Jury instructions and mock-juror sensitivity to confession evidence in a simulated criminal case

References

• Arizona v. Fulminante 499 U.S. 279 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Blandón-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 239–260. doi: 10.1080/10683160903113699
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury decision making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 63–67. doi: 10.1177/0963721410397282
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Hamm, J. A. (2012). Jury instructions on witness identification. Court Review, 48, 48–53.
   Google Scholar
• Chojnacki, D. E., Cicchini, M. D., & White, L. T. (2008). An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. Arizona State Law Journal, 40, 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B., Findley, K. A., & Loney, D. (2014). Expert testimony on interrogation and false confession. UMKC Law Review, 82, 589–622. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2436517
   Google Scholar
• Davis, D., & Leo, R. A. (2011). Three prongs of the confession problem: Issues and proposed solutions. In J. Epstein & C. E. Henderson (Eds.), The future of evidence (pp. 233–264). Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–727. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drizin, S., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.
   Google Scholar
• Dror, I. E., & Charlton, D. (2006). Why experts make errors. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56(4), 600–616.
   Google Scholar
• Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969).
   Google Scholar
• Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122–126. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Chicago: Jones and Bartlett.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. M., & Penrod, S. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to coercive interrogation tactics? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16, 393–409. doi: 10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judicial Council of California. (2012). Judicial council of California criminal jury instructions (CALCRIM). Retrieved from http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/documents/calcrim_juryins.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2008). The psychology of confessions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 193–217. doi: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172410
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431–445. doi: 10.1037/a0028212
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251. doi: 10.1007/BF01061711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the ‘harmless error’ rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46. doi: 10.1023/A:1024814009769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–146. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00698.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489–506. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00838.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A. (2004). The third degree and the origins of psychological police interrogation in the United States. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 37–84). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A., & Davis, D. (2010). From false confession to wrongful conviction: Seven psychological processes. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 9–56. doi: 10.1177/009318531003800103
   Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 381–399. doi: 10.1002/bsl.872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 88, 429–496. doi: 10.2307/1144288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363–374. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marder, N. S. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–512. Retrieved from http://www3.nd.edu/~ndlrev/archive_abstracts/81ndlr2/marder_abstract.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2011). Can experts help jurors to evaluate eyewitness evidence? A review of eyewitness expert effects. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 24–36. doi: 10.1348/135532509X477225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
   Google Scholar
• National Registry of Exonerations. (2017). The registry, exonerations, and false conviction. Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/learnmore.aspx
   Google Scholar
• O'Malley, K. F., Grenig, J. E., & Lee, W. C. (2012). Federal jury practice and instructions (6th ed.): Vol. 2. General instructions for federal criminal case [CD-ROM version updated Aug 2012]. Retrieved from http://www.store.westlaw.com
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, C. M. (2015). Comparing judicial instructions about confession evidence in a criminal case (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts International (3705724).
   Google Scholar
• Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. doi: 10.1177/0963721414531598
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessments of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 190–197. doi: 10.1002/acp.2895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Eyewitness expert testimony and jury decision-making. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 43–83. doi: 10.2307/1191907
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, L. F., Kay, L. N., & Weber, K. (1994). When language is a barrier to justice: The non-English suspect’s waiver of rights. Criminal Justice, 9(2), 2–6.
   Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D. (2004). Law & psychiatry: Mental illness, police interrogations, and the potential for false confession. Psychiatric Services, 55, 19–21. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.55.1.19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safer, M. A., Murphy, R. P., Wise, R. A., Bussey, L., Millett, C., & Holfeld, B. (2016). Educating jurors about eyewitness testimony in criminal cases with circumstantial forensic evidence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 47, 86–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salerno, J. M., & Diamond, S. S. (2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 174–179. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigurdsson, J. F., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996). Illicit drug use among “false confessors”: A study among Icelandic prison inmates. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 50, 325–328. doi: 10.3109/08039489609078173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26, 559–569. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567341
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trainum, J. L. (2016). How the police generate false confessions. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Woestehoff, S. A., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. Situational attributions for a confession. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 564–579. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Const. amend. V.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
   Google Scholar