TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors, juries, and judges
AU - Woody, William Douglas
AU - Stewart, Joshua M.
AU - Forrest, Krista D.
AU - Camacho, Lourdes Janet
AU - Woestehoff, Skye A.
AU - Provenza, Karlee R.
AU - Walker, Alexis T.
AU - Powner, Steven J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Research, Dissemination, and Faculty Development Program, University of Northern Colorado [PR108].
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, © 2018 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
PY - 2018/1/1
Y1 - 2018/1/1
N2 - Triers of fact evaluated trial materials involving disputed confessions, false-evidence ploys (FEPs) during interrogation, and expert testimony. In two experiments, we assessed pre-deliberation and post-deliberation trial decisions as well as individual jurors’ perceptions, deliberating juries’ verdicts, and sitting judges’ perceptions and trial decisions. Judges convicted more often than did juries. Although triers of fact recognized the deception inherent in FEPs, the use of FEPs in police interrogations did not affect these decision-makers’ trial outcomes. Expert testimony, however, affected perceptions and reduced jurors’, deliberating juries’, and sitting judges’ likelihood of conviction. We provide recommendations for courts, scholars, and police interrogators.
AB - Triers of fact evaluated trial materials involving disputed confessions, false-evidence ploys (FEPs) during interrogation, and expert testimony. In two experiments, we assessed pre-deliberation and post-deliberation trial decisions as well as individual jurors’ perceptions, deliberating juries’ verdicts, and sitting judges’ perceptions and trial decisions. Judges convicted more often than did juries. Although triers of fact recognized the deception inherent in FEPs, the use of FEPs in police interrogations did not affect these decision-makers’ trial outcomes. Expert testimony, however, affected perceptions and reduced jurors’, deliberating juries’, and sitting judges’ likelihood of conviction. We provide recommendations for courts, scholars, and police interrogators.
KW - expert testimony
KW - false-evidence ploys
KW - judicial decision-making
KW - jury deliberation
KW - police interrogation and confession
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055158267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85055158267&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/23311908.2018.1528744
DO - 10.1080/23311908.2018.1528744
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85055158267
SN - 2331-1908
VL - 5
SP - 1
EP - 22
JO - Cogent Psychology
JF - Cogent Psychology
IS - 1
ER -