The Effects of Contingent Plea Agreements for Witness Testimony
Contingent plea agreements for witness testimony
GPT Abstract Summary
Using a Bayesian jury model, this study examines contingent plea agreements under which a prosecutor offers leniency to an eyewitness conditional on a successful conviction. It considers concerns about perjury and cases in which courts have excluded testimony obtained through such agreements. The effects on Type 1 errors (convicting innocent defendants) and Type 2 errors (acquitting guilty defendants) depend on the precision of additional trial evidence. When that evidence is highly precise, allowing contingency may reduce both errors. A properly designed limit on leniency can also allow both errors to decrease.
Key Points
- There are concerns about perjury when a prosecutor offers leniency conditional on a successful conviction.
- The Bayesian jury model examines how contingent offers affect Type 1 errors (convicting innocent defendants) and Type 2 errors (acquitting guilty defendants).
- When additional evidence is highly precise, contingent plea agreements may help reduce both types of error.
Scope and Limitations of the Summary
This English translation is based on a Korean summary generated from the source abstract. It is not a review of the full paper. Consult the original for detailed methods, figures and the scope of the conclusions.
This summary is based solely on the paper's abstract information and does not include detailed information on research methods, data, statistical verification processes, or limitations.
This summary does not represent the official views of Professor Haksoo Ko or the Center for Law & Economics at Seoul National University.
Summary Basis: Original Abstract · Model: gpt-4.1-mini · Generated: 2026. 10. 02. 01:59 (Korean Standard Time)