Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?
- 1 March 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Criminal Justice and Behavior
- Vol. 47 (5), 582-600
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820908628
Abstract
Jailhouse informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In an attempt to preempt such miscarriages of justice, several states (e.g., Connecticut and California) have mandated that judicial instructions be provided to act as a safeguard against false testimony. This study evaluated the effectiveness of these instructions in helping jurors distinguish between reliable and unreliable jailhouse informants. Participants read a trial transcript that varied instructions (Standard, Connecticut, Enhanced) and informant reliability (reliable, unreliable). The results indicated that the instructions had no effect on verdict decisions. Even though verdicts did not vary, participants rated the unreliable informant as less trustworthy, honest, and interested in justice than the reliable informant. This is consistent with previous findings that indicate that participants are aware of the legal prescriptions given in the instructions, but they do not implement them in making decisions. Therefore, instructions may be an insufficient safeguard.Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberationPsychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2010
- Incentives increase the rate of false but not true secondary confessions from informants with an allegiance to a suspect.Law and Human Behavior, 2010
- Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trialsBehavioral Sciences & the Law, 2008
- The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making.Law and Human Behavior, 2008
- Understanding and Using Mediators and ModeratorsSocial Indicators Research, 2007
- The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis.Law and Human Behavior, 2006
- Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 2002
- Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 2002
- Direct and Indirect Effects: Classical and Bootstrap Estimates of VariabilitySociological Methodology, 1990
- The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution ProcessPublished by Elsevier BV ,1977