Guilty plea hearings in juvenile and criminal court.

OBJECTIVE: In guilty plea hearings, judges must determine whether defendants' plea decisions were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Little is known, however, about how plea hearings unfold, especially in juvenile court, where hearings are generally closed to the public. In this study, we had the unique opportunity to systematically observe plea hearings in juvenile and criminal court. HYPOTHESES: We predicted that plea hearings would be brief and that defendant participation, especially among juveniles, would be minimal. We also explored how often judges addressed the plea validity components of knowingness, intelligence, and voluntariness and whether addressing these components differed by the type of court (juvenile, criminal), pretrial custody status, and pled-to charge severity. METHOD: Trained coders in California (n = 104, juvenile court) and Virginia (n = 140, juvenile court; n = 593, criminal court) systematically observed more than 800 guilty plea hearings. Coders reliably documented hearing length, whether the defendant was in pretrial custody, whether the evidence was reviewed, details on defendant participation, and judicial attention to plea validity. RESULTS: On average, juvenile plea hearings lasted about 7 min and criminal plea hearings lasted 13 min. Prosecutors rarely reviewed evidence against the defendants in the juvenile courts, and in one juvenile court, judges paid virtually no attention to plea validity. In the other two courts, certain waived rights (e.g., to trial, to silence) were reviewed consistently. Depending on the court, hearing length and plea validity elements addressed varied by defendants' prehearing custody status and the pled-to charge severity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide novel insight into how components necessary for plea admissibility-knowingness, voluntariness, and intelligence-are discussed with defendants and, in doing so, raise concerns about the degree to which plea validity is actively assessed in plea hearings. Plea hearings are formal, minutes-long events in which defendant engagement is low. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Juror sensitivity to false confession risk factors: Dispositional vs. situational attributions for a confession.

Research on jurors' perceptions of confession evidence suggests that jurors may not be sensitive to factors that can influence the reliability of a confession. Jurors' decisions tend not to be influenced by situational pressures to confess, which suggests that jurors commit the correspondence bias when evaluating a confession. One method to potentially increase sensitivity and counteract the correspondence bias is by highlighting a motivation other than guilt for the defendant's confession. We conducted 3 experiments to evaluate jurors' sensitivity to false confession risk factors. Participants read a trial transcript that varied the presence of false confession risk factors within an interrogation. Some participants also read testimony that presented an alternative motivation for the confession (expert testimony, Experiments 1 and 3; defendant testimony, Experiment 2). Across 3 experiments, participants were generally able to distinguish between interrogation practices that can produce a false confession, regardless of the presence or absence of expert or defendant testimony. Experiment 3 explored whether participants' attributions for the confessor's motivation were affected by interrogative pressure and expert testimony, and whether these attributions affected verdicts. Participants' reluctance to convict when false confession risk factors were present was associated with situational, rather than dispositional, attributions regarding the defendant's motivation to confess. It is possible that increased knowledge is responsible for participants' improved sensitivity to false confession risk factors. (PsycINFO Database Record