Self-paced
P1
Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse informants (witnesses who provide testimony based on information obtained while incarcerated) for prosecutorial information. █████████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ████ ███ ████████ █████ ███ ███████ █ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████
Intro topic ·
Testimony from accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants
This testimony is usually based on conversations between the witnesses and the defendant.
P2
███████████ ████ █ ███████████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ████████ ███ █ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ █████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ █ █████████ ████ ██ ██████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ █████ █████████ ████ █████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████████
Problem ·
Cooperating witnesses have an incentive to lie
They get a reduced sentence of other benefits in exchange for the testimony.
P3
█████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███████ █ ██████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███
Purported safeguards ·
Courts recognize risk of cooperating witnesses, but say there are enough safeguards in place
These safeguards include cross-examination of a cooperating witness's motivations.
Main Point ·
Critique / problem: safeguards not enough
Premise ·
Prosecutors may imply a benefit for the cooperating witness
Because it's not an explicit deal, they don't have to be disclosed to the jury. So, even cross-examination might not reveal the cooperating witness's incentive to lie.
P4
██ █████████ █████████████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████████████████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ █ █████████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ █ ███████████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █ █████████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █ ███████████ ███████████ █████████
Premise ·
Jurors might not realize how much a cooperating witness's testimony can be influenced by their incentives
Research on confession testimony shows that jurors don't realize how much a defendant's incentive to confess affects their decision to confess. This suggests that jurors might not realize the impact of incentives on a cooperating witness's testimony.
P5
█ ██████ █████████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███
Explanation for juror's reaction to confession evidence ·
People tend to explain behavior of others in terms of internal feelings rather than external factors
So, jurors didn't seem to realize that a defendant's confession was due to external pressures (threats); they interpreted the confession as if it had to be an admission of guilt.
Similar explanation for reaction to cooperating witnesses ·
Jurors may not realize that cooperating witnesses are affected by external factors
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Problem-analysis
15.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
a
Evidence obtained through █████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████
This is a mischaracterization of the problem. The problem is not that witnesses are coerced into making things up, rather it's that they are incentivized to make things up. The author also doesn't claim that incentivized testimony is never reliable.
b
Numerous considerations suggest ████ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████
This is an accurate restatement of
c
Studies show that ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ █ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████
The main point is that there is a problem. The explanation of the problem is support for the main point. This is why (C) is wrong. It summarizes an explanation of one aspect of the problem. It's attractive because the summary is accurate.
d
Traditional legal arguments ███████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ █ ███ ██ ███████████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ █████ ███
The factual problem with (D) is that it's unclear whether these legal arguments are traditional or contemporary. For that reason alone, we can eliminate it. The deeper problem with (D) is that the author is not merely trying to weaken someone else's argument in support of cooperating witness testimony. Had that been the case, we would not be able to say where the author stood. Perhaps he is also in favor of cooperating witness testimony. He just has a better argument for it than the “traditional legal arguments.” But we know that’s not the case. The author positively argues against cooperating witness testimony.
e
There is substantial ████████ ██ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████████
First, it’s unclear whether this is factually true. We don't know whether there is substantial evidence to indicate that cooperating witness testimony is heavily influenced by incentives offered by the prosecution. Second, even if this were true, is it good or bad that this happens? (E) is silent. The main point is not.