Jurors Believe Interrogation Tactics are Not Likely to Elicit False Confessions: Will Expert Witness Testimony Inform Them Otherwise?
Psychology, Crime & Law, (Online), pp. 1-22, 2010
23 Pages Posted: 16 Jun 2009 Last revised: 25 Mar 2011
Date Written: June 1, 2009
Situational factors - in the form of interrogation tactics - 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.
Keywords: interrogation techniques, jury decision-making, expert testimony, false confessions
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN
By Corinna Lain
By Myrna Raeder