Citation

Secondary Confession vs. Expert Testimony: What do Jurors believe?

Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Similar Titles



Abstract:

The judicial safeguard of expert testimony, which is to protect against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses, was examined in two experiments. Participants read a trial transcript where an accomplice witness or jailhouse informant testified against the accused. In both experiments some participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results revealed that guilty verdicts did not vary with expert testimony. Participants were significantly more likely to vote guilty when there was a secondary confession. The practical challenges of testimony from cooperating witnesses are discussed in terms of the judicial safeguards.
Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

Association:
Name: American Psychology - Law Society
URL:
http://www.ap-ls.org/


Citation:
URL: http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p398529_index.html
Direct Link:
HTML Code:

MLA Citation:

Wetmore, Stacy., McClung, Joy. and Neuschatz, Jeffrey. "Secondary Confession vs. Expert Testimony: What do Jurors believe?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology - Law Society, Westin Bayshore Hotel, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Mar 18, 2010 <Not Available>. 2014-11-28 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p398529_index.html>

APA Citation:

Wetmore, S. , McClung, J. and Neuschatz, J. , 2010-03-18 "Secondary Confession vs. Expert Testimony: What do Jurors believe?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology - Law Society, Westin Bayshore Hotel, Vancouver, BC, Canada <Not Available>. 2014-11-28 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p398529_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The judicial safeguard of expert testimony, which is to protect against unreliable testimony from cooperating witnesses, was examined in two experiments. Participants read a trial transcript where an accomplice witness or jailhouse informant testified against the accused. In both experiments some participants were exposed to an expert who testified about the unreliable nature of testimony from cooperating witnesses. The results revealed that guilty verdicts did not vary with expert testimony. Participants were significantly more likely to vote guilty when there was a secondary confession. The practical challenges of testimony from cooperating witnesses are discussed in terms of the judicial safeguards.


Similar Titles:
Primary or Secondary Confessions: What do Jurors Believe?

The Effect of Modified Judicial Instructions and Expert Testimony on Jury Perception of Secondary Confessions.

Expert Testimony and Juror Decisions: The Impact of Expert Trustworthiness

Coercion and Confessions: When do Jurors Believe Potentially Unreliable Confessions?


 
All Academic, Inc. is your premier source for research and conference management. Visit our website, www.allacademic.com, to see how we can help you today.