Beliefs about secondary confession evidence: a survey of laypeople and defense attorneys

ABSTRACT

We surveyed students, community members, and defense attorneys regarding beliefs about secondary confession evidence (i.e. when a third party tells authorities that a person has confessed to him or her) from jailhouse informants and other sources. Results indicated that laypeople perceive secondary confessions as less credible than other types of evidence (e.g. forensics, DNA, eyewitness testimony), and they are knowledgeable about factors that may influence the veracity of secondary confessions, such as incentives or previous testimony. However, they underestimated or were uncertain about how persuasive secondary confessions would be to themselves or other jurors. Compared to laypeople, defense attorneys were more sensitive about issues affecting the reliability of secondary confessions.

KEYWORDS:

• Secondary confessions
• jailhouse informants
• juror perceptions
• defense attorneys
• incentives

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Attempts to have prosecutors complete our survey were unsuccessful, despite J.S.N. reaching out to the Shelby County District Attorney’s office. The office agreed to send the survey out to prosecutors but none completed it.

2. Defense attorneys might have agreed because they know that under Brady v. Maryland (1963), all information that could discredit prosecution witnesses must be disclosed to the jury, but the survey instructions stressed the importance of responding with their personal beliefs. Given the high rate of layperson agreement (80%), it is probable that almost 100% of attorneys truly do personally believe that incentives should be disclosed, regardless of legal requirements.