Although participants were overall more likely to render a verdict in line with the DNA evidence, the authors also observed that perceptions of culpability and the proportion of guilty verdicts rose significantly when the prosecution presented a theory to explain the contradicting exculpatory DNA evidence (e.g., the DNA evidence only indicated that the defendant had not ejaculated).
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://insigniaenvironmental.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/expert_medium.jpg)
#EXPERT TESTIMONY SERIES#
Furthermore, Appleby and Kassin (2016) conducted a series of jury studies involving conflicting DNA and confession evidence. Even then, there are plenty of anecdotal instances in which law enforcement officials have ignored exculpatory DNA evidence in investigations when the suspect has confessed (e.g., the Central Park jogger case, Juan Rivera, the Norfolk Four Duru, 2003 Leo and Davis, 2010). (2008) demonstrated that among several types of evidence, the only type that participants perceived as more persuasive than a suspect’s confession was DNA analysis. However, in a criminal trial, a defendant’s confession is one of the most influential forms of evidence that the prosecution can present ( Kassin and Neumann, 1997 Lieberman et al., 2008 Schweitzer and Nuñez, 2018). Confession EvidenceĮmpirical research has demonstrated that individuals may falsely confess to crimes that they did not commit (e.g., Kassin and Kiechel, 1996 Redlich et al., 2010) for a variety of reasons, including coercive interrogation tactics ( Kassin et al., 2003 King and Snook, 2009). The current study examines the interactive effects of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions. In a case in which a defendant has recanted their confession, the watchdog hypothesis would suggest that jurors may be more receptive to expert testimony (regarding factors that increase the likelihood of false confessions) when the defendant is Black, resulting in fewer guilty verdicts. These authors argued that White jurors may attend to evidence more closely when the defendant is Black in an effort to serve as “watchdogs” against racism (termed the watchdog hypothesis).
#EXPERT TESTIMONY TRIAL#
However, Sargent and Bradfield (2004) found that White mock jurors were more sensitive to legally relevant evidence in a trial transcript when the defendant was Black as compared to White. Most research focusing on the interaction between juror and defendant race has found that jurors are more lenient toward same-race defendants (see Devine and Caughlin, 2014). Further, jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions may depend upon the suspect’s race, as jurors perceive confessions as more voluntary when the defendant belongs to a racial minority ( Pickel et al., 2013). Although expert witnesses are sometimes used to safeguard against issues with confession evidence, the effect of expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions is unclear ( Moffa and Platania, 2007 Blandon-Gitlin et al., 2011). However, confessions remain one of the most influential forms of evidence in the courtroom ( Kassin and Neumann, 1997 Lieberman et al., 2008). According to the Innocence Project (2021), false confessions 1 were involved in approximately a quarter of the cases that have been exonerated through DNA evidence.
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5628ee3ee4b056cf2182763d/1596044969480-9RYBDMTPRF0KOTMHBCLE/Expert-Testimony--Preparing-in-Advance-and-Analyzing-it-Afterward.jpg)
These findings support the watchdog hypothesis, such that White jurors are more receptive to legally relevant evidence when the defendant is Black.Įmpirical research indicates that suspects falsely confess to crimes for a variety of reasons ( Kassin and Kiechel, 1996 King and Snook, 2009).
![expert testimony expert testimony](https://www.vocexpertservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Expert-Testimony-Image.jpg)
When the defendant was White, there was no significant effect of expert testimony, but when the defendant was Black, jurors were significantly more likely to acquit when given expert testimony. When exclusively examining White participants, we observed a significant interaction between expert testimony and defendant race on verdicts.
#EXPERT TESTIMONY FULL#
When examining the full sample, we observed no significant main effects or interactions of defendant race or expert testimony. They provided verdicts and answered questions regarding the confession and expert testimony. Participants (591 jury-eligible community members) read a first-degree murder trial transcript in which defendant race (Black/White) and expert testimony (present/absent) were manipulated. We examined the effect of defendant race and expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of recanted confessions.