As Neuschatz, Jones, McClung and Wetmore (n.d.) note, secondary confessions are viewed as “extremely persuasive evidence” (p. 2) even though they are the “leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases” (p. 3). What this shows, nonetheless, is that information acquisition is the most effective of the three recommendations. Knowing where information was acquired and how can be extremely important in the application of research on informant testimony. Secondary confessions are the perfect example of how this is so. They show that just because information sounds legitimate and valid and is quickly and easily embraced by juries, the information itself has to be considered in terms of how it was acquired and what the source of the information is. In any trial whenever there is witness testimony, the credibility of the witness is examined in order to assess the validity of the claims. This is part of the process of examining information acquisition. How was the information acquired? Who acquired it? From where did it come? These questions matter—but they can be overlooked when it comes to receiving informant testimony.
Part of the reason for this is that the very term “informant” is leading and compelling: it gives the information an “authoritative” quality that makes it hard to resist. An informant would never lie—that is the assumption made. Or an informant is taking a great amount of risk upon his shoulders by coming forward—that is another assumption. The reality, however, is that informants typically seek some sort of favor from the prosecution for providing their testimony. They want something in return and the quid pro quo nature of the transaction should not be lost when looking at informant testimony.

This fact is what actually makes information acquisition weakly effective at the same time. Looking at how information was acquired and suspecting a less than selfless motive in the exchange does not negate the fact that in any exchange there is a trade-off. What has to be examined is whether the information is valid. The acquisition process can cloud that issue and it may be used to unnecessarily or unfairly cast doubt on the intentions or character of an informant. Information should be corroborated and in any research a triangulation of data is required for validity to be established. This should be the rule in informant testimony as well. Looking into the process of acquisition can help to bring light to credibility issues, or it may only cloud the matter further and fail to provide evidence one way or another. The acquisition process cannot always be relied upon as...…arrest a higher-up within the mafia organization. The mafia leaders, aware that the person apprehended could give sensitive and damaging information to the police about their activities, make it known to the individual arrested that if he takes the blame for certain crimes and takes the sentence, that he and his family will be looked after by them. The alternative, of course, would be that if he gives the police information about them, they will hunt him down, hurt his family and kill him if they ever find him. He would have to enter into witness protection and never be allowed to see anyone from his old life ever again. Thus, this person decides to make a voluntary false confession to the police without the police ever doing anything to coerce it from the person. They may not even want his confession because it blocks their ability to tie these crimes to the more powerful figures in the mafia. Not every confession has to be accepted and the person can be charged for obstructing justice in these cases if the police can show that the confession made is false. It does put more work on investigators, however, and that could be one reason they do not pursue the matter beyond the confession.