Behind Bars, Behind Lies: The Role of Jailhouse Informants in Juror Decision Making

Jailhouse informant testimony is a leading cause of wrongful conviction, especially in severe cases (e.g., rape and murder) with severe punishments (Warden, 2005). The current study investigated the impact of multiple jailhouse informants’ testimonies upon juror decisionmaking, especially when providing consistent or inconsistent testimony. Participants (n = 102) read a murder trial summary with two informants - consistent statements, two informants - inconsistent statements, one informant, or no informant. Results indicated that the multipleconsistent condition had significantly higher guilty verdicts and higher perceptions of credibility than all other informant conditions. Inconsistent statements reduced guilty verdicts and perceptions of credibility, yet did not differ from the single informant condition. Findings can be understood through the Truth Default theory in which the inconsistent testimony triggers suspicion of the informant.