Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

From Suspect Statement to Legal Decision Making

How Do Judges Weigh the Evidence?

Published Online:July 15, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000412

Abstract

Abstract. Notwithstanding that confessions are considered the “Queen of evidence,” how judges actually weigh suspects’ statements in reaching their decision remains relatively unknown. This study sought to examine how Belgian judges determine the evidential value of a suspect’s statement, specifically how they evaluate the statement’s: (a) admissibility and validity and (b) interaction with other pieces of evidence. To shed light on this legal decision-making process, 100 Belgian burglary case files were examined, and semi-structured interviews were undertaken with ten Belgian judges. The findings suggest that: the judge’s evaluation of a suspect’s statement differs depending on the outcome of the statement; how a statement is obtained does not appear to be an essential aspect of evidence evaluation; judges expend more effort to falsify denials than confessions; and only when they fail to falsify the denial is an acquittal granted.

References

  • Allison, M., & Brimacombe, C. (2010). Alibi believability: The effect of prior convictions and judicial instructions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1054–1084. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00610.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Appleby, S. C., Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2018). Police-induced confessions: An empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.613389 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ask, K., Rebelius, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). The “elasticity” of criminal evidence: A moderator of investigator bias. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1432 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques. Establishing truth or proof. British Journal of Criminology, 33, 325–352. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bartels, B. L. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up models of judicial reasoning. In D. KleinG. MitchellEds., The psychology of judicial decision making (pp. 41–55). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195367584.003.0003 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bartol, C., & Bartol, A. (2004). Psychology and law: Theory, research, and application (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Buruma, Y. (2009). Betrouwbaar bewijs [Reliable evidence]. Delikt en Delinkwent, 39, 303–324. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Charman, S. D. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: A problem of evidence integration, not just evidence evaluation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.010 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course. London, UK: Home Office. Police Research Award Scheme (PRAS; No. 149). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Colin_Clarke3/publication/263127370_National_Evaluation_of_the_PEACE_Investigative_Interviewing_Course/links/53da3b620cf2e38c63366507.pdf. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Costanzo, M., & Leo, R. A. (2007). Research and expert testimony on interrogations and confessions. In M. CostanzoD. KraussK. PezdekEds., Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 69–98). London, UK: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Crombag, H. F. M., van Koppen, P. J., & Wagenaar, W. A. (2010). De waarde van bewijs [The value of evidence]. Reizen met mijn rechter: Psychologie van het recht [Travels with my judge: Psychology of law] (pp. 335–348). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Culhane, S., & Hosch, H. (2006). An Aiibi Witness’ Influence on Mock Jurors’ Verdicts. In P. J. van KoppenH. L. G. J. MerckelbachM. JelicicJ. W. de KeijserEds., Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 1604–1616. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02789.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cutler, B. L., Findley, K. A., & Loney, D. (2014). Expert testimony on interrogation and false confession. UMKC Law Review, 82(3), 1–36. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Dahl, L., Brimacombe, C., & Lindsay, D. (2008). Investigating investigators: How presentation order influences participant-investigators’ interpretations of eyewitness identification and alibi evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9151-y First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Damaška, M. (2018). Evaluation of evidence: Pre-modern and modern approaches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Keijser, J. W. (2017). Als de waarheid eraan moet geloven. Alledaagse bedreigingen voor de waarheidsvinding in de strafprocedure. Leiden, The Netherlands: Oratie Universiteit Leiden. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • De Wolf, D. (2010). De rol van de rechter bij de waarheidsvinding in correctionele procedure : Een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar Belgisch, Frans en Nederlands recht [The role of the judge in the search of the truth during criminal trials: a comparative research of Belgian, French and Dutch law]. Kortrijk-Heule, Belgium: UGA. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Drizin, S., & Leo, R. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Elffers, H. (2017). Waarschijnlijkheidsargumentatie in het straf-proces [Probability argumentations in the criminal procedure]. In H. ElffersP. Van KoppenH. MerckelbachM. JelicicJ. De KeijserEds., Routes van het recht. Over de rechtspsychologie [Routes of the law. About legal psychology] (pp. 413–438). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Findley, K. (2009). Toward a new paradigm of criminal justice: How the innocence movement merges crime control and due process. Texas Tech Law Rev, 41, 133–173. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Garrett, B. L. (2015). Contaminated confessions revisited. Virginia Law Review, 101, 395–454. Retrieved from http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/Garrett_101-395.pdf First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051–1119. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Substance-of-False-Confessions-Garrett/564ae42b23cbc59997644ff62922af99250f8606. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Grebler, G. (2011). (False) confessions become compelling at trial. In A. WagnerL. ChengEds., Exploring courtroom discourse. The language of power and control (pp. 49–80). Surrey, UK: Ashgate. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Greenspan, R., & Scurich, N. (2016). The interdependence of perceived confession voluntariness and case evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 650–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000200 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Groscup, J., & Tallon, J. (2009). Theoretical models of jury decision-making. In J. LiebermanD. A. KausEds., Jury Psychology: Social aspects of trial processes (Psychology in the Courtroom) (Vol. 1) (pp. 41–66). Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich, A. J. (2001). Inside the Judicial Mind. Cornell Law Review, 86, 777–830. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.257634 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Henry, P. (1985). De l’intime conviction [About the intimate conviction]. In Barreau de LiègeEd., Les droit de la défense en matière pénale: actes de colloque des 30-31 mai, 1er juin 1985 [Defence rights in criminal proceedings: Transcripts of the colloquium of May 30–31, June 1st 1985] (pp. 201–238). Liege, Belgium: Jeune Barreau. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Horselendberg, R., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). Valse Bekentenissen. In P. J. Van KoppenJ. W. De KeijserR. HorselenbergM. JelecicEds., Routes van het recht. Over de rechtspsychologie [Routes of the law: About legal psychology] (pp. 687–710). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Israëls, H., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2006). Daderkennis, politiekennis en sturend verhoren [Suspect knowledge, police knowledge and steering interrogations]. Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy, 35, 8–18. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M. (2008). Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1309–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808321557 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump evidence. American Psychologist, 67, 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028212 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E., & Kukucka, J. (2013). The forensic confirmation bias: Problems, perspectives, and proposed solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024871622490 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law Human Behavior, 21, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814009769 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Rose, V. G. (2008). Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532507X193051 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Komter, M. (2003). The construction of records in Dutch police interrogations. Information Design Journal, 11, 201–213. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.11.2.12kom First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–302. https://doi.org/10.2307/1144028 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Leo, R. A. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences and implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 17, 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Leo, R. A., Neufeld, P. J., Drizin, S. A., & Taslitz, A. E. (2013). Promoting accuracy in the use of confession evidence: An argument for pretrial reliability assessments to prevent wrongful convictions. Temple Law Review, 85, 759–838. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Malsch, M., De Keijser, J., Kranendonk, P. R., & de Gruijter, M. (2010). Het verhoor op schrift of op band? De gevolgen van het „verbaliseren” van verhoren voor het oordeel van de jurist [The police interview in writing or on tape? The consequences of the recording of police interviews on the legal judgment]. Nederlands Juristenblad, 37, 1931–2407. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Malsch, R., Kranendonk, J., de Keijser, H., Elffers, M., Komter, M., & de Boer, M. (2015). Kijken, luisteren, lezen. De invloed van beeld, geluid en schrift op het oordeel over verdachtenverhoren [Look, listen, read. The influence of visuals, audio and written word on the judgement of suspect interrogations.] Politiewetenschap 79, Politie en Wetenschap, Apeldoorn. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Reed Business. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McConville, M., & Baldwin, J. (1982). The role of interrogation in crime discovery and conviction. British Journal of Criminology, 22, 165–175. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Moston, S., & Stephenson, G. (1993). The changing face of police interrogation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2450030204 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nirider, L., Tepfer, J., & Drizin, S. (2012). Combating contamination in confession cases. The University of Chicago Law Review, 79, 837–862. https://doi.org/10.2307/41552914 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Olson, E., & Charman, S. (2012). “But can you prove it?” – Examining the quality of innocent suspects’ alibis. Psychology Crime and Law, 18, 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.505567 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Palmer, M., Button, L., Barnett, E., & Brewer, N. (2014). Inconsistencies undermine the credibility of confession evidence. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12048 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991–1992). A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cardozo Law Review, 13, 519–557. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pivaty, A., Vanderhallen, M., Daly, Y., & Conway, V. (2020). Contemporary criminal defence practice: Importance of active involvement at the investigative stage and related training requirements. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 27, 25–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2019.1706528 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., & Berger, D. E. (2015). Overlooking coerciveness: The impact of interrogation techniques and guilt corroboration on jurors’ judgments of coerciveness. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12011 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Simon, D. (2011). The limited diagnosticity of criminal trials. Vanderbilt Law Review, 64, 143–223. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Stridbeck, U., & Granhag, P. A. (2010). Psychological perspectives on the evaluation of evidence. In P. A. GranhagEd., Forensic Psychology in Context Nordic and international approaches (pp. 191–209). London, UK: Willan Publishing. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Tersago, P., Vanderhallen, M., & Rozie, J. (2017, May). The side effect of Salduz: Heuristic acceptation of suspects’ statements. Poster presented at the European Association of Psychology and Law Conference, Mechelen, Belgium First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Traest, P. (1992). Het bewijs in strafzaken [Evidence in criminal cases]. Ghent, Belgium: Mys & Breesch. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Traest, P. (2011). Hard bewijs: Wanneer is de rechter overtuigd? [Hard evidence: When is the trial judge convinced?] Bewijs in strafzaken = La preuve en droit penal [Evidence in criminal proceedings] (Vol. 18) (pp. 59–79). Brussel, Belgium: La Charte - Die Keure. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van Koppen, P. J. (2009). Finding false confessions. In R. BullT. ValentineT. WilliamsonEds., Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions (pp. 53–68). Chichester, UK: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van Koppen, P. J. (2011). Overtuigend bewijs: Indammen van rechterlijke dwalingen [Convincing evidence: Reducing the number of miscarriages of justice]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Nieuw Amsterdam. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van Koppen, P. J. (2013). Gerede twijfel: Over bewijs in strafzaken [Reasonable doubt: On evidence in criminal cases]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij De Kring. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Van Koppen, P. J., & Nieuwkamp, R. (2017). Alibi’s. In P. J. Van KoppenJ. W. De KeijserR. HorselendbergM. JelicicEds., Routes van het recht. Over de rechtspsychologie (pp. 249–260). Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Verstraeten, R. (2012). Handboek Strafvordering [Handbook of criminal procedure law]. Antwerpen, Belgium: Maklu. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wallace, D. B., & Kassin, S. M. (2012). Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors? Law and Human Behavior, 36, 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093975 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wojciechowski, B. W., Grans, M., & Liden, M. (2018). A true denial or a false confession? Assessing veracity of suspects’ statements using MASAM and SVA. PLoS One, 13, e0198211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198211 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar