On the Power of Confession Evidence: An Experimental Test of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis
Tóm tắt
In Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), a U.S. Supreme Court majority stated that confessions are similar to, not fundamentally different from, other types of evidence. To evaluate this claim, three mock juror studies compared the impact of confessions to other common forms of evidence. In Experiment 1, participants read summaries of four criminal trials (murder, rape, assault, theft), each of which contained a confession, an eyewitness identification, character testimony, or none of the above. Significantly, the confessions produced the highest conviction rates. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants read a murder or assault trial containing all three types of evidence and made a series of midtrial judgments. Results indicated that the confession was seen as the most incriminating, followed by the eyewitness and character testimony. Although the comparisons we made are limited in certain respects, our findings suggest that confessions are uniquely potent.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Arizona v. Fulminante, 59 U.S.L.W. 4235 (1991).
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967).
Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 (1961).
Dane, F. C., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1982). Effects of defendants' and victims' characteristics on jurors' verdicts. In N. Kerr & R. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 83–115). New York: Academic Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Giannelli, P. C., & Imwinkelried, E. J. (1993). Scientific evidence (2nd ed.). Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision-making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67–78.
Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 193–207.
Hans, V., & Doob, A. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235–253.
Kagehiro, D. K. (1990). Defining the standards of proof in jury instructions. Psychological Science, 1, 194–200.
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W., & Israel, J. (1994). Modern criminal procedure (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Kaplan, M. (1985). Character testimony. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 150–174). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.
Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089–1098.
Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: Timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. Kassin and L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedures (pp. 67–94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kerr, N. L. (1981). Social transition schemes: Charting the group's road to agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 684–702.
Leippe, M. (1995). The case for expert testimony about eyewitness memory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 909–959.
Loftus, E. F. (1974). Reconstructing memory: The incredible eyewitness. Psychology Today, December, pp. 117–119.
McCormick, C. T. (1983). Handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Mueller, C. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1995). Modern evidence: Doctrine and practice. Boston: Little, Brown.
Ogletree, C. J. (1991). Arizona v. Fulminante: The harm of applying harmless error to coerced confessions. Harvard Law Review, 105, 152–175.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. NY: Springer-Verlag.
Ross, D. F., Read, J. D., & Toglia, M. P. (Eds.), (1994). Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (1995). First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 175–195.
Sporer, S. L., Malpass, R. S., & Koehnken, G. (Eds.) (1996). Psychological issues in eyewitness identification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Biases in trials involving defendants charged with multiple offenses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 453–480.
Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eyewitness identification? American Psychologist, 48, 553–571.
Wigmore, J. H. (1970). Evidence (Vol. 3). (Revised by J. H. Chadbourn). Boston: Little, Brown.
Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48.
Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park: Sage.