Lost proof of innocence: The impact of confessions on alibi witnesses

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 65-71

  Marion, Stéphanie B ^a   Kukucka, Jeff ^b   Collins, Carisa ^c   Kassin, Saul M ^c   Burke, Tara M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Canada)

^b TOWSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

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

Author keywords

Alibi witness; False confessions; Psychology and law; Wrongful convictions

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DECEPTION; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMAN; MALE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DECEPTION; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMANS; MALE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84956594162     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000156     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2006). See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 612-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.612
2. Balcetis, E., & Dunning, D. (2010). Wishful seeing: More desired objects are seen as closer. Psychological Science, 21, 147-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797609356283
3. Blandón-Gitlin, I., Sperry, K., & Leo, R. A. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise? Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 239-260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160903113699
4. Charman, S. D., Gregory, A. H., & Carlucci, M. (2009). Exploring the diagnostic utility of facial composites: Beliefs of guilt can bias perceived similarity between composite and suspect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 76-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014682
5. Dror, I. E., & Hampikian, G. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51, 204-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
6. Dysart, J. E., & Strange, D. (2012). Beliefs about alibis and alibi investigations: A survey of law enforcement. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 11-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.562867
7. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960070405
8. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
9. Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533-543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.885
10. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674060982
11. Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21
12. Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009). On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications? Psychological Science, 20, 122-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x
13. Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. A. J., & Dailey, E. M. (2008). A survey of people's attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 555-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.826
14. Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., Jolly, K. W., Chavez, R. M., & Shaw, L. H. (2011). Effects of an alibi witness's relationship to the defendant on mock jurors' judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 127-142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9225-5
15. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York, NY: WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.
16. Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431-445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028212
17. Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science, 23, 41-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611422918
18. Kassin, S. M., Dror, I., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 42-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001
19. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490
20. 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814009769
21. Kukucka, J., & Kassin, S. M. (2014). Do confessions taint perceptions of handwriting evidence? An empirical test of the forensic confirmation bias. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 256-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000066
22. Lange, N. D., Thomas, R. P., Dana, J., & Dawes, R. M. (2011). Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 178-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4
23. Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 381-399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.872
24. Marion, S. B., & Burke, T. M. (2013). False alibi corroboration: Witnesses lie for suspects who seem innocent, whether they like them or not. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 136-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000021
25. Olson, E. A., & Wells, G. L. (2004). What makes a good alibi? A proposed taxonomy. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 157-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022320.47112.d3
26. Radel, R., & Clément-Guillotin, C. (2012). Evidence of motivational influences in early visual perception: Hunger modulates conscious access. Psychological Science, 23, 232-234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611427920
27. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
28. Saks, M. J., Risinger, D. M., Rosenthal, R., & Thompson, W. C. (2003). Context effects in forensic science: A review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States. Science & Justice, 43, 77-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(03)71747-X
29. Skagerberg, E. M. (2007). Co-witness feedback in line-ups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 489-497. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1285
30. Wallace, D. B., & Kassin, S. M. (2012). Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors? Law and Human Behavior, 36, 151-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0093975
31. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025750605807