Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Erlangen.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Heidelberg.

The present study examined jurors' evaluations of retracted confessions as a function of the amount of trivial detail within the confession and level of interrogation pressure. Participants in the experimental conditions read a transcript of a murder trial involving a suspect who confessed in a high-pressure or low-pressure situation and provided either a high or low amount of detail. A no-confession control version, in which the suspect denied all allegations against him, was also included in the study. Although one analysis suggested that a high-amount of detail within the confession might make it more likely that jurors would give higher estimates of guilt, it did not lead jurors to give more guilty verdicts. In contrast to previous findings, the presence of a confession did not make it more likely that a juror would render a guilty verdict or give higher estimates of guilt, as no difference was found between the experimental groups and the control group. / Department of Psychological Science

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2007. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis examines judicial approaches to cell-plant interrogations in Canada and the United States. These are surreptitious interrogations whereby the police inject an undercover state agent into the detention environment with the object of eliciting inculpatory statements from an accused. / This thesis examines and compares the strengths and weaknesses of Canadian and United States judicial approaches to cell-plant interrogations, and their respective applications of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights. In both countries, an accused can seek to have their incriminating statements excluded from evidence where they persuade the court that such statements were elicited by a state agent. Despite the seemingly similar language of their legal tests, Canadian and U.S. jurists define state agency and elicitation in very different ways leading potentially to very dissimilar outcomes based on the same factual circumstances.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Nevada, Reno, 2005. / "December, 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-42). Online version available on the World Wide Web. Library also has microfilm. Ann Arbor, Mich. : ProQuest Information and Learning Company, [2005]. 1 microfilm reel ; 35 mm.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Texas at El Paso, 2009. / Title from title screen. Vita. CD-ROM. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online.

Text in Afrikaans / Artikel 217 is van toepassing op Jn bekentenis, synde Jn ondubbelsinnige erkenning van skuld, wat indien dit in Jn hof gemaak sou word, sou neerkom op Jn pleit van skuldig. Om toelaatbaar te wees, moes die verklaarder die bekentenis vrywillig en ongedwonge, by sy volle positiewe sender onbehoorlike beinvloeding afgele het aan Jn landdros of vrederegter. Waar die bekentenis in Jn dokument vervat is, is dit, mits daar aan die toelaatbaarheidsvereistes voldoen is, toelaatbaar teen die verklaarder daarvan. Artikel 209 vind toepassing mits die bekentenis Jn volle bekentenis is en die vereistes van artikel 217 nagekom is. Volgens die beslissing in S V SHEEHAMA 1991 2 SA 860(A) is Jn aanwysing Jn erkenning. As sulks moet dit voldoen aan die vereistes van artikel 219A en moes derhalwe vrywillig en ongedwonge gemaak wees. Jn Gedwonge aanwysing is dus ontoelaatbaar, tensy nuwe feite ontdek word as gevolg daarvan. / Section 217 is applicable to a confession, being an unequivocal acknowledgment of guilt, the equivalent of a plea of guilty before a court of law. To be admissible, the declarant must have made the confession to a magistrate or justice freely and voluntarily in his sound and sober senses without having been unduly influenced thereto. Section 209 is applicable provided that the confession is a full confession and the requirements of section 217 are complied with. According to the judgment in S V SHEEHAMA 1991 2 SA 860(A) a pointing out is an admission. As such it must comply with the requirements of section 219A and must therefore be made voluntarily and freely. An involuntary pointing out is thus inadmissible, except if new facts are discovered because of it. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M.