Attorneys' experiences, perceptions, and plea recommendations in child sexual abuse cases.

OBJECTIVE: We examined attorneys' experiences, perceptions, and decisions regarding plea recommendations in child sexual cases. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that characteristics of the child (age, relationship to alleged perpetrator) and the report (timing of disclosure, consistency across reports) would affect attorneys' perceptions of evidence strength, likelihood of conviction, and plea recommendations. METHOD: We collected data from a national sample of actively practicing prosecutors (n = 217) and defense attorneys (n = 251) who had experience with child abuse cases. They averaged 18 years of experience practicing law, were slightly more likely to be men (53%) than women, and primarily identified as White, non-Hispanic (86%). In Part 1, attorneys answered general questions about their experiences in child sexual abuse cases. In Part 2, they reviewed materials from a hypothetical case that varied the child's age (5 years, 11 years), the child's relationship to the alleged perpetrator (familial, nonfamilial), the timing of the child's initial disclosure (1 week, 6 months), and the consistency of the child's report (inconsistent, consistent). They rated the evidence strength, estimated the likelihood of conviction, and assessed whether they would recommend that the defendant accept a plea offer or proceed to trial. RESULTS: In Part 1, attorneys reported that they often have access to police reports, information about the alleged perpetrator, and evidence from the child when making plea recommendations. They said that it was important to know about prior allegations against the alleged perpetrator or by the child when assessing their credibility. They reported that the length of the sentence, sex offender registration requirement, and possibility of time served guided their plea recommendations. In Part 2, the consistency of the child's report influenced their decisions the most; they rated the evidence against the defendant as stronger when the child was consistent across reports than when the child was inconsistent. Additionally, their perceptions of evidence strength drove their recommendations. When the evidence against the defendant was stronger, attorneys thought that the defendant was more likely to be convicted at trial; thus, prosecutors were less willing and defense attorneys were more willing to recommend a plea. CONCLUSION: Similar to other cases, evidence strength and the perceived likelihood of conviction drive attorneys' decisions to offer or recommend a plea to a defendant in a child sexual abuse case. The consistency of the child's report plays a major role in predicting perceptions of evidence strength. Future research is needed to determine which other factors in child sexual abuse cases may also predict attorneys' perceptions and plea recommendations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants' perceptions of voluntariness.

OBJECTIVE: We examined whether various plea outcomes-including sentence reduction size (smaller, larger), type (traditional guilty plea, Alford plea), and frame (plea discount, trial penalty)-differentially affected innocent and guilty defendants' perceptions of the voluntariness of their guilty pleas. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized (1) guilty defendants would rate guilty pleas as more voluntary than would innocent defendants; (2) defendants would rate larger sentence reductions either as more voluntary than smaller sentence reductions because they feel more fair or as less voluntary because they feel harder to reject; (3) defendants would rate guilty pleas as more voluntary when the plea offer was framed as a discount compared with a penalty; (4) penalty framing would differentially affect defendants offered large versus small sentence reductions; and (5) Alford pleas would differentially affect guilty versus innocent defendants. METHOD: Adults from Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 1,518; Mage = 59.22 years; 52% male; 83% White, non-Hispanic) played the role of a defendant in a simulated plea decision-making process. They were either innocent or guilty of the accusation. The prosecutor offered them a plea deal that varied in sentence reduction size (smaller, versus larger), type (traditional versus Alford plea), and frame (plea discount versus trial penalty). Participants then decided how to plead and rated the voluntariness of the decision-making process. RESULTS: Plea outcomes affected innocent and guilty defendants in slightly different ways. Innocent and guilty defendants were less likely to plead guilty when the plea offer had a smaller compared with a larger sentence reduction. However, innocent defendants were less likely to plead guilty overall, required more prompting from their defense attorney to plead guilty, and rated the plea decision-making process as less voluntary than did guilty defendants. Innocent defendants also rated the plea decision-making process as less voluntary when offered a smaller compared with larger sentence reduction and when they were offered an Alford plea compared with a traditional guilty plea. Framing the plea offer as a discount or a penalty did not affect defendants' perceptions of voluntariness. CONCLUSION: Variations in plea outcomes affect defendants' perceptions of voluntariness. Moreover, at least some courts' definitions of voluntariness do not align with how laypeople-and thus, possible defendants-view the same construct. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Waiving goodbye to youth: Jurors perceive transferred juveniles differently from adults but render similar verdicts.

Juveniles are developmentally different from adults but are often treated similarly in the criminal justice system. In case processing, many juveniles are transferred to adult courts. Before case processing, many juveniles are interrogated with the same tactics used against adults. Limited research has examined jurors' decisions in juvenile transfer cases, particularly those involving confession evidence. In two studies, we built on this small line of research and extended it to examine whether jurors make different decisions for juvenile versus adult defendants with differing types of confession evidence. Participants listened to a trial that varied in defendant age (Study 1: 16, 23; Study 2: 13, 16, 23, 42), interrogation pressure (low, high), and interrogation outcome (denial, confession). They rendered a verdict and rated the defendant on dangerousness and maturity. Age did not affect verdict in either study, but it did affect perceptions of dangerousness and maturity in both studies. Study 2 replicated and extended our findings by showing that differences in dangerousness and maturity were driven by participants' preexisting stereotypes about juveniles as superpredators. Overall, jurors recognized juveniles' lesser maturity but did not account for it in their verdicts. The stigma associated with the superpredator stereotype may limit jurors' sensitivity to the developmental vulnerabilities of juvenile defendants.

From whose perspective? Differences between actors and observers in determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas.

OBJECTIVE: Valid guilty pleas must be made voluntarily, yet most defendants report that they did not feel part of the decision-making process or responsible for the decision. Defendants and judges both play a role in determining whether guilty pleas are voluntary. The actor-observer bias suggests that defendants and judges perceive the decision-making process differently given the nature of their roles. The present studies applied this framework to assess the complexity of voluntary plea decision-making. HYPOTHESES: We expected observers would rate pleas as more voluntary than would actors. We also expected participants to rate pleas made by guilty defendants as more voluntary than those made by innocent defendants and to view pleas made with voice as more voluntary than those made without voice. Finally, we expected the effect of guilt and voice on voluntariness to differ for actors and observers. METHOD: Participants were Amazon's Mechanical Turk workers (Study 1: N = 202, Study 2: N = 626) who had a history of high-quality performance on past tasks, were roughly evenly split between men (Study 1: 52%, Study 2: 53%) and women (Study 1: 48%, Study 2: 47%), and were primarily White/non-Hispanic (Study 1: 84%, Study 2: 75%). They watched video-recorded materials about a criminal case in which a defendant decided how to plead. The materials varied the participant's role (actor, observer), the defendant's guilt (innocent, guilty), and whether the defendant had a voice in the decision-making process (no voice, voice). Participants then rated the voluntariness of the decision-making process. RESULTS: In both studies, actors rated pleas as more voluntary than did observers. Participants rated guilty pleas as more voluntary when the defendant was guilty compared with innocent. Participants also rated pleas as more voluntary when the defendant had a voice in the decision-making process compared with when the defendant did not have a voice, but the difference was bigger for observers than for actors. CONCLUSIONS: Defendants and judges both determine whether a guilty plea is made voluntarily. These decision-makers are likely to perceive the plea decision-making process differently given their differing perspectives. There was also a large effect of voice on whether decisions were perceived to be voluntary. Individuals who play a role in the plea decision-making process should ensure that defendants have a proper opportunity to express their opinions and preferences about the decision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The truth about snitches: an archival analysis of informant testimony.

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.

Setting the Ground Rules: Use and Practice of Ground Rules in Child Forensic Interviews.

Most child forensic interviewing protocols recommend that interviewers administer a series of ground rules to emphasize concepts that are important to accurately answering interview questions. Limited research has examined whether interviewers follow ground rules recommendations in real-world forensic interviews. In this study, we examined how often highly trained interviewers presented and practiced each of the recommended ground rules. We also examined whether children accurately responded to practice questions. We coded transcripts from 241 forensic interviews of 4- to 12-year-old children conducted by interviewers in the United States who were largely trained using the Ten Step Investigative Interview. Results demonstrated that interviewers routinely presented and practiced the ground rules, but this significantly varied by children's age. Additionally, children often accurately responded to practice questions, but younger children were less accurate than older children. Taken together, results highlight that interviewers may deviate from ground rules recommendations based on the characteristics of the child, which has implications for both future research and practice.

A national survey of child forensic interviewers: Implications for research, practice, and law.

OBJECTIVE: We surveyed a national sample of child forensic interviewers to learn the types of information they wanted to have before interviewing children, their attitudes and beliefs about forensic interviews, the characteristics of their interviews, and their professional experiences. HYPOTHESES: We predicted (1) interviewers would want many different types of information before interviewing children, but specifically details about the child, alleged abuse, and disclosure, and that interviewers would find this information helpful and accessible; (2) interviewers would consider their own interviews to be neutral and nonleading and to yield accurate and complete information from children; interviewers' concern about false reports would be related to (3) the amount of preinterview information they wanted and (4) their years of experience and amount of training. METHOD: Forensic interviewers (N = 781) from all 50 states and the District of Columbia completed all (n = 754) or part (n = 27) of a questionnaire that consisted of open- and closed-ended questions. RESULTS: (1) Interviewers wanted many different types of information before interviewing children, but most often information about the child, alleged abuse, and disclosure. They thought these types of information were the most helpful and very frequently had access to that information before interviewing. (2) Interviewers thought their interviews were fairly neutral, slightly leading, mostly accurate, and fairly complete. Interviewers who were more concerned about false denials (3) wanted more preinterview information than interviewers who were more concerned about false allegations and (4) had fewer years of experience. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey results underscore the need for future research examining the effects of preinterview information on forensic interviews and children's reports. They provide a current snapshot of forensic interviewing and a national benchmark to which local child advocacy centers can compare their practices. They highlight the inherent difficulty courts face when determining the admissibility of a child forensic interview based on its primary purpose. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).