse informant testimony on jury deliberation.

Golding¹,

Neuschatz²,

Rawn³

et al. 2022

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although not all informants lie (see Neuschatz et al, 2020), some cannot resist the offered incentive and will fabricate a secondary confession. Swanner et al (2010) found that incentives actually increased the number of false secondary confessions.In other words, incentives motivated informants to lie.…”

Section: Information From Informants Can Be Unreliablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, if a prosecutor provides an incentive to an informant, that incentive must be disclosed to the defense (Brady v. Maryland, 1963). 2 In an analysis of trial transcripts of DNA exoneration cases, Neuschatz et al (2020) found that while a majority of informants (most of whom were jailhouse informants) were asked if they received an incentive in exchange for providing their testimony, very few (12.5%) admitted to receiving an incentive. It should be noted that often informants are not explicitly promised an incentive before the trial, but incentives are nevertheless expected.…”

Section: B Does Knowledge Of An Informant's Incentives To Testify Mat...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sometimes the Snitch Recants

Heath

Stein

Singh

et al. 2023

Wrongful Conviction L Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analyzed the role that jailhouse informants have played in DNA exoneration cases. Thus, for the first 375 DNA exoneration cases compiled by the Innocence Project (IP), we reviewed the IP information relevant to jailhouse informant testimony. We supplemented the information from IP with that from the National Registry of Exonerations (NRE) and the Convicting the Innocent (CTI) databases. We found that 15% of these cases included jailhouse informant testimony. In 13% of the cases, the only evidence supporting a conviction was the word of the jailhouse informant. We also found that in 24% of cases which had at least one jailhouse informant, the informant recanted, and in 13% percent of these cases, the jailhouse informant had provided the only evidence supporting a conviction. There has recently been an effort in some jurisdictions for reform with regard to informant testimony. Reforms have taken many forms (e.g., pretrial hearings, jury instructions). While states should continue to consider adopting procedures in an effort to curb the reliance on unreliable informants (and researchers should continue to test what reforms will best achieve these goals), we recommend that any reform with regard to informants should include a consideration of recanting informants.

show abstract