Can Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to Coercive Interrogation Tactics?. Issue 5 (19th October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Angela M.; Penrod, Steven
• Is Part Of: Journal of forensic psychology practice. Volume 16:Issue 5(2016)
• Page Start: 393
• Page End: 409
• Publication Date: 2016-10-19
• Subjects: Coercion -- confession -- expert testimony -- interrogation -- juror decision making; Forensic psychology -- Periodicals; 614.1
• DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1522-8932

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Lay knowledge concerning false confession risk factors appears to be insufficient to safeguard against wrongful convictions, and research on false confession expert testimony has not led to a clear understanding of its impact on juror decision making. Thus, the current study sought to clarify whether expert testimony can induce sensitivity to a wide variety of false confession risk factors. Furthermore, jurors bring a variety of predispositions into the courtroom that may shape the way they view evidence. Yet, little research has evaluated the impact of individual differences in cases involving confession evidence. The current study assessed 330 participants' self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing. These participants subsequently read an abbreviated criminal trial transcript where the defendant confessed to committing murder, but later recanted. We varied police use of four psychologically coercive interrogation techniques as well as the presence of expert testimony during the trial. Generally, participants were not sensitive to variations in the psychological coerciveness of the interrogation with or without an expert. However, self-reported likelihood of falsely confessing influenced perceptions of the detective and confession voluntariness, which in turn predicted verdict decisions. Increasing belief that one could falsely confess decreased the likelihood of conviction by decreasing perceptions of detective credibility and confession voluntariness. The results suggest the need to take into account individual differences of jurors who evaluate confession evidence. Current remedies may also need modification to assist jurors in deciphering confession evidence quality.