Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors, juries, and judges

References

• American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Appleby, S. C., Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2013). Police-induced confessions: An empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 19, 111–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleby, S. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016). When self-report trumps science: Effects of confessions, DNA, and prosecutorial theories on perceptions of guilt. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 127–140. doi:10.1037/law0000080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S. Ct. 1246. (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Bandler, J. (2014a, October 15). Deskovic’s lie detector test was ‘an interrogation,’ expert testifies. Iohud. Retrieved August 31, 2018, Retrieved http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2014/10/15/deskovic-federal-civil-trial-wrongful-conviction-putnam-daniel-stephens/17323927/
   Google Scholar
• Bandler, J. (2014b, October 24). Deskovic awarded $40M in wrongful conviction case. Iohud. Retrieved August 31, 2018, Retrieved http://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/2014/10/23/jeffrey-deskovic-wrongful-conviction-forty-million-verdict/17798527/
   Google Scholar
• Blandon-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. A. (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
• Bornstein, B. H., Golding, J. M., Neuschatz, J., Kimbrough, C., Reed, K., Magyarics, C., & Luecht, K. (2016). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 13–28. doi:10.1037/lhb0000223
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532. (1897).
   Google Scholar
• Brown et al., v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278. (1936).
   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
• Citron, K., & Johnson, M. B. (2006). Expert testimony regarding disputed confession evidence in federal courts: United States v. Vallejo. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6, 1–27. doi:10.1300/J158v06n01_01
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleary, H. M. D., & Warner, T. C. (2016). Police training in interviewing and interrogation methods: A comparison of techniques used with adult and juvenile suspects. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 270–284. doi:10.1037/lhb0000175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costanzo, M., & Leo, R. A. (2007). Research findings and expert testimony on police interrogations and confessions to crimes. In M. Costanzo, D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 69–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Criminal Code, 18 CO. Rev. Stat. §§ 1.3-401. (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Criminal Code, 18 CO. Rev. Stat. §§ 1-402. (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Criminal Code, 18 CO. Rev. Stat. §§ 3-103. (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370070206
   Google Scholar
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579. (1993).
   Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Olafson, K. M., Jarvis, L. L., Bott, J. P., Clayton, L. D., & Wolfe, J. M. T. (2004). Explaining jury verdicts: Is leniency bias for real? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2069–2098. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02691.x
   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
• Eisenberg, T., Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Waters, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., Schwab, S. J., & Wells, M. T. (2005). Judge-jury agreement in criminal cases: A partial replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury. Empirical Legal Studies, 2, 171–206. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00035.x
   Google Scholar
• Forrest, K. D., Woody, W. D., Brady, S. E., Batterman, K. C., Stastny, B. J., & Bruns, J. A. (2012). False-evidence ploys and interrogations: Mock jurors’ perceptions of ploy type, deception, coercion, and justification. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 30, 342–364. doi:10.1002/bsl.1999
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731. (1969).
   Google Scholar
• Fulero, S. M. (2010). Tales from the front: Expert testimony on the psychology of interrogations and confessions revisited. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 211–223). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gastwirth, J. L., & Sinclair, M. D. (2004). A re-examination of the 1966 Kalven-Zeisel study of judge-jury agreements and disagreements and their causes. Law, Probability, and Risk, 3, 169–191. doi:10.1093/lawprj/3.3-4.169
   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. In Legal and criminological psychology,  21, 319-331.
   Google Scholar
• Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. New York and Chichester: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–810.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannaford, P. L., Hans, V. P., & Munsterman, G. T. (2000). Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of Arizona reform. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 359–382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence? Law and Human Behavior. doi:10.1037/lhb0000204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henkel, L. A. (2008). Jurors’ reactions to recanted confessions: Do the defendant’s personal and dispositional characteristics play a role? Psychology, Crime, and Law, 14, 565–578. doi:10.1080/10683160801995247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. J., & Dailey, E. M. (2008). A survey of people’s attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 555–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 29–51. doi:10.1007/BF01499142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschkorn, P. (Dec 10, 2002). Prosecutor: Drop all convictions in Central Park jogger case. Retrieved August 31, 2018 from http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/12/05/central.park.jogger/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Hirschkorn, P. (Jan 28, 2003). Police panel slams decision to absolve men in Central Park jogger case. Retrieved August 31, 2018 from http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/27/nyjogger.report/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Franssens, D., Peters, G. Y., & Zeles, G. (2006). False confessions in the lab: Do plausibility and consequences matter? Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 61–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, E. S. (1991). Integration of mitigation, intention, and outcome damage information, by students and circuit court judges. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 875–895. doi:10.1111/jasp.1991.21.issue-11
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe, E. S., & Loftus, T. C. (1992). Integration of intention and outcome information by students and circuit court judges: Design economy and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 102–116. doi:10.1111/jasp.1992.22.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E. (1976). Legally permissible criminal interrogation tactics and techniques. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 4, 249–251.
   Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. E. (1967). Criminal interrogation and confessions (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
   Google Scholar
• Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2011). Criminal interrogations and confession (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Innocence Project. (2018a). Jeff Deskovic. Retrieved August 21, 2018 from http://www.innocenceproject.org/cases-false-imprisonment/jeff-deskovic
   Google Scholar
• Innocence Project. (2018b). False confessions or admissions. Retrieved August 231, 2018 from http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes/false-confessions-admissions/
   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
• Jones, A. M, & Penrod, S. (2018). Research-based instructions induce sensitivity to confession evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 25, 257-272.
   Google Scholar
• Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, & Co.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2008a). Expert testimony on the psychology of confessions: A pyramidal framework of the relevant science. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense; Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 195–218). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2008b). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 24–43. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M. (2010). Afterward: Deconstructing confessions—The state of the literature. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions (pp. 231–237). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   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. (2017). False confessions: How can psychology so basic be so counterintuitive? American Psychologist, 72, 951–964. doi:10.1037/amp0000195
   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., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2004.00016.x
   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., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., & La Fon, D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381–400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
   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., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the “fundamental difference” hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M, Redlich, A. D, Alcest, F, & Luke, T. J. (2018). On the general acceptance of confessions research: opinions of the scientific community. American Psychologist, 73, 63-80.
   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
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1997). Prior confessions and mock jury verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–146. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00698.x
   Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instructions, 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
• Koehler, J. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., & McQuiston, D. E. (2016). Science, technology, or the expert witness: What influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 401–413. doi:10.1037/law0000103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 113–126. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370120203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lego v. Twomey. 404 U.S. 477. (1972).
   Google Scholar
• Leippe, M. R. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909–959. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.1.4.909
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leippe, M. R., & Eisenstadt, D. (2009). The influence of eyewitness expert testimony on juror’s beliefs and judgments. In B. L. Cutler (Ed.), Expert testimony on the psychology of eyewitness identification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A. (1992). From coercion to deception: The changing nature of police interrogation in America. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 18, 35–59. doi:10.1007/BF00230624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   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., Neufeld, P. J., Drizin, S. A., & Taslitz, A. E. (2013). Promoting accuracy in the use of confession evidence: An argument for pretrial reliability assessments to prevent wrongful convictions. Temple Law Review, 85, 759–837.
   Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–496. doi:10.2307/1144288
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maeder, E. M., & Pica, E. (2014). Secondary confessions: The influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and 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
• McCloskey, M., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.5.550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. (2009). Innocent but proven guilty: Eliciting internalized false confessions using doctored-video evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 624–637. doi:10.1002/acp.v23:5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Registry of Exonerations. (2018). % exonerations by contributing factor. Retrieved August 31, 2018 from https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/ExonerationsContribFactorsByCrime.aspx#
   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
• Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kern, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23–52). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Nunez, N., McCrea, S. M., & Culhane, S. E. (2011). Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 439–451. doi:10.1002/bsl.967
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrott, C. T., Neal, T. M. S., Wilson, J. K., & Brodsky, S. L. (2015). Differences in expert witness knowledge: Do mock jurors notice and does it matter? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 43, 69–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• People v. Lira, 119 Cal. App. 3d 837. (1981).
   Google Scholar
• People v. Rivera, App (2d) 091060. (2011). IL.
   Google Scholar
• People v. Thomas, 22 N.Y.3d 629; 8 N.E.3d 308; 985 N.Y.S.2d 193. (2014). New York.
   Google Scholar
• Perillo, J. T, & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: the lie, the bluff, and false confession. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327–337. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintieri, P., & Weiss, K. J. (2005). Admissibility of false-confession testimony: Know thy standard. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 535–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redlich, A. D. (2010). False confessions and false guilty pleas: Similarities and differences. In Lassiter & Meissner (Eds.), Interrogations and confessions: Current research, practice, and policy (pp. 49–66). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Robbennolt, J. K. (2005). Evaluating juries by comparison to judges: A benchmark for judging? Florida State University Law Review, 32, 469–509.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 300–318.
   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
• Ruva, C. L., & Guenther, C. C. (2015). From shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors’ decisions, impressions, and memory. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 294–310. doi:10.1037/lhb0000117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stastny, B., Forrest, K. D., Leo, R., & Bienhoff, J. (2006, March). Evaluating evidence ploys: The role of ploy type in perceptions of deception and coercion. Presented at the annual meeting of American Psychology – Law Society, St. Petersburg, FL.
   Google Scholar
• State v. Cobb, 115 Ariz. 484; 566 P.2d 285. (1977). AZ.
   Google Scholar
• State v. Jackson, 308 N.C. 549. (1983).
   Google Scholar
• State v. King. 387 N.J. Super. 522; 904 A.2d 808. (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, J. M., Woody, W. D., & Pulos, S. (2018). The prevalence of false confessions in experimental laboratory simulations: A meta-analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 36, 12–31. doi:10.1002/bsl.2327
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States v. Belyea. Fourth circuit court of appeals, No. 04-4415 unpublished. (2005). Retrieved November 30, 2015 from http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/044415.U.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1998). Coerced or nonvoluntary confessions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 423–440. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199823)16:4<423::AID-BSL319>3.0.CO;2-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace, D. B., & Kassin, S. M. (2012). Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors? Law and Human Behavior, 36, 151–157. doi:10.1037/h0093975
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, C., Weiss, K. J., & Pouncy, C. (2010). False confessions, expert testimony, and admissibility. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38, 174–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251–1345.
   Web of Science ®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
• Woody, W. D., Forrest, K. D., & Stewart, J. M. (2011). False confessions: The role of police deception in interrogation and jurors’ perceptions of the techniques and their outcomes. In A. E. Hasselm (Ed.), Crime: Causes, types and victims (pp. 1–37). New York: Nova Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Woody, W. D. (2017). Lowering the bar and raising expectations: Recent legal decisions in light of the scientific study of interrogation and confession. Wyoming Law Review, 17, 419–455.
   Google Scholar
• Woody, W. D. (in press). The history, present, and future of police deception during interrogation. In T. Docan-Morgan (Ed.), Palgrave handbook of deceptive communication.
   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 [Special Issue: The Age of Innocence: Miscarriages of Justice in the 21st Century], 27, 333–360.
   Google Scholar
• Woody, W. D., Forrest, K. D., & Yendra, S. (2013). Comparing the effects of explicit and implicit false-evidence ploys on mock jurors’ verdicts, sentencing recommendations, and perceptions of police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 20, 603–617. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.804922
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woody, W. D., Stewart, J. M., Walker, A. T., Barfield, G., Ponzi, M. J., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2010, March). False confession plausibility as a predictor of juror’s decisions and evaluations of police deception. In American psychology-law society convention. Vancouver, BC: Poster session.
   Google Scholar