Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. / Neuschatz, J.S.; Wilkinson, Miranda L. ; Goodsell, Charles A.; Wetmore, Stacy; Quinlivan, Deah S.; Jones, Nicholaos .

In: Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 27, 2012, p. 179-192.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. / Neuschatz, J.S.; Wilkinson, Miranda L. ; Goodsell, Charles A.; Wetmore, Stacy; Quinlivan, Deah S.; Jones, Nicholaos .

In: Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, Vol. 27, 2012, p. 179-192.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Neuschatz, JS, Wilkinson, ML, Goodsell, CA, Wetmore, S, Quinlivan, DS & Jones, N 2012, 'Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony', Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, vol. 27, pp. 179-192.

APA

Neuschatz, J. S., Wilkinson, M. L., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S., Quinlivan, D. S., & Jones, N. (2012). Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 179-192.

Vancouver

Neuschatz JS, Wilkinson ML, Goodsell CA, Wetmore S, Quinlivan DS, Jones N. Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. 2012;27:179-192.

Author

Neuschatz, J.S. ; Wilkinson, Miranda L. ; Goodsell, Charles A. ; Wetmore, Stacy ; Quinlivan, Deah S. ; Jones, Nicholaos . / Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. In: Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. 2012 ; Vol. 27. pp. 179-192.

BibTeX

@article{47929979abdc44a3ad12d4dea06d5960,
title = "Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony",
abstract = "Two experiments examined two potential safeguards intended to protect accused persons against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses. Participants in both experiments read a trial transcript where secondary confession evidence was presented from either a jailhouse informant (Experiment 1 and 2) or an accomplice witness (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, testimony history was manipulated so that participants were informed that the jailhouse informant had testified as an informant in 0, 5, or 20 previous cases. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who were exposed to secondary confession evidence were significantly more likely to vote guilty than were participants in the no secondary confession control group. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of guilty verdicts did not vary with incentive, testimony history, or expert testimony. Explanations for these results are discussed, as are the practical challenges of using testimony from cooperating witnesses.",
author = "J.S. Neuschatz and Wilkinson, {Miranda L.} and Goodsell, {Charles A.} and Stacy Wetmore and Quinlivan, {Deah S.} and Nicholaos Jones",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "179--192",
journal = "Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology",
issn = "0882-0783",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony

AU - Neuschatz, J.S.

AU - Wilkinson, Miranda L.

AU - Goodsell, Charles A.

AU - Wetmore, Stacy

AU - Quinlivan, Deah S.

AU - Jones, Nicholaos

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Two experiments examined two potential safeguards intended to protect accused persons against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses. Participants in both experiments read a trial transcript where secondary confession evidence was presented from either a jailhouse informant (Experiment 1 and 2) or an accomplice witness (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, testimony history was manipulated so that participants were informed that the jailhouse informant had testified as an informant in 0, 5, or 20 previous cases. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who were exposed to secondary confession evidence were significantly more likely to vote guilty than were participants in the no secondary confession control group. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of guilty verdicts did not vary with incentive, testimony history, or expert testimony. Explanations for these results are discussed, as are the practical challenges of using testimony from cooperating witnesses.

AB - Two experiments examined two potential safeguards intended to protect accused persons against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses. Participants in both experiments read a trial transcript where secondary confession evidence was presented from either a jailhouse informant (Experiment 1 and 2) or an accomplice witness (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, testimony history was manipulated so that participants were informed that the jailhouse informant had testified as an informant in 0, 5, or 20 previous cases. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who were exposed to secondary confession evidence were significantly more likely to vote guilty than were participants in the no secondary confession control group. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of guilty verdicts did not vary with incentive, testimony history, or expert testimony. Explanations for these results are discussed, as are the practical challenges of using testimony from cooperating witnesses.

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 179

EP - 192

JO - Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

JF - Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

SN - 0882-0783

ER -