Trope Y (1986) Identification and inferential processes in dispositional attribution. Tenny ER, MacCoun RJ, Spellman BA, Hastie R (2007) Calibration trumps confidence as a basis for witness credibility. Skurka S (2002) Symposium: perspectives on the role of cooperators and informants: a Canadian perspective on the role of cooperators and informants. Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. 20) Jailhouse informant had allies on side of the law. Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. In: Brewer N, Kipling KD (eds) Psychology and law: an empirical perspective. Ogloff JRP, Rose GV (2005) The comprehension of judicial instructions. Neuschatz JS, Lawson DS, Swanner JK, Meissner CA, Neuschatz JS (2008) The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Myers DG, Lamm H (1975) The polarizing effect of group discussion. Marshall LC, Warden R, Geraghty TF, Van Zandt DE (2005) The snitch system: how snitch testimony sent Randy Steidl and other innocent Americans to death row. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207–229 Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Los Angeles County Grand Jury (1990) Investigation of the involvement of jailhouse informants n the criminal justices system in Los Angeles County Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524–541 (2004) Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors’ need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909–959 The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Kaufman F (1998) Report of the commission of proceedings involving Guy Paul Morin. Kassin SM, Wrightsman LS (1981) Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and juror verdicts. Kassin SM, Sukel H (1997) Coerced confessions and the jury: an experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Kassin SM, Neumann K (1997) On the power of confession evidence: an experimental test of the “fundamental difference” hypothesis. Kassin SM, McNall K (1991) Police interrogations & confessions: communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Justice Project (2007) Jailhouse snitch testimony: a policy review. Gilbert DT, Pelham BW, Krull DS (1988) On cognitive busyness: when person perceivers meet person perceived. Gilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Gersham BL (2002) Symposium: effective screening for truth telling: Is it Possible? Witness coaching by prosecutors. The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1042–1054įox, S. How effective are the cross-examination and expert testimony safeguards? Jurors’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of biased lineup procedures. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 569–576ĭevenport, J. Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. 123Ĭalifornia Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2006) Report and recommendations regarding informant testimonyĬooper J, Neuhaus IM (2000) The “hired gun” effect: assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. J Appl Soc Psychol 18:1171–1192īloom RM (2002) Ratting: the use and abuse of informants in the American justice system. Explanations for these results are discussed, as are the practical challenges of using testimony from cooperating witnesses.Īnderson CA, Lindsay JJ, Bushman BJ (1999) Research in the psychological laboratory: truth or triviality? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8:3–9īell BE, Loftus EL (1988) Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony of mock jurors judgments. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of guilty verdicts did not vary with incentive, testimony history, or expert testimony. The results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who were exposed to secondary confession evidence were significantly more likely to vote guilty than were participants in the no secondary confession control group. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. In Experiment 1, testimony history was manipulated so that participants were informed that the jailhouse informant had testified as an informant in 0, 5, or 20 previous cases. Participants in both experiments read a trial transcript where secondary confession evidence was presented from either a jailhouse informant (Experiment 1 and 2) or an accomplice witness (Experiment 2). Two experiments examined two potential safeguards intended to protect accused persons against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |