"Why believe an unreliable jailhouse informant? : the role of prosecuto" by Libbi A. Geoghagan

Date of Award

2025

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Psychology

Committee Chair

Jeffrey Neuschatz

Committee Member

Jonathan Golding

Committee Member

Jodi Price

Research Advisor

Jeffrey Neuschatz

Abstract

The present study asked jurors to explain why they believe jailhouse informant (JI) testimony, and investigated the role of prosecutorial vouching (i.e., the assumption that any witness called by the prosecution is credible) in jurors’ decision-making. A total of 89 juryeligible participants read a trial summary in which the JI was either absent, reliable (i.e., testified to consistent and accurate crime facts), or unreliable (i.e., accurate facts during trial, but inaccurate facts in initial statement). Primary results were that (a) in open-ended responses, participants assumed that the prosecution would not allow a dishonest or uncredible JI to testify (i.e., prosecutorial vouching), (b) the unreliable JI reduced conviction rates (vs the reliable JI), but these rates were still higher than the no-JI condition, and (c) in open-ended responses, participants across reliability conditions believed the JI because of details in the JI’s testimony, despite acknowledging the unreliable JI’s inconsistencies.

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.