Can Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to Coercive Interrogation Tactics?

ABSTRACT

Lay knowledge concerning false confession risk factors appears to be insufficient to safeguard against wrongful convictions, and research on false confession expert testimony has not led to a clear understanding of its impact on juror decision making. Thus, the current study sought to clarify whether expert testimony can induce sensitivity to a wide variety of false confession risk factors. Furthermore, jurors bring a variety of predispositions into the courtroom that may shape the way they view evidence. Yet, little research has evaluated the impact of individual differences in cases involving confession evidence. The current study assessed 330 participants’ self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing. These participants subsequently read an abbreviated criminal trial transcript where the defendant confessed to committing murder, but later recanted. We varied police use of four psychologically coercive interrogation techniques as well as the presence of expert testimony during the trial. Generally, participants were not sensitive to variations in the psychological coerciveness of the interrogation with or without an expert. However, self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing influenced perceptions of the detective and confession voluntariness, which in turn predicted verdict decisions. Increasing belief that one could falsely confess decreased the likelihood of conviction by decreasing perceptions of detective credibility and confession voluntariness. The results suggest the need to take into account individual differences of jurors who evaluate confession evidence. Current remedies may also need modification to assist jurors in deciphering confession evidence quality.

KEYWORDS:

• Coercion
• confession
• expert testimony
• interrogation
• juror decision making

Notes

¹ The APA submitted an amicus brief to the court in the original case citing risk factors for false confessions and the critical need for expert testimony: http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/thomas.aspx

² We found similar results with a continuous measure of guilt. We present only the dichotomous verdict measure to conserve space. All analyses are available from the first author.

³ High approval ratings indicate a strong reputation for completing a study with thoughtful attention, thus increasing the credibility of responses.

⁴ With the restricted data, detective credibility was not predicted by self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing and therefore did not serve as a mediator between self-reported false confession and verdict, as reported below. Full analyses are available from the first author.

⁵ Because detective credibility and voluntariness were correlated, we also conducted a 2 (expert) x 2 (minimization) x 2 (maximization) x 2 (false evidence ploy) x 2 (bluff) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). None of the multivariate effects were significant, ps > .06. All analyses are available from the first author.

⁶ Thomas was acquitted in his second trial, where his confession and the detective’s testimony were ruled inadmissible.