Alcohol-intoxicated suspects’ confessions are admissible in U.S. courts; however, it is unknown how jurors evaluate such confessions. Study 1 assessed potential jurors’ perceptions of intoxication in interrogative contexts. Many respondents were unaware that questioning intoxicated suspects and presenting subsequent confessions in court are legal, and respondents generally reported they would rely less on intoxicated than sober confessions. In Study 2, potential jurors read a case about a defendant who had confessed or not while sober or intoxicated. Participants who read about an intoxicated defendant perceived the interrogation as more inappropriate and the defendant as more cognitively impaired than did participants who read about a sober defendant, and as a result, they were less likely to convict. Furthermore, intoxicated confessions influenced conviction decisions to a lesser extent than did sober confessions. Findings suggest that investigators might consider abstaining from interrogating intoxicated suspects or else risk jurors finding confessions unconvincing in court.
BornsteinB. H.GoldingJ. M.NeuschatzJ.KimbroughC.ReedK.MagyaricsC.LuechtK. (2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law & Human Behavior, 41, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
3.
ChenH.CohenP.ChenS. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation®, 39, 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610911003650383
4.
EvansJ. R.Schreiber CompoN. (2010). Mock jurors’ perceptions of identification made by intoxicated witnesses. Psychology, Crime & Law, 16, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802612890
5.
EvansJ. R.Schreiber CompoN.CarolR. N.Nichols-LopzK.HolnessH.FurtonK. G. (2019). The impact of alcohol intoxication on witness suggestibility immediately and after a delay. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3502
6.
EvansJ. R.Schreiber CompoN.RussanoM. B. (2009). Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 15, 194–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016837
7.
GawronskiB. (2004). Theory-based bias correction in dispositional inference: The fundamental attribution error is dead, long live the correspondence bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 15, 183–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280440000026
8.
GawrylowiczJ.RidleyA. M.AlberyI. P.BarnothE.YoungJ. (2017). Alcohol-induced retrograde facilitation renders witnesses of crime less suggestible to misinformation. Psychopharmacology, 234, 1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-017-4564-2
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 217–264). Information Age.
11.
HenkelL. A.CoffmanK. A.DaileyE. M. (2008). A survey of people’s attitudes and beliefs about false confessions. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 555–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.826
12.
JanssenS. M. J.AnneM. (2019). And one more for the road: Commentary on the special issue on alcohol and eyewitness memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33, 456–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3562
KassinS. M.NeumannK. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490
17.
KassinS. M.SukelH. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814009769
LecciL.MyersB. (2008). Individual difference in attitudes relevant to juror decision making: Development and validation of the Pretrial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2010–2038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00378.x
20.
MalloyL. C.ShulmanE. P.CauffmanE. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law & Human Behavior, 38, 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000065
MindthoffA.EvansJ. R.PerezG.WoestehoffS. A.OlaguezA. P.KlemfussJ. Z.NormileC. J.ScherrK. C.CarlucciM. E.CarolR. N.MeissnerC. A.MichaelS. W.RussanoM. B.StocksE. L.VallanoJ. P.WoodyW. D. (2018). A survey of potential jurors’ perceptions of interrogations and confessions. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 24, 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000182
23.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.).
24.
NajdowskiC. J.BottomsB. L. (2012). Understanding jurors’ judgments in cases involving juvenile defendants: Effects of confession evidence and intellectual disability. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 18, 297–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025786
25.
NajdowskiC. J.BottomsB. L.VargasM. C. (2009). Jurors’ perceptions of juvenile defendants: The influence of intellectual disability, abuse history, and confession evidence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 401–430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.873
26.
PampelF. C. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer (Vol. 132). SAGE.
27.
ParkerE. S.BirnbaumI. M.WeingartnerH.HartleyJ. T.StillmanR. C.WyattR. J. (1980). Retrograde enhancement of human memory with alcohol. Psychopharmacology, 69, 219–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00427653
28.
RedlichA. D.SilvermanM.ChenJ.SteinerH. (2004). The police interrogation of children and adolescents. In LassiterG. D. (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 107–125). Kluwer Academic.
29.
Sanchez v. Hartley, No. 14-1385 (10th Cir. 2016).
30.
SanttilaP.EkholmM.NiemiP. (1999). The effects of alcohol on interrogative suggestibility: The role of state-anxiety and mood states as mediating factors. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 4, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532599167707
31.
Schreiber CompoN.EvansJ. R.CarolR. N.VillalbaD.HamL. S.GarciaT.RoseS. (2012). Intoxicated eyewitnesses: Better than their reputation?Law & Human Behavior, 36, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093951
32.
SigurdssonJ. F.GudjonssonG. H. (1994). Alcohol and drug intoxication during police interrogation and the reasons why suspects confess to the police. Addiction, 89, 985–997. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1994.tb03358.x
Van OorsouwK.MerckelbachH.SmeetsT. (2015). Alcohol intoxication impairs memory and increases suggestibility for a mock crime: A field study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3129
37.
ViljoenJ. L.KlaverJ.RoeschR. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communications with attorneys, and appeals. Law & Human Behavior, 29, 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2
38.
WeinerB. (2018). The legacy of an attribution approach to motivation and emotion: A no-crisis zone. Motivation Science, 4, 4–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000082
39.
WeissK. (2003). Confessions and expert testimony. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 31, 451–458. https://doi.org/
40.
WoestehoffS. A.MeissnerC. A. (2016). Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession. Law & Human Behavior, 40, 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000201
41.
WoodyW. D. (2017). Lowering the bar and raising expectations: Recent court decisions in light of the scientific study of interrogation and confession. Wyoming Law Review, 17, 419–455.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
