Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S1 · P3 · Q17 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.

17.

The author would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements about the courts’ reliance on the testimony of cooperating witnesses?

It encourages unacceptably harsh treatment
Out of Scope: unacceptably harsh treatment
This answer makes it sound like we have investigators and prison officials beating up prisoners until they agree to be cooperating witnesses. The passage never suggests anything like that. The passage suggests that investigators and prison officials are promising good things in reward for testifying.
1% picked this
It fails to recognize that
Out of Scope: fear retaliation
In mob movies, we know that the mob dude in jail is sometimes scared to speak out against the mob boss on trial, because the mob dude in jail is worried that he'll get whacked if he does. But there's nothing like this in the passage. The author is saying that these cooperating witnesses have "much to gain and little to lose" by lying. If lying were going to put them in danger of being attacked by allies of the defendant, then it wouldn't be true to say they have little to lose by testifying against a defendant.
5% picked this
It frequently places an unfair
Out of Scope: unfair burden
The last couple paragraphs of the passage talk about how jurors are not great at understanding how false confessions can be extracted and thus they're not great at understanding how false testimony from a cooperating witness can be induced. But the author never refers to that as an "unfair burden". The author is pointing out a problem with relying on cooperating witness testimony is that it's potentially false and jurors wouldn't be good at spotting that. This answer is saying we should blame the courts for that. It was wrong of them to burden jurors with trying to properly weight the value of cooperating witness testimony. However, the author might think we should blame the jurors for that. After all, the jurors also have problems weighting the value of confessions from the defendant, so if the author thinks it's unfair for jurors to hear cooperating witness testimony, then she'd also have to think it's unfair for jurors to hear about confessions from the defendant (and that seems like a very counterintuitive claim).
17% picked this
It is justified only in
Too Strong: only
This answer provides a very restrictive rule: courts can only allow cooperating witness testimony if the prosecution has little other evidence. We don't have any support text to back up such a strong rule. It's also counterintuitive, given the author's main point, which is that cooperating witness testimony is inherently sketchy. This would be saying, "If the prosecution has little other evidence, then it's okay for them to build their entire case on this cooperating witness testimony that is inherently sketchy."
2% picked this
Correct
It likely leads to some
Why this is right
The language of this claim is very soft: it's probably the case that at least one convicted criminal got a reduced sentence they didn't deserve by providing cooperating witness testimony. It aligns with our overall sense that the author finds the court's reliance on this testimony to be a potential problem. And it is supported by the 2nd paragraph. Cooperating witnesses are often providing information "in exchange for a reduced sentence". This is highly conducive to evidence fabrication (they just make up fake evidence). They are rarely prosecuted for lying, so they have much to gain and little to lose by testifying falsely. If a convicted criminal fabricates fake evidence and receives a sentence reduction in exchange for that, then it's common sense to think that the sentence reduction was not deserved; it was unwarranted. The criminal didn't provide anything of real value to prosecutors / investigators (just phony, fabricated "information") but they still got a reduced sentence.
Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.
74% 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