Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors?

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 151-157

  Wallace, D B ^a   Kassin, Saul M ^a  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

confessions; fulminante; harmless error; judges

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED STATES;

COERCION; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; QUESTIONNAIRES; SUPREME COURT DECISIONS; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84865597180     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/h0093975     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Appleby, S., Hasel, L., Shlosberg, A., & Kassin, S. (2009). False confessions: A content analysis. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society, San Antonio, TX. Arizona v. Fulminante, 11 S. Ct. 1246 (1991).
2. Bilaisis, V. (1983). Harmless error: Abettor of courtroom misconduct. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 74, 457-475. doi:10.2307/1143084 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). (Pubitemid 14244872)
3. Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., & Peron, A. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74-78. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 (Pubitemid 43061287)
4. Elaad, E., Ginton, A., & Ben-Shakhar, G. (1994). The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 279-292.
5. Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051-1119.
6. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
7. Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122-126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x
8. Hirsch, A. (2007). Confessions and harmless error: A new argument for the old approach. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 12, 1.
9. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Freeman.
10. Kamisar, Y. (1995). On the "fruits" at Miranda violations, coerced confessions, and compelled testimony. Michigan Law Review, 93, 979-1010. doi:10.2307/1289987
11. Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the doctrine of harmless error: Myths and misconceptions. Division 41 Presidential Address presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto.
12. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the 'harmless error' rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27-46. doi:10.1023/A:1024814009769 (Pubitemid 27084158)
13. Lassiter, G. D., Diamond, S. S., Schmidt, H. C., & Elek, J. K. (2007). Evaluating videotaped confessions: Expertise provides no defense against the camera-perspective effect. Psychological Science, 18, 224-226. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01879.x
14. Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27, 381-399. doi:10.1002/bsl.872
15. Mueller, C. B., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1995). Modem evidence. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
16. Newcombe, R. G., & Altman, D. G. (2000). Proportions and their differences. In D. G. Altman, D. Machin, T. N. Bryant, &M. J. Gardner (Eds.), Statistics with confidence (2nd ed., pp. 45-56). London: BMJ Books.
17. Ogletree, C. J. (1991). Arizona v. Fulminante: The harm of applying harmless error to coerced confessions. Harvard Law Review, 105, 152-175.
18. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 174-221. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
19. Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2005). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251-1345. doi:10.2307/4150614 (Pubitemid 40746974)