Juror Perceptions of Intoxicated Suspects’ Interrogation-Related Behaviors

• Author: Kyle C. Scherr,Jonathan P. Vallano,J. Zoe Klemfuss,Marianna E. Carlucci,Melissa B. Russano,Amelia Mindthoff,Eric L. Stocks,Christian A. Meissner,Rolando N. Carol,Alma P. Olaguez,Stephen W. Michael,Gissel Perez,Christopher J. Normile,William Douglas Woody,Jacqueline R. Evans,Skye A. Woestehoff,Timothy Hayes
• Date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854819888962
• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2020, Vol. 47, No. 2, February 2020, 222 –246.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819888962

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2019 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

222

JUROR PERCEPTIONS OF INTOXICATED

SUSPECTS’ INTERROGATION-RELATED

BEHAVIORS

AMELIA MINDTHOFF

JACQUELINE R. EVANS

Florida International University

GISSEL PEREZ

University of Florida

SKYE A. WOESTEHOFF

George Mason University

ALMA P. OLAGUEZ

J. ZOE KLEMFUSS

University of California, Irvine

JONATHAN P. VALLANO

University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg

WILLIAM DOUGLAS WOODY

University of Northern Colorado

CHRISTOPHER J. NORMILE

KYLE C. SCHERR

Central Michigan University

MARIANNA E. CARLUCCI

Loyola University Maryland

ROLANDO N. CAROL

Auburn University at Montgomery

TIMOTHY HAYES

Florida International University

CHRISTIAN A. MEISSNER

Iowa State University

STEPHEN W. MICHAEL

Whitman College

MELISSA B. RUSSANO

Roger Williams University

ERIC L. STOCKS

The University of Texas at Tyler

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Skye A. Woestehoff is now at Coastal Carolina University. Correspondence concerning

this article should be addressed to Amelia Mindthoff, Department of Psychology, Florida International

University, 11200 S.W. 8th Street, DM 256, Miami, FL 33199; e-mail: amelia.mindthoff@gmail.com.

888962CJBXXX10.1177/0093854819888962Criminal Justice and BehaviorMindthoff et al. / Jurors & Intoxicated Suspects

research-article2019

Mindthoff et al. / JURORS & INTOXICATED SUSPECTS 223

Alcohol-intoxicated suspects’ confessions are admissible in U.S. courts; however, it is unknown how jurors evaluate such

confessions. Study 1 assessed potential jurors’ perceptions of intoxication in interrogative contexts. Many respondents were

unaware that questioning intoxicated suspects and presenting subsequent confessions in court are legal, and respondents

generally reported they would rely less on intoxicated than sober confessions. In Study 2, potential jurors read a case about

a defendant who had confessed or not while sober or intoxicated. Participants who read about an intoxicated defendant per-

ceived the interrogation as more inappropriate and the defendant as more cognitively impaired than did participants who read

about a sober defendant, and as a result, they were less likely to convict. Furthermore, intoxicated confessions influenced

conviction decisions to a lesser extent than did sober confessions. Findings suggest that investigators might consider abstain-

ing from interrogating intoxicated suspects or else risk jurors finding confessions unconvincing in court.

Keywords: alcohol; attitudes; decision making; juror decision making; psychology; quantitative methods

Interrogating alcohol-intoxicated suspects is a common phenomenon in the United

States (e.g., over 70% of police survey respondents had interrogated at least one intox-

icated suspect before; Evans et al., 2009), and the resulting confessions can be admissible

into court as evidence. However, it is unknown whether, or how, jurors factor these intoxi-

cated confessions into their decision making. For instance, it is possible that jurors might

perceive confessions obtained from intoxicated suspects as particularly honest and reliable

because alcohol lowers inhibitions. It is also possible that jurors might perceive intoxicated

suspects as particularly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion, as alcohol can impair

judgment. Regardless, understanding how jurors handle such evidence is important to

defense and prosecuting attorneys who try these cases, as well as to judges presiding over

trials and suppression hearings. Thus, there is a need for insight into how jurors perceive

intoxicated confessions, and how these perceptions influence their legal decision making.

The present research is the first to specifically examine these topics.

INTOXICATED SUSPECTS

Although the research regarding the effects of alcohol on witness memory is growing

(see Janssen & Anne, 2019), very little research has examined intoxicated suspects’ behav-

iors in interrogation settings. Furthermore, no known experimental research to date exists

regarding alcohol’s effect on confession behavior generally or on true versus false confes-

sions specifically. This gap in the literature is alarming, as nonexperimental research indi-

cates that a large proportion of U.S. interrogations involves intoxicated suspects. For

example, a U.S. police survey revealed that more than 80% of investigators reported that

encountering intoxicated suspects is a “common” or “very common” occurrence (Evans

et al., 2009). The prevalence of intoxicated suspects during police questioning is also appar-

ent when examining suspects’ self-reports, as large proportions of adult (e.g., Redlich et al.,

2004) and juvenile (e.g., Malloy et al., 2014; Viljoen et al., 2005) samples indicate having

been intoxicated during police questioning.

Thus, interrogating intoxicated suspects is a seemingly common practice in the United

States. Little is known, however, about how intoxication can influence a suspect’s behavior

and decision making during interrogation, and we are unaware of any empirical research

that examines whether intoxication directly affects the likelihood that a suspect will truth-

fully or falsely confess. Despite this, multiple real-world cases exist involving false confes-

sions from intoxicated defendants. One prominent example involves Eugene Vent, the first