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

Benefit of low-dose tamoxifen in a large observational cohort of high risk ER positive breast DCIS

Lega Italiana per la Lotta contro i Tumori Gruppo Bancario Credito Valtellinese Ministero della Salute Cancer Research UK Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancr

The Effect of Passively Viewing a Consent Campaign Video on Attitudes Toward Rape

© Copyright © 2020 Rowe and Hills. Around 90% of rape victims know their perpetrator, making acquaintance rape the most common form of rape, contradicting societal beliefs. There is ambiguity about the meaning and use of consent in sexual scenarios (Beres, 2007). This study used a mixed methods approach to test the effectiveness of a campaign video aimed at increasing understanding of consent. We assessed whether the video affected rape judgments in vignettes depicting consensual or non-consensual sexual scenarios. We also manipulated whether making consent the primary or secondary question influenced attitudes. Text responses were also obtained to gain an insight into participant reasoning. The campaign showed no increase in rape judgments. Making consent primary in question order did lead to greater accuracy in rape judgment. A content analysis of the free-text responses indicated that the presence of the campaign actually reduced people’s use of consent in explaining why a scenario may represent rape: Instead they focused on the attractiveness of the attacker. These results are discussed in relation to the effectiveness of passively viewing campaign material

The Impact of Fillers on Lineup Performance

Filler siphoning theory posits that the presence of fillers (known innocents) in a lineup protects an innocent suspect from being chosen by siphoning choices away from that innocent suspect. This mechanism has been proposed as an explanation for why simultaneous lineups (viewing all lineup members at once) induces better performance than showups (one-person identification procedures). We implemented filler siphoning in a computational model (WITNESS, Clark, Applied Cognitive Psychology 17:629–654, 2003), and explored the impact of the number of fillers (lineup size) and filler quality on simultaneous and sequential lineups (viewing lineups members in sequence), and compared both to showups. In limited situations, we found that filler siphoning can produce a simultaneous lineup performance advantage, but one that is insufficient in magnitude to explain empirical data. However, the magnitude of the empirical simultaneous lineup advantage can be approximated once criterial variability is added to the model. But this modification works by negatively impacting showups rather than promoting more filler siphoning. In sequential lineups, fillers were found to harm performance. Filler siphoning fails to clarify the relationship between simultaneous lineups and sequential lineups or showups. By incorporating constructs like filler siphoning and criterial variability into a computational model, and trying to approximate empirical data, we can sort through explanations of eyewitness decision-making, a prerequisite for policy recommendations.Charges for publication of this article sponsored by University of Oklahoma Libraries Open Access/Subvention Fund.Ye