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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Criminal justice and behavior 2020-05, Vol.47 (5), p.582-600 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |