TY - JOUR
T1 - Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?
AU - Wetmore, Stacy A.
AU - Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.
AU - Fessinger, Melanie B.
AU - Bornstein, Brian H.
AU - Golding, Jonathan M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.
PY - 2020/5/1
Y1 - 2020/5/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - fundamental attribution error
KW - jailhouse informants
KW - juror decision-making
KW - jury instructions
KW - secondary confessions
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85081618601&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85081618601&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/0093854820908628
DO - 10.1177/0093854820908628
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85081618601
SN - 0093-8548
VL - 47
SP - 582
EP - 600
JO - Criminal Justice and Behavior
JF - Criminal Justice and Behavior
IS - 5
ER -