Can Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to Coercive Interrogation Tactics?

References

• Blandon-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. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. doi:10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s mTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
   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, 1–45.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, J. W., Boccaccini, M. T., & Turner, D. (2010). Attitudes toward coerced confessions: Psychometric properties of new and existing measures in jury pool samples. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 185–203.
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Findley, K. A., & Loney, D. (2014). Expert testimony on interrogation and false confession. Missouri Law Review, 82, 3–36.
   Google Scholar
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., & Caughlin, D. E. (2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109–134. doi:10.1037/law0000006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571. doi:10.1023/A:1024831908377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.
   Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, P. C., & Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans’ view on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–52. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02409.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
   Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051–1119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomes, D. M., Stenstrom, D. M., & Calvillo, D. P. (2014). Examining the judicial decision to substitute credibility instructions for expert testimony on confessions [Early view]. Legal and Criminological Psychology. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 535–540. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(89)90035-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. A., & 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
• Horgan, A. J., Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2012). Minimization and maximization techniques: Assessing the perceived consequences of confession and confession diagnosticity. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18, 65–78. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.561801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. M., & Penrod, S. (2015). Jurors’ compliance and Henderson style judicial instructions influence evaluations of confession evidence. Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for Psychological Science.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2008). Expert testimony on the psychology of confessions: A pyramidal framework of the relevant science. In E. Borgida, & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Psychological science in court: Beyond common knowledge (pp. 195–218). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   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., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogation and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implications. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251. doi:10.1007/BF01061711
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & 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., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484. doi:10.1023/A:1024871622490
   PubMed 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
• 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
• Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evan, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2014). Confession-oriented and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486. doi:10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffa, M. S., & Platania, J. (2007). Effects of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of confessions. Psychological Reports, 100, 563–570. doi:10.2466/pr0.100.2.563-570
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffa, M. S., & Platania, J. (2009). The differential importance of the evidence and the expert on perceptions of confessions. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9, 280–298. doi:10.1080/15228930902935719
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Registry of Exonerations. (2016). Retrieved June 9, 2016, from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/learnmore.aspx
   Google Scholar
• NYS Court of Appeals overturns Adrian Thomas’ murder conviction. (2014, February 20). Retrieved from http://www.troyrecord.com/general-news/20140220/nys-court-of-appeals-overturns-adrian-thomas-murder-conviction
   Google Scholar
• Pawlenko, N. B., Safer, M. A., Wise, R. A., & Holfeld, B. (2013). A teaching aid for improving jurors’ assessment of eyewitness accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27, 190–197. doi:10.1002/acp.2895
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023–1031. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• People v. Thomas, 22 NY3d 629 (2014).
   Google Scholar
• People v. Polk, 942 N.E.2d 44 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
   Google Scholar
• Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327–337. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheehan, C. (2011). Making the jurors the “experts”: The case for eyewitness identification jury instructions. Boston College Law Review, 52, 651–693.
   Google Scholar
• Skeem, J. L., Eno Louden, J., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons’ attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 623–648. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0487-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States v. Hall, 974 F. Supp. 1198, 1203-1206 (C.D. Ill 1997).
   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, 1–16. doi:10.1037/lhb00000201
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woody, W. D., & Forrest, K. D. (2009). Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors’ verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 333–360. doi:10.1002/bsl.865
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar