Informant Testimony, False Confessions, and Evidence Validity

Information Acquisition and Informant Testimony

As Neuschatz, Jones, McClung, and Wetmore (n.d.) note, secondary confessions are viewed as "extremely persuasive evidence" (p. 2) even though they are the "leading cause of wrongful convictions in capital cases" (p. 3). What this shows is that information acquisition is the most effective of the three recommendations for applying research on informant testimony. Knowing where information was acquired and how it was obtained can be extremely important in this context. Secondary confessions are a perfect example of why this is so: just because information sounds legitimate and is quickly embraced by juries does not mean the information itself should be accepted without examining how it was acquired and what its source is.

In any trial involving witness testimony, the credibility of the witness is examined in order to assess the validity of the claims made. This is part of the process of examining information acquisition. How was the information acquired? Who acquired it? From where did it come? These questions matter — but they can be overlooked when it comes to receiving informant testimony.

Credibility Problems in Informant Evidence

Part of the reason credibility issues are overlooked is that the very term "informant" is leading and compelling: it gives the information an authoritative quality that makes it hard to resist. The assumption is that an informant would never lie, or that an informant is taking a great amount of personal risk by coming forward. The reality, however, is that informants typically seek some form of favor from the prosecution in exchange for their testimony. They want something in return, and the quid pro quo nature of the transaction should not be lost when evaluating informant testimony.

Strengths and Limits of the Information Acquisition Framework

This fact is what also makes information acquisition only weakly effective in some respects. Examining how information was acquired and suspecting a less-than-selfless motive does not negate the reality that in any exchange there is a trade-off. What must ultimately be examined is whether the information itself is valid. The acquisition process can cloud that issue, and it may be used to unnecessarily or unfairly cast doubt on the intentions or character of an informant. Information should be corroborated, and in any research a triangulation of data is required to establish validity. This principle should apply equally to informant testimony. Examining the acquisition process can bring credibility issues to light, or it may only obscure the matter further without providing evidence either way. As Lassiter, Ware, Ratcliff, and Irvin (2009) note, the camera perspective bias must also be considered when interrogations are discussed. Acquisition is essential to understanding credibility, but it cannot always be treated as infallible.

In spite of this weakness, information acquisition remains the best recommendation for applying research on informant testimony because it helps establish a chain of custody — tracking how the information first appeared, who held it, for how long, and what was done with it. This chain of custody can be useful in showing how information traveled from point A to point B, how long it remained in the hands of certain authorities, and whether anything was done to verify it along the way. Engaging in information acquisition can therefore be a major help in identifying where issues of validity and credibility might lie.