The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony

Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors’ decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching

The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony

Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors’ decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching

A Snitching Enterprise: the Role of Evidence and Incentives on Providing False Secondary Confessions

Jailhouse informants are thought to be one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. The current studies examined community members’ (E1: N = 99; E2: N = 289) willingness to provide false testimony as a jailhouse informant. In E1, participants were all presented a first offer (1-year sentence reduction) to testify as a jailhouse informant. Those who declined were presented up to three additional offers (four total): a complete reduction in fines, total immunity, and financial support in exchange for testimony. In E2, participants were presented with one of two offers (levels 1 or 4). Notably, 27% (E1) and 17% (E2) of participants were willing to falsely testify against another inmate. Willing participants rated themselves as overall less credible and more interested in serving their own interests than unwilling participants. In addition, cognitive networks of participants’ decision-making revealed that participants were motivated primarily by self-interest. These findings provide novel insight into the decision-making of jailhouse informants and are discussed in terms of legal implications

The Influence of Jailhouse Informant Testimony on Jury Deliberation

This study investigated the impact of jailhouse informant testimony on mock juries. In addition to allowing for jury deliberations, individual judgments (as measured in most prior research) were examined. Two hundred ninety-one undergraduates, in five to six-member mock juries, heard a fictional murder trial summary in one of three conditions: jailhouse informant testified after receiving an incentive, jailhouse informant testified after receiving no incentive, or no jailhouse informant testimony. Participants made predeliberation judgments, deliberated on a verdict, and made postdeliberation judgments. The primary results showed that there were more guilty verdicts for juries that heard jailhouseinformant testimony than for those that did not hear such testimony. This relationship was fully mediated by perceptions of the defendant (e.g., sympathy for and credibility of). In addition, jury deliberations often produced a change in verdict; those who gave an initial guilty verdict were more likely to switch to not guilty after deliberation. Finally, cognitive network analyses showed that jailhouse informant testimony was the focus of jury deliberations for both guilty (viewed the testimony as reliable) and not guilty (viewed the testimony as unreliable) verdicts. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of how jailhouse informant testimony can influence jury deliberations in both a positive and negative way