Examining Coercion During Plea Negotiations

• In Event: The Multitude of Elements Surrounding Guilty Pleas: An Interdisciplinary Panel

Abstract

Despite voluntariness being an integral requirement for the acceptance of guilty pleas, what constitutes voluntariness, and its antithesis coercion, remains relatively unclear, largely subjective, and contested. This ambiguity in our understanding of coercion has consequences for the integrity of our criminal justice system. Most notably, without a clear understanding of coercion in plea negotiation settings, the legal requirements for voluntariness cannot be properly applied to guilty pleas. This is especially problematic, given that currently used “hard-bargaining tactics” (see, Alkon, 2017) to obtain guilty pleas (e.g., overcharging) have come under fire for being coercive and for contributing to wrongful convictions (e.g., see Dervan, 2012). This study sought to experimentally test a theoretical definition of coercion that was developed by synthesizing philosophical, legal, and psychological theory. Participants, all of whom played the role of a defendant, were asked to negotiate with mock attorneys over Zoom during a hypothetical plea negotiation. Defendant guilt and the theoretically coercive elements present during the negotiation were manipulated. Although data collection is ongoing, both defendant guilt and theoretical coercion impacted defendants’ plea decisions. This presentation will also include findings on the impact of theoretical coercion on defendants’ perceptions of their case.

Authors

• Samantha Luna, George Mason University

• Allison D. Redlich, George Mason University