Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise?

Abstract

Situational factors Á in the form of interrogation tactics Á have been reported to unduly influence innocent suspects to confess. This study assessed jurors' perceptions of these factors and tested whether expert witness testimony on confessions informs jury decision making. In Study 1, jurors rated interrogation tactics on their level of coerciveness and likelihood that each would elicit true and false confessions. Most jurors perceived interrogation tactics to be coercive and likely to elicit confessions from guilty, but not from innocent suspects. This result motivated Study 2 in which an actual case involving a disputed confession was used to assess the influence of expert testimony on jurors' perceptions and evaluations of interrogations and confession evidence. The results revealed an important influence of expert testimony on mock-jurors decisions.

Examining the judicial decision to substitute credibility instructions for expert testimony on confessions

“…Furthermore, Blandón‐Gitlin et al . () and Woody and Forrest () found that the presence of an expert reduced the frequency of guilty verdicts. It is important to note that in all four published studies to date, expert testimony has only been compared to control groups rather than to judicial instructions, another common safeguard.…”

“…Four empirical studies to date have examined the effects of academic expert testimony in a disputed confession case (Blandón‐Gitlin, Sperry, & Leo, ; Moffa & Platania, , ; Woody & Forrest, ). Across these studies, the expert testimony contained similar descriptions of maximization and minimization techniques that have been linked to false confessions.…”

“…Across these studies, the expert testimony contained similar descriptions of maximization and minimization techniques that have been linked to false confessions. In three of these studies (i.e., Blandón‐Gitlin et al ., ; Moffa & Platania, ; Woody & Forrest, ), the presence of a false confession expert altered mock jurors' perceptions of the evidence. Furthermore, Blandón‐Gitlin et al .…”

“…Consistent with admissibility standards, false confession experts offer testimony that is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community (e.g., Kassin et al ., ). Additionally, research has shown that the testimony of a confession expert helps to educate the jury about the relationship between coercive interrogative techniques and the veracity of a confession (e.g., Blandón‐Gitlin et al ., ), thus demonstrating its probative value. Is it possible that jury instructions on credibility can have the same effect as expert testimony on jurors' judgments?…”

The Right to Legal Assistance During Detention

“…169 Research with mock juries has shown that confessions have more impact than other forms of evidence 170 and that jurors doubt that coercive techniques would ever cause an innocent suspect to confess. 171 There are a number of ways in which a RLA might prevent wrongful conviction. First, the presence of a legal adviser could discourage the police from using coercive interviewing tactics, a point that has already been discussed.…”