Neuschatz Jeffrey S, DeLoach Danielle K, Hillgartner Megan A, Fessinger Melanie B, Wetmore Stacy A, Douglass Amy B, Bornstein Brian H, Le Grand Alexis M
Psychology Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, USA.
Psychology Department, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, USA.
Psychiatr Psychol Law. 2020 Nov 10;28(4):508-530. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1805810. eCollection 2021.
Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors' decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching.
线人是经常为了某种激励而出庭作证的证人（例如狱中告密者、合作证人）。尽管线人的使用很普遍，但对于他们在审判中被使用的相关情况却知之甚少。本研究对22起涉及53名线人的DNA无罪释放案件的审判进行了内容分析。由于这些被告被宣告无罪，控方线人的证词显然是虚假的。对线人的特征进行了编码，包括作证动机、犯罪史、与被告的关系以及证词。大多数线人是控方的狱中告密者；然而，也有辩方的狱中告密者和控方的合作证人。无论线人类型如何，大多数人否认得到了激励，有犯罪史，是被告的朋友/熟人，并且证词存在前后矛盾之处。在结案陈词中，律师们通过强调或质疑线人证词的可靠性来依赖它。本文从真相默认理论（TDT）、基本归因错误和检方担保的角度讨论了线人证词对陪审员决策的影响。
