Jones Eric E, Bandy Abby D, Palmer Phillip G
Psychology Department, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, USA.
School of Law, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, USA.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2018 Nov 4;26(4):553-570. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2018.1519467. eCollection 2019.
Several high-profile cases involving wrongful convictions have featured factually incorrect confessions (i.e., confessions that contradicted case facts). The current research investigated the effects of factually incorrect confessions on juror judgments. In Experiment 1, participants read a trial transcript, containing either no confession, a factually correct confession, or a factually incorrect confession after a 1-hour or 10-hour interrogation. Afterwards, participants judged the coerciveness of the confession, guilt of the suspect and named accomplice, and strength of the prosecution's case. Experiment 2 used confessions with different factual errors and different interrogation lengths. Participants made the same legal judgments. In both experiments, participants rated a factually incorrect confession as more coerced than a factually correct confession. Participants fully discounted factually incorrect confessions when evaluating a defendant's guilt. However, compared to conditions with no confession, participants perceived a named accomplice as guiltier and the prosecution's case as stronger when the defendant provided a factually incorrect confession.
几起备受瞩目的错判案件都存在与事实不符的供述（即与案件事实相矛盾的供述）。当前的研究调查了与事实不符的供述对陪审员判断的影响。在实验1中，参与者阅读一份审判记录，其中在1小时或10小时的审讯后，要么没有供述，要么有一份与事实相符的供述，要么有一份与事实不符的供述。之后，参与者判断供述的强迫性、嫌疑人及指名共犯的有罪程度以及控方证据的力度。实验2使用了存在不同事实错误和不同审讯时长的供述。参与者做出相同的法律判断。在两个实验中，参与者都认为与事实不符的供述比与事实相符的供述受到了更多的强迫。在评估被告的有罪程度时，参与者完全不考虑与事实不符的供述。然而，与没有供述的情况相比，当被告提供与事实不符的供述时，参与者认为指名共犯更有罪，控方证据更有力。
