Reading comp PrepTest 153 · Section 1 · Question 21

Passage SummaryTopic: Legal Studies

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A phenomenon is introduced
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Prosecutors use co-conspirator and jailhouse informant testimony
  • This includes supposed confessions

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • A problem is noted
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Motive - These witnesses are promised something for their testimony, so they're motivated to lie
  • Study - They're rarely punished for lying

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • A debate over the prior paragraph is explored
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Courts - Safeguards prevent lies from creating problems - e.g., cross-examination to ask about motives
  • Author - They don't always work, like when a prosecutor hints at instead of promising something

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • More problems with allowing this testimony are highlighted
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Research - Juries give weight to confessions, even when based on an incentive
  • Similar to situation with cooperating witnesses

Paragraph 5

• Paragraph note
  • An explanation is given for the jurors behavior in prior paragraph
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Psychological explanation - People explain actions of others by their character, not external factors
  • Study - Person who confessed was guilty, even if threatened or promised a reward for doing so
  • Similar to situation with cooperating witnesses

Main Point:
There are many problems with the use of co-conspirator and jailhouse informant testimony, and the safeguards in place aren't enough to prevent false testimony from sending someone to jail because of a psychological phenomenon affecting jurors.

Key Lines:
Lines 6-10 - The phenomenon debated is introduced
Lines 13-16 - The problem is introduced
Lines 20-23 - The opposing point (Courts) is introduced
Lines 25-26 - The Author's opinion is introduced
Lines 29-31 - The first specific problem
Lines 35-37 - The second specific problem
Lines 47-49 - A potential explanation for the problem is given

Meta-Structure:
Debate over Problem. Normally, we'd see a Problem/Solution passage, with the debate being over various solutions to a problem. Here, however, a problem is introduced, and while there is a "solution" raised (the safeguards such as cross-examination), it's given very little space in the passage. Rather, the Author spends most of the time highlighting why the problem is, well, a problem, and explains some underlying psychology.

Last Thoughts:
On top of everything said before about the exploration of a problem, it will likely be important that we note the comparisons/analogies on which much of the Author's argument relies. Paragraph 4 and 5 both talk about research to a similar situation, rather than the direct topic at hand.

The topic is about potentially false co-conspirator or jailhouse informant testimony. The research in Paragraph 4 deals with confessions from the defendants to investigators based on incentives. The studies in Paragraph 5 build on this, talking about confessions that were either based on threats or promises of leniency. In both cases, the study is on a direct confession by a defendant, not on testimony that the defendant confessed to an informant or a co-conspirator. The similarity here is that the juries are weighing this evidence, and the explanation for how they process it is based on a psychological tendency to blame people's character rather than their situation.