Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S1 · P3 · Q16 Accomplice Witnesses And Jailhouse Informants

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Criminal courts frequently rely on accomplice witnesses (witnesses who testify regarding the role of an alleged co-conspirator in a crime) and jailhouse informants (witnesses who provide testimony based on information obtained while incarcerated) for prosecutorial information.

Topic

The risks and unreliability of using cooperating witnesses (accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants) in criminal trials, especially due to incentives for their testimony.

Framework

Problem / Solution

Main Point

Testimony from cooperating witnesses, which is often incentivized, is unreliable and can lead to false convictions because jurors and courts do not consistently recognize or adjust for the influence that these incentives have on witness and defendant behavior. (The most valuable encapsulating thought is found early in paragraph 2: )

P1: Introduction to Cooperating Witnesses

The passage starts by introducing two common types of cooperating witnesses in criminal cases—accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants—whose testimony often involves supposed confessions from the accused.

P2: The Problem with Incentivized Testimony

Explains that witnesses are often motivated by incentives like reduced sentences, which can encourage them to fabricate evidence. Since lying informants are rarely punished, they have a strong incentive to provide false testimony.

P3: Judicial Safeguards and Their Limitations

Highlights that although courts claim safeguards (like cross-examination and disclosure of incentives) exist to protect the accused, these are not always effective. Sometimes, deals between prosecutors and witnesses are implied rather than explicit, so juries are left unaware.

16.

Which one of the following questions is explicitly addressed in the passage?

Do jurors give the same
Unknown Comparison
This question is almost addressed at the end of the 4th paragraph, but it's slightly different The question at the end of the 4th paragraph is, "Do jurors give the same weight to confession evidence that is known to be incentivized provided by a cooperating witness as they do to confession evidence that is known to be incentivized that is provided directly by the defendant? This answer choice is speaking about the whole broad set of confession evidence, but the comparison at the end of the 4th paragraph is more narrowly about confession evidence that is known to have been elicited via some offered incentive.
36% picked this
To what extent are prosecutors
Out of Scope: limitations
The passage never discusses any ways in which prosecutors and investigators are constrained in terms of offering incentives. It does mention at the end of the 3rd paragraph the extent to which prosecutors and investigators are limited in their ability to offer undisclosed incentives. It says that if they merely insinuate a reward without explicitly naming one, they don't have to disclose that to the jury. But this question isn't about to what extent their disclosures to the jury are limited. It's about their ability to offer an incentive in the first place.
7% picked this
Is the bartered testimony of
Unknown Comparison
The passage is about accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants, both of which stand to gain incentives from ratting someone out, and so both of which are offering testimony that merits dubious scrutiny. But the passage never directly compares the reliability of one source vs. the other.
3% picked this
Correct
How common is the prosecution
Why this is right
The end of the 2nd paragraph answers explicitly addresses this question: In fact, one recent study concluded that lying informants are rarely prosecuted. So how common is the prosecution of cooperating witnesses who knowingly provide false testimony (i.e. the prosecution of lying informants)? Not common. It's rare. Some of us may have been thinking, "Is that precise enough of an answer? When asked 'How common is X', does it qualify as an answer to say 'Not common'?" It's helpful to remember that the question stem didn't demand that this question was answered in a specific way, just that the question was explicitly addressed.
Skill tested: Five Questions · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
49% picked this
To what extent do jurors
Out of Scope: variance among jurors
The passage treats jurors as a monolithic character. It always mentions jurors as a collective noun: - jurors give undue weight - jurors are aware a defendant has been offered an incentive - jurors' superficial examination of confession evidence - jurors may presuppose So the passage doesn't seem to ever address the question of how much variety there is among jurors in their ability to discern whether a witness is lying.
5% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free