Browsing by Author "Quinlivan, Deah S."
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
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 Knowledge of Factors Affecting Eyewitness Reliability(Florida Southern College, 2022-05) Curran, Breanna; Quinlivan, Deah S.; Blankenship, ChastityResearch has consistently shown that there are contributing factors in the unfair outcome of the justice system, one of which is mistaken eyewitness identification. Eyewitnesses have proven to be unreliable, as seen in the vast amount of wrongful conviction cases. Knowledge of factors that may influence eyewitness identification is crucial in helping to minimize error. We are all connected to the justice system in a way, whether that is a family member in law enforcement, becoming a lawyer, taking part in a jury, etc. The current study tests for the knowledge of eyewitness factors using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered to 294 students across various academic disciplines at a small private southeastern college. Differences in knowledge between college majors, exposure to research, course history, and familial involvement in the criminal justice system were tested for.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.Item The Effect of Post-Identification Feedback Evidence and Peripheral Trial Information on Jury Decision Making(Florida Southern College, 2018-04) Donovan, Peter; Quinlivan, Deah S.Post-Identification Feedback (PIF) is a phenomenon that occurs in the criminal justice system following an identification of a suspect when a lineup administrator gives witnesses information regarding their decision. PIF can impact witnesses’ retrospective judgments about what they saw, such as certainty (Steblay, Wells & Douglass, 2014), making mistaken eyewitnesses appear reliable. PIF is problematic, but it is possible that if jurors are able to recognize and understand the influence PIF has on eyewitness certainty, they can alter the extent to which they use that witness’ testimony in their decision-making. Already, researchers are recommending that jurors be allowed to see videos of eyewitness identification procedures in case PIF has occurred (Kassin, 1998; Steblay, Wells, & Douglass, 2014). However, the authors of this study believe that these videos might create a secondary transfer of certainty; that is, a juror who sees an eyewitness being told they chose the correct person might be more erroneously certain that the eyewitness is correct. To test whether jurors are able to recognize the impact of PIF on an eyewitness, this study utilized a 2 (no feedback vs. feedback) x 2 (no instructions vs. instructions) x 2 (trial type: eyewitness only vs. all info provided) variable design. Participants, who took on the role of mock-juror, were asked to read half of a trial transcript, watch one of two randomly assigned eyewitness identification videos, finish the rest of the trial transcript, and then make verdict decisions and answer questions about their perceptions of the eyewitness.