Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?

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 effe...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Criminal justice and behavior 2020-05, Vol.47 (5), p.582-600
Hauptverfasser: Wetmore, Stacy A., Neuschatz, Jeffrey S., Fessinger, Melanie B., Bornstein, Brian H., Golding, Jonathan M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 600
container_issue 5
container_start_page 582
container_title Criminal justice and behavior
container_volume 47
creator Wetmore, Stacy A.
Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.
Fessinger, Melanie B.
Bornstein, Brian H.
Golding, Jonathan M.
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0093854820908628
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2387221442</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0093854820908628</sage_id><sourcerecordid>2387221442</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-3207cab4ed2919195b57749f7e2e044cb39996c417484216928e0341c792fe573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1UF1LwzAUDaLgnL77GPC5ms-leZK5Td0YCOKeS5rebhldOpMU8d_bMUUQ5D4cLucLDkLXlNxSqtQdIZrnUuSMaJKPWH6CBlRKlnGpxSkaHOjswJ-jixi3hBAhqRygatriRVc560yD5z6m0NnkWh_x2FXYeTx1MTm_7lzc9IAfIH0AePwKjTNlA9j4Cq98-HkXxjWbtovQh9Vt2Bmf4v0lOqtNE-HqG4do9Th7mzxny5en-WS8zCwnOmWcEWVNKaBimvYnS6mU0LUCBkQIW3Kt9cgKqkQuGB1plgPhglqlWQ1S8SG6OebuQ_veQUzFtu2C7ysLxnPFGBWC9SpyVNnQxhigLvbB7Uz4LCgpDlsWf7fsLdnREs0afkP_1X8B_2ByVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2387221442</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Wetmore, Stacy A. ; Neuschatz, Jeffrey S. ; Fessinger, Melanie B. ; Bornstein, Brian H. ; Golding, Jonathan M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wetmore, Stacy A. ; Neuschatz, Jeffrey S. ; Fessinger, Melanie B. ; Bornstein, Brian H. ; Golding, Jonathan M.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0093-8548</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3594</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0093854820908628</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Capital punishment ; Court decisions ; Credibility ; Decision making ; False arrests &amp; convictions ; Informers ; Instructions to juries ; Jurors ; Legal counsel ; Prisoners ; Reliability ; Respondents</subject><ispartof>Criminal justice and behavior, 2020-05, Vol.47 (5), p.582-600</ispartof><rights>2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-3207cab4ed2919195b57749f7e2e044cb39996c417484216928e0341c792fe573</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-3207cab4ed2919195b57749f7e2e044cb39996c417484216928e0341c792fe573</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5820-3340</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0093854820908628$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093854820908628$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wetmore, Stacy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fessinger, Melanie B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bornstein, Brian H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golding, Jonathan M.</creatorcontrib><title>Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?</title><title>Criminal justice and behavior</title><description>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.</description><subject>Capital punishment</subject><subject>Court decisions</subject><subject>Credibility</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>False arrests &amp; convictions</subject><subject>Informers</subject><subject>Instructions to juries</subject><subject>Jurors</subject><subject>Legal counsel</subject><subject>Prisoners</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Respondents</subject><issn>0093-8548</issn><issn>1552-3594</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1UF1LwzAUDaLgnL77GPC5ms-leZK5Td0YCOKeS5rebhldOpMU8d_bMUUQ5D4cLucLDkLXlNxSqtQdIZrnUuSMaJKPWH6CBlRKlnGpxSkaHOjswJ-jixi3hBAhqRygatriRVc560yD5z6m0NnkWh_x2FXYeTx1MTm_7lzc9IAfIH0AePwKjTNlA9j4Cq98-HkXxjWbtovQh9Vt2Bmf4v0lOqtNE-HqG4do9Th7mzxny5en-WS8zCwnOmWcEWVNKaBimvYnS6mU0LUCBkQIW3Kt9cgKqkQuGB1plgPhglqlWQ1S8SG6OebuQ_veQUzFtu2C7ysLxnPFGBWC9SpyVNnQxhigLvbB7Uz4LCgpDlsWf7fsLdnREs0afkP_1X8B_2ByVw</recordid><startdate>202005</startdate><enddate>202005</enddate><creator>Wetmore, Stacy A.</creator><creator>Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.</creator><creator>Fessinger, Melanie B.</creator><creator>Bornstein, Brian H.</creator><creator>Golding, Jonathan M.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K7.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5820-3340</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202005</creationdate><title>Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?</title><author>Wetmore, Stacy A. ; Neuschatz, Jeffrey S. ; Fessinger, Melanie B. ; Bornstein, Brian H. ; Golding, Jonathan M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c309t-3207cab4ed2919195b57749f7e2e044cb39996c417484216928e0341c792fe573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Capital punishment</topic><topic>Court decisions</topic><topic>Credibility</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>False arrests &amp; convictions</topic><topic>Informers</topic><topic>Instructions to juries</topic><topic>Jurors</topic><topic>Legal counsel</topic><topic>Prisoners</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Respondents</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wetmore, Stacy A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fessinger, Melanie B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bornstein, Brian H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golding, Jonathan M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Criminal justice and behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wetmore, Stacy A.</au><au>Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.</au><au>Fessinger, Melanie B.</au><au>Bornstein, Brian H.</au><au>Golding, Jonathan M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?</atitle><jtitle>Criminal justice and behavior</jtitle><date>2020-05</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>582</spage><epage>600</epage><pages>582-600</pages><issn>0093-8548</issn><eissn>1552-3594</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0093854820908628</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5820-3340</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0093-8548
ispartof Criminal justice and behavior, 2020-05, Vol.47 (5), p.582-600
issn 0093-8548
1552-3594
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2387221442
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List; HeinOnline Law Journal Library
subjects Capital punishment
Court decisions
Credibility
Decision making
False arrests & convictions
Informers
Instructions to juries
Jurors
Legal counsel
Prisoners
Reliability
Respondents
title Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T22%3A51%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Do%20Judicial%20Instructions%20Aid%20in%20Distinguishing%20Between%20Reliable%20and%20Unreliable%20Jailhouse%20Informants?&rft.jtitle=Criminal%20justice%20and%20behavior&rft.au=Wetmore,%20Stacy%20A.&rft.date=2020-05&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=582&rft.epage=600&rft.pages=582-600&rft.issn=0093-8548&rft.eissn=1552-3594&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0093854820908628&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2387221442%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2387221442&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0093854820908628&rfr_iscdi=true