Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Publication
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The New Rules For Admissibility Of Expert Testimony: Part Ii, Robert Sanger
The New Rules For Admissibility Of Expert Testimony: Part Ii, Robert Sanger
Robert M. Sanger
As described in the last Criminal Justice column for the Santa Barbara Lawyer magazine, the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Sargon Enterprises v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal. 4th 747, 149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614 (2012) made it clear that California is now, (and perhaps unsuspectingly has been for some time), a Daubert jurisdiction. This requires the trial court be the “gatekeeper” and make a determination as to the admissibility of scientific or expert testimony and to determine the limits of any testimony, if it is introduced. The Court held that there are essentially three criteria: The first criterion …
What Do Potential Jurors Know About Police Interrogation Techniques And False Confessions?, Richard Leo, Brittany Liu
What Do Potential Jurors Know About Police Interrogation Techniques And False Confessions?, Richard Leo, Brittany Liu
Richard A. Leo
Psychological police interrogation methods in America inevitably involve some level of pressure and persuasion to achieve their goal of eliciting confessions of guilt from custodial suspects. In this article, we surveyed potential jurors about their perceptions of a range of psychological interrogation techniques, the likelihood that such techniques would elicit a true confession from guilty suspects and the likelihood that such techniques could elicit a false confession from innocent suspects. Participants recognized that these interrogation techniques may be psychologically coercive and may elicit true confessions, but that psychologically coercive interrogation techniques are not likely to elicit false confessions. The findings …
Jurors Believe Interrogation Tactics Are Not Likely To Elicit False Confessions: Will Expert Witness Testimony Inform Them Otherwise?, Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Kathryn Sperry, Richard Leo
Jurors Believe Interrogation Tactics Are Not Likely To Elicit False Confessions: Will Expert Witness Testimony Inform Them Otherwise?, Iris Blandon-Gitlin, Kathryn Sperry, Richard Leo
Richard A. Leo
Situational factors – in the form of interrogation tactics – have been reported to unduly influence innocent suspects to confess. This study assessed jurors’ perceptions of these factors and tested whether expert witness testimony on confessions informs jury decision-making. In Study 1, jurors rated interrogation tactics on their level of coerciveness and likelihood that each would elicit true and false confessions. Most jurors perceived interrogation tactics to be coercive and likely to elicit confessions from guilty, but not from innocent suspects. This result motivated Study 2 in which an actual case involving a disputed confession was used to assess the …