Reading Comprehension

PT153 · S1 · P3 · Q20 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

Start practicing free

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.

20.

The author mentions the research on confession testimony (fourth paragraph) primarily in order to

  1. reveal a potential problem for

    Opposite

    Confession testimony is brought up to further buttress the author's analysis, not to undermine it or reveal a problem with it.

    5% picked this

  2. make an unfavorable comparison to

    Unconnected to Study Opposite: unfavorable

    The correct answer to Local Purpose almost never leaves the paragraph we're in, unless the previous sentence is the end of the previous paragraph. This discussion of confession testimony is not trying to make any comparison to an earlier study. If anything, though, it would go hand-in-hand with the study. The study concluded that "lying informants are rarely prosecuted and therefore have much to gain and little to lose by testifying falsely". Jurors are bad in that they underestimate the power of incentives, and if the informants have lots of incentive to lie, then that augments the point the author is making here.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    justify a conclusion regarding jurors?

    Why this is right

    Tough wording, but this is basically resonating with, "in addition, [confession evidence] reveal further problems with bartered testimony." Bartered testimony = evidence provided by cooperating witnesses (in return for something) The author's conclusion about how jurors treat such evidence is that "there are problems with how jurors treat such evidence". The final sentence of the 4th paragraph shows the big takeaway line that connects "confession testimony" to "cooperating witness testimony: This is particularly relevant here because if people (jurors) have difficulty realizing the effect that an incentive can have on a defendant's behavior (confession testimony), they may also fail to realize the effect that an incentive may have on a cooperating witnesses' behavior.

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    65% picked this

  4. question the relevance of jury

    Opposite: question relevance

    "To question the relevance of X to Y" is to say, "Hmm ... I don't think X is really relevant to Y". The author is doing the opposite here. As the last sentence of the 4th paragraph instructs us, the author thinks that the juries decision-making process (or, really, their evidence-weighting process) for dealing with confession testimony is particularly relevant to the potential pitfalls of relying on bartered testimony from cooperating witnesses).

    11% picked this

  5. contrast the way in which

    Opposite: contrast

    The point of this paragraph is to show the similarity between these two things, not to contrast them. In both cases, the author is arguing, jurors are improperly evaluating evidence without appreciating how much incentives create the potential for falsified evidence.

    18% 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