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

References

• Benton, T. R., Ross, D. F., Bradshaw, E., Thomas, W. N., & Bradshaw, G. S. (2006). Eyewitness memory is still not common sense: Comparing jurors, judges and law enforcement to eyewitness experts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 115–129. doi: 10.1002/acp.1171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloom, R. M. (2002). Ratting: The use and abuse of informants in the American justice system. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83. (1963).
   Google Scholar
• Cassidy, R. M. (2004). ‘Soft words of hope’: Giglio, accomplice witnesses, and the problem of implied inducements. Northwestern University Law Review, 98, 1–43.
   Web of Science ®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
• Costanzo, M., Blandón-Gitlin, I., & Davis, D. (2016). The purpose, content, and effects of expert testimony on interrogations and confessions. In B. Bornstein, & M. Miller (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 2, pp. 141–178). Springer International Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Costanzo, M., Shaked-Schroer, N., & Vinson, K. (2010). Jurors beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 231–247. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliot, C. B. (2003). Life’s uncertainties: How to deal with cooperating witnesses and jailhouse snitches. Capital Defense Journal, 16, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150. (1972).
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet person perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). Insightful or wishful: Lawyers’ ability to predict case outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 133–157. doi: 10.1037/a0019060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heath, B. (2012, December 14). Federal prisoners use snitching for personal gain: How snitches pay for freedom. USA Today. Retrieved from < http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/14/jailhouse-informants-for-sale/1762013/>
   Google Scholar
• Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. A. J., & Dailey, E. M. (2008). A survey of people’s attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 555–584. doi: 10.1002/bsl.826
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293. (1966).
   Google Scholar
• Innocence Project. (2016). The causes: Incentivized informants. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/incentivized-informants/
   Google Scholar
• Justice Project. (2007). Jailhouse snitch testimony: A policy review. The Justice Project, Washington.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S., Meissner, C., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). ‘I’d know a false confession if I saw one’: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211–227. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the ‘general acceptance’ of eyewitness testimony research. American Psychologist, 56, 405–416. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.5.405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krull, D. S., & Dill, J. C. (1996). On thinking first and responding fast: Flexibility in social inference processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 949–995. doi: 10.1177/0146167296229008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehmann, J. K., & Smith, J. B. (2013). A multidimensional examination of jury composition, trial outcomes, and attorney preferences (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://www.uh.edu/~jlehman2/papers/lehmann_smith_jurycomposition.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Los Angeles County Grand Jury. (1990). Final report, 1989–90.
   Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., & Pica, E. (2014). Secondary confessions: The influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of informant testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 560–568. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., & Yamamoto, S. (2017). Attributions in the courtroom: The influence of race, incentive, and witness type on jurors’ perceptions of secondary confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(4), 361–375. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2016.1258473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malavanti, K. F., Terrell, J. T., Dasse, M. N., & Weaver, C. A. (2014). The curse of knowledge in estimating jurors’ understanding of memory: Attorneys know more about memory than the general population. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 10, 98–105.
   Google Scholar
• Mazur, E. P. (2002). Rational expectations of leniency: Implicit plea agreements and the prosecutor’s role as a minister of justice. Duke Law Journal, 51, 1333–1365. doi: 10.2307/1373121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAuliff, B. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2012). Beliefs and expectancies in legal decision making: An introduction to the special issue. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2011.641557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Natapoff, A. (2011). Snitching: Criminal informants and the erosion of American justice. New York, NY: NYU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Neuschatz, J. S., Lawson, D. S., Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., & Neuschatz, J. S. (2008). The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 137–149. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuschatz, J. S., Wilkinson, M. L., Goodsell, C. A., Wetmore, S. A., Quinlivan, D. S., & Jones, N. J. (2012). Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 179–192. doi: 10.1007/s11896-012-9102-x
   Google Scholar
• Northwestern University School of Law Center on Wrongful Convictions. (2004). The snitch system. Retrieved from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/documents/SnitchSystemBooklet.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2009). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12, 131–146.
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–221). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rappold, S. (2005). Jailhouse informers: A risky bet. The Gazette Nov 20.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 173–220). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• United States v. Singleton, 144 F.3d 1343. ( 10th Cir. 1998).
   Google Scholar
• Warden, R. (2004). The snitch system: How incentivized witnesses put 38 innocent Americans on death row (pp. 116). Chicago, IL: Northwestern University School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions.
   Google Scholar
• Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., & Gronlund, S. D. (2014). On the power of secondary confession evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 339–357. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2013.777963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A., Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., & Meyer, D. (2009). What US prosecutors and defence attorneys know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 1266–1281. doi: 10.1002/acp.1530
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, R. A., & Safer, M. A. (2010). A comparison of what US judges and students know and believe about eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1400–1422. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00623.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar