#17 - Concept Reference, Must be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[8385729]

I crossed out E as an option because I thought that this testimony lead to convictions carrying longer sentences, not sentence reductions-- why is it the other way around?

[Adam Tyson]

It's the jailhouse informants that this answer refers to, 8! Some jailhouse informants or co-conspirators may lie in exchange for a reduced sentence, and they sometimes get away with it. In that case, their sentence is reduced without a good justification. Tricky!

[davidl113]

Could anyone please explain why C is wrong? I understand the strong support for E, but C seems like such a good answer since the passage describes in depth how a jury has the burden of trying to decipher the nature of these types of confessions.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi David,

When looking for support for answer choice C, we're limited to paragraph 3. That's because the question stem asks specifically about "cooperating witness" testimony, and the discussion of cooperating witnesses is limited to paragraphs 2 and 3. And only paragraph 3 talks about how the jury is impacted by cooperating witness testimony. In paragraph 3, we're definitely told that there can be a burden on jurors' evaluation of that testimony. For example, line 26 says the safeguards of cross-examination and jurors being allowed to consider witness motivations "do not always provide protection," and in the cases when they do not, the prosecution-witness exchange "does not have to be disclosed to the jury." But that by itself is not enough to say that this situation occurs "frequently" (since "not always" providing protection could just be a very few instances), and it's also not enough to say that the burden on jurors is "unfair" (since we don't know how big a burden it is to the jury not to have the information disclosed).

Answer choice C is thus too exaggerated to be supported by the passage, particularly the terms "frequently" and "unfair."

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[yuxuan]

I was thinking A, C, and E. A) From line 50 to 54, jurors viewed confession as evidence, regardless confession evidence was obtained via harsher or better treatment. Is A wrong because it only mentions harsh treatment? C) From line 29 to 31, jurors were not disclosed that the exchange between prosecutors and witnesses. But it does not explain how frequently this situation happened, right? E) From line 11 to 15, we know that witnesses provided information in exchange for reduce sentences, but where shows the reduce sentences are unwarranted?

[atierney]

If you look at those lines, they basically imply that the informants can make up information to get their sentences somewhat reduced, thus E is the correct answer. The information is fabricated, so it presumably has little value, yet the informant gains from the fabrication by getting the reduction in time.

Let me know if you have further questions on this.