False-Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of False-Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification Krista D. Forrest, Ph.D. * , William Douglas Woody, Ph.D. † , Sara E. Brady, B.S. ‡ , Keller C. Batterman, B.S. ‡ , Bradley J. Stastny, B.S. ‡ and Jennifer A. Bruns, B.S. ‡ We studied mock jurors’ evaluations of police false-evidence ploys across two false- evidence ploy information conditions (true or false confession). Study 1 participants evaluated lists of demeanor, testimonial, and scientific ploys and rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys. Participants in the false-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive than did participants in the true-confession condition. Study 2 participants evaluated false- evidence ploy types within interrogation transcripts. Participants rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys; participants in the true-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more justified. Across studies, participants reading realistic transcripts rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive. We discuss implications for scholars, attorneys, and interrogators. Copyright # 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INTRODUCTION Interrogator sources, surveys of detectives, and case studies have illustrated the tech- niques used in the interrogation room and the resulting outcomes (see Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2001; Jayne & Buckley, 1999; Kassin, 1997; Kassin et al., 2007, 2010; Woody, Forrest, & Stewart, 2011). As police interrogation transcripts and videos become more available and even expected forms of evidence during trial, researchers should examine jurors’ perceptions of and responses to such interrogation techniques (Leo, 2008). Our investigation focuses on jurors’ perceptions of deceptive techniques and, more specifically, false-evidence ploys. Police Deception Since police interrogators moved away from the third degree, officers have relied more on psychological deception (Inbau et al., 2001; Jayne & Buckley, 1999; Leo, 1992, *Correspondence to: Krista D. Forrest, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Kearney, Kearney, NE 68849–5140 U.S.A. E-mail: forrestk@unk.edu † University of Northern Colorado. ‡ University of Nebraska at Kearney. Special thanks goes to the University of Nebraska at Kearney’s Undergraduate Research Counsel for providing funding to Keller C. Batterman for the survey of community jurors. Copyright # 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. Sci. Law 30: 342–364 (2012) Published online 8 February 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.1999