Browsing by Author "Neuschatz, Jeffrey S."
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Beliefs about secondary confession evidence: a survey of laypeople and defense attorneys(Taylor & Francis, 2018) Key, Kylie N.; Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.; Bornstein, Brian H.; Wetmore, Stacy A.; Luecht, Katie M.; Dellapaolera, Kimberly S.; Quinlivan, Deah S.We surveyed students, community members, and defense attorneys regarding beliefs about secondary confession evidence (i.e. when a third party tells authorities that a person has confessed to him or her) from jailhouse informants and other sources. Results indicated that laypeople perceive secondary confessions as less credible than other types of evidence (e.g. forensics, DNA, eyewitness testimony), and they are knowledgeable about factors that may influence the veracity of secondary confessions, such as incentives or previous testimony. However, they underestimated or were uncertain about how persuasive secondary confessions would be to themselves or other jurors. Compared to laypeople, defense attorneys were more sensitive about issues affecting the reliability of secondary confessions.Item The Effects of Pre-admonition Suggestions on Eyewitnesses’ Choosing Rates and Retrospective Identification Judgments(Springer, 2017) Quinlivan, Deah S.; Wells, Gary L.; Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.; Luecht, Katherine M.; Cash, Daniella K.; Key, Kylie N.Pre-admonition suggestion is an identification-relevant comment made to an eyewitness by a lineup administrator before the lineup admonition. Quinlivan et al. (2012) found that their suggestion inflated mistaken identification rates and retrospective identification. However, the suggestion used was a compound statement, making it unclear which component influenced choosing rates. The current experiment was conducted to parse out the effects. Participants (N = 211) viewed a crime video and received either one component of the compound suggestion (a suggestion to pick or that the witness had paid substantial attention), both components, or no suggestion. All participants received an admonition, made an identification choice, and answered questions about their witnessing experience. The results demonstrated that the pick suggestion increased mistaken identifications from a perpetrator-absent lineup whereas the effects of the attention suggestion were restricted to the retrospective judgments. These results show support for the role of secondary (non-memorial) processes in eyewitness identification.Item Secondary Confessions, Expert Testimony, and Unreliable Testimony(Springer US, 2012-10) Neuschatz, Jeffrey S.; Wilkinson, Miranda L.; Goodsell, Charles A.; Wetmore, Stacy A.; Quinlivan, Deah S.; Jones, Nicholaos J.Two experiments examined two potential safeguards intended to protect accused persons against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses. Participants in both experiments read a trial transcript where secondary confession evidence was presented from either a jailhouse informant (Experiment 1 and 2) or an accomplice witness (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, testimony history was manipulated so that participants were informed that the jailhouse informant had testified as an informant in 0, 5, or 20 previous cases. In Experiment 2, participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results of both experiments demonstrated that participants who were exposed to secondary confession evidence were significantly more likely to vote guilty than were participants in the no secondary confession control group. Contrary to expectations, the percentage of guilty verdicts did not vary with incentive, testimony history, or expert testimony. Explanations for these results are discussed, as are the practical challenges of using testimony from cooperating witnesses.