Abstract
The present study examined the presence of a jailhouse informant (JI) on mock jurors’ perceptions of a sexual assault trial. In two experiments, male and female, jury-eligible community members (recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk) read (via Qualtrics) a fictional trial summary in which a defendant sexually assaulted a 6-year-old child or 25-year-old. The prosecution’s case included a JI who testified that the defendant told him about committing the assault or the case excluded JI testimony. It was predicted that the presence of JI testimony, younger victims, and female participants would lead to more pro-victim judgments (e.g., more guilty verdicts). In addition, it was predicted that victim credibility would mediate the relationship between JI testimony and pro-victim judgments. Experiment 1 (N = 278, 57.5% female, 42.5% male) presented a trial with a female victim, whereas experiment 2 (N = 158, 53% female and 47% male) presented a trial with a male victim. Primary results found that participants were more pro-victim when there was a JI versus no JI, and that there was significant mediation via victim credibility. Implications and potential dangers of presenting JI testimony in sexual assault cases are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alfonsi S (2017) Snitches. In 60 Minutes. New York: CBS
Angelone D, Mitchell D, Grossi L (2015) Men’s perceptions of an acquaintance rape: the role of relationship length, victim resistance, and gender role attitudes. J Interpers Violence 30:2278–2303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514552448
Black K, Gold A (2003) Men’s and women’s reactions to hypothetical sexual advances: the role of initiator socioeconomic status and level of coercion. Sex Roles 49:173–178. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024465031627
Bornstein BH, Kaplan DL, Perry AR (2007) Child abuse in the eyes of the beholder: lay perceptions of child sexual and physical abuse. Child Abuse Negl 31:375–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.007
Bottoms BL (1993) Individual differences in perceptions of child sexual assault victims. In Goodman GS, Bottoms B (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses (pp. 229–261). NY: Guilford.
Bottoms BL, Golding JM, Stevenson MC, Wiley TRA, Yozwiak JA (2007) A review of factors affecting jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse cases. In: Read JD, Ross D, Toglia M, Lindsay R (eds) The psychology of eyewitness memory. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 509–543
Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6:3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Cooper WS (1999) Kentucky instruction to juries. Cincinnati: Anderson
Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BB, Seying R, Pryce J (2001) Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol Public Policy Law 7:622–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
Dunlap EE, Golding JM, Hodell EC, Marsil DF (2007) Perceptions of elder physical abuse in the courtroom: the influence of hearsay witness testimony. JEAN 19:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1300/J084v19n03_02
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using GPower 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Federal rules of evidence (2019) Federalevidence.com. Retrieved 1 December 2018.
Finkel NJ, Meister KH, Lightfoot DM (1991) The self-defense defense and community sentiment. Law Hum Behav 15:585–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065854
Golding JM, Sanchez RP, Sego SA (1997) The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial. Law Hum Behav 21:299–325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024842816130
Golding JM, Alexander MC, Stewart TL (1999) The effect of hearsay witness age in a child sexual assault trial. Psychol Public Policy Law 5:420–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.2.420
Golding JM, Bradshaw GS, Bradshaw EE, Hodell EC (2007) The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial. CM 12:182–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559506298995
Golding JM, Dunlap EE, Hodell EC (2009) Jurors’ perceptions of children’s eyewitness testimony. In: Bottoms BL, Najdowski CJ, Goodman GS (eds) Children as victims, witnesses, and offenders: psychological science and the law. Guilford Press, New York, pp 188–208
Golding JM, Lynch KR, Wasarhaley NE, Keller P (2015a) Courtroom perceptions of child sexual assault: The impact of an eyewitness. Crim Justice Behav 42:763–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814568552
Golding JM, Wasarhaley NE, Lynch KR, Lippert A, Magyarics CL (2015b) Improving the credibility of child sexual assault victims in court: the impact of a sexual assault nurse examiner. Behav Sci Law 33:493–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2188
Golding JM, Lynch KR, Wasarhaley NE (2016) Impeaching rape victims incriminal court: does concurrent civil action hurt justice? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31:3129–3149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515584342
Gosling SD, Vazire S, Srivastava S, John OP (2004) Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am Psychol 59:93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93
Gravelin CR, Biernat M, Bucher CE (2019) Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Front Psychol 9:1–22. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422
Hammond EM, Berry MA, Rodriguez DN (2011) The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Leg Criminol Psychol 16:242–252. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532510X499887
Jahnke S, Imhoff R, Hoyer J (2015) Stigmatization of people with pedophilia: Two comparative surveys. Arch Sex Behav 44:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0312-4
Lynch KR, Wasarhaley NE, Golding JM, Simcic T (2013) Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 28:3205–3022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513496900
Maeder EM, Pica E (2014) Secondary confessions: The influence (or lackthereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors’ perceptions of informant testimony. Law Hum Behav 38:560–568. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000106
Maeder EM, Yamamoto S (2017) Attributions in the courtroom: The influence of race, incentive, and witness type on jurors’ perceptions of secondary confessions. Psychol Crime Law 23:361–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000106
Magyarics CL, Lynch KR, Golding JM, Lippert A (2015) The impact of frequency of behavior and type of contact on judgments involving a criminal stalking case. Law Hum Behav 39(6):602–613
Malik SE, Golding JM, Lippert A (2018) The impact of a defendant not testifying in a child sexual assault case. Am J Forensic Psychol 36:5–29
McKimmie BM, Masser BM, Bongiorno R (2014) What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 29:2273–2203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513518843
Myers JEB, Redlich AD, Goodman GS, Prizmich LP, Imwinkelried E (1999) Jurors’ perceptions of hearsay in child sexual abuse cases. Psychol Public Policy Law 5:388–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.5.2.388
Natapoff A (2009) Snitching: criminal informants and the erosion of American justice. New York University Press, New York
Neuschatz JS, Lawson D, Swanner J, Meissner C, Neuschatz J (2008) The effects of accomplice witness and jailhouse informants on jury decision making. Law Hum Behav 32:137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9100-1
Neuschatz J, Wilkinson M, Goodsell C, Wetmore S, Quinlivan L, Jones N (2012) Secondary confessions, expert testimony, and unreliable testimony. J Police Crim Psychol 27:179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-012-9102-x
Nightingale NN (1993) Juror reactions to child victim witnesses: factors affecting trial outcome. Law Hum Behav 17:679–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044689
Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N (2009) Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
Pennington N, Hastie R (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 62:189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2004) SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 36:717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553
Roth JA (2016) Informant witnesses and the risk of wrongful convictions. Am Crim L Rev 53:737–797
Schvaneveldt RW (1990) Proximities, networks, and schemata. In: RW Schvaneveldt (Ed.), Ablex series in computational sciences. Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, pp 135–148
Stevenson MC, Bottoms BL, Diamond SS (2010) Understanding jurors’ discussions of a defendant’s history of child abuse and alcohol abuse in capital sentencing deliberations. Psychol Public Policy Law 16:1–38. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018404
Swanner JK, Beike DR (2010) Incentives increase the rate of false but not true secondary confessions from informants with an allegiance to a suspect. Law Hum Behav 34:418–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9212-x
Swanner JK, Beike DR, Cole AT (2010) Snitching, lies, and computer crashes: an experimental investigation of secondary confessions. Law Hum Behav 34:53–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9173-5
Timnick L (1987) McMartin case judge calls informant story ‘damning’. L.A. Times. Retrieved from: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-25-me-16470-story.html
Truman JL, Morgan RE (2014) Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2012. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Justice (2018) Criminal Victimization, 2017 (Report no: NCJ 252472). Retrieved from: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf
VanderPyl T (2019) “I want to have the American Dream”: messages of materialism as a driving force in juvenile recidivism. Crim Justice Behav 46:718–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819826235
Wasarhaley NE, Simcic TA, Golding JM (2012) Mock juror perception of sexual assault nurse examiner testimony. Violence Vict 27(4):500–511. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.27.4.500
Wenger AA, Bornstein BH (2006) The effects of substance use and relationship closeness on mock jurors’ judgments in a sexual assault case. Sex Roles 54:547–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9014-2
Wetmore SA, Neuschatz JS, Gronlund SD (2014) On the power of secondary confession evidence. Psychol Crime Law 20:339–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2013.777963
Wetmore SA, Neuschatz JS, Fessinger MB, Bornstein BH, Golding JG (2020) Do judicial instructions aid in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable jailhouse informants? Crim Justice Behav 47:582–600
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Golding, J.M., Neuschatz, J.S., Bornstein, B.H. et al. The Perception of a Jailhouse Informant in a Sexual Assault Case. J Police Crim Psych 38, 281–292 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09400-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09400-3