Self-study
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
20.
The author mentions the research ██ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ██████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██
a
reveal a potential ███████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████████
Just opposite, it's to support the author's analysis, not to reveal a problem with it.
b
make an unfavorable ██████████ ██ █ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████
There is no other study cited earlier in the passage, so no comparison, unfavorable or otherwise, could have been made.
c
justify a conclusion █████████ ███████ █████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██ ███████████ █████████
The way jurors’ treat evidence provided by cooperating witnesses is the
d
question the relevance ██ ████ ███████████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████████ █████████
Just the opposite. The process of how juries make decisions is not only relevant to the issue of courts relying on testimony of cooperating witnesses, it is the reason why such reliance is problematic.
e
contrast the way ██ █████ ██████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ █ ███████████ ███████
“Contrast” is wrong. P4 is trying to make an argument by analogy. The author's intent is to show that the way in which jurors evaluate evidence provided by a defendant sheds light on to the way in which jurors evaluate evidence provided by a cooperating witness. Specifically, they are similar because in both instances jurors give undue weight to such evidence and fail to consider how an incentive could affect the production of such evidence.