Wrongful Convictions

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 infallible. As Lassiter, Ware, Ratcliff and Irvin (2009), the camera bias has to be considered, for example, when interrogations are discussed. Acquisition is essential to understanding credibility.

In spite of this weakness, information acquisition is still the best recommendation in terms of application of research on informant testimony because it helps to establish a chain of custody in terms of how the information first appeared, who held it, for how long, and what was done with the information.

This chain of custody can be useful in showing how the information traveled from point A to point B and to any other points along the way, how long it was in the hands of certain authorities, and whether anything was done with that information to verify it. To assess informant testimony, however, engaging in information acquisition can be a major help in determining where issues of validity and credibility might be. 2 An individual can falsely confess to a crime in numerous ways.

The individual may feel that he is indeed responsible for the crime in some way even though he had nothing to do with it. He may have a sense of guilt for some other crime that is so overwhelming that he wants to confess to the crime that he is charged with even though he did not actually commit that one. He may feel so guilty about something else that he wants to be punished and accepts blame even though it is not really his to take.

He may confess in order to protect someone else, as is often done in the case of crimes committed by a more powerful person who is shielded by someone further down the totem pole willing to sacrifice himself and take the blame so that the other may go free. There are numerous ways in which a person might falsely confess to a crime—and none of them have to be committed under duress. However, some interrogation techniques can lead to false confessions, and torture is one of them.

Whenever a prisoner is held for questioning, if the interviewer puts the prisoner under duress in order to obtain a confession that confession will not seem credible in the court of law: the reason is that a person might say anything under duress just to get out of the situation that is causing the duress. When a person is coerced into signing a confession it is the same deal: that person’s confession cannot be taken as credible for numerous reasons.

Perhaps the person was promised that someone else would be protected if he confessed. Perhaps the person was threatened with even more charges if he did not confess to the one charge. Perhaps the person was emotionally abused and made to suffer some sort of psychological trauma or maltreatment while in prison that induce him into signing a confession.

Perhaps the person was led into confessing by a skilled interrogator who put the words and ideas into the mind of the person and led the person along into making a confession that the person never actually intended to make. These are the other ways that a false confession can be obtained from an interrogator.

The interrogator can put a motive into the mind of the person and use that as a wedge to pry on the words of the person until the person is overwhelmed and shattered and makes a confession out of fear and a sense of isolation. A voluntary false confession is a confession that is made freely by the confessor for a crime that the confessor did not commit.

An example of this happening might be in the case of a person who works for or is an underling in a mafia racket. The police have apprehended the person and want that person to give information that they can use to arrest a higher-up within the mafia organization. The mafia leaders, aware that the person apprehended could give sensitive and.