Informants are witnesses who often testify in exchange for an incentive (i.e. jailhouse informant, cooperating witness). Despite the widespread use of informants, little is known about the circumstances surrounding their use at trial. This study content-analyzed trials from 22 DNA exoneration cases involving 53 informants. Because these defendants were exonerated, the prosecution informant testimony is demonstrably false. Informant characteristics including motivation for testifying, criminal history, relationship with the defendant and testimony were coded. Most informants were prosecution jailhouse informants; however, there were also defence jailhouse informants and prosecution cooperating witnesses. Regardless of informant type, most denied receiving an incentive, had criminal histories, were friends/acquaintances of the defendant and had testimonial inconsistencies. In closing statements, attorneys relied on informant testimony by either emphasizing or questioning its reliability. The impact of informant testimony on jurors’ decisions is discussed in terms of truth-default theory (TDT), the fundamental attribution error and prosecutorial vouching.

线人是经常作证以换取激励的证人（即监狱线人、合作证人）。尽管线人被广泛使用，但人们对他们在审判中使用的情况知之甚少。本研究对涉及 53 名知情人的 22 个 DNA 无罪案件进行内容分析试验。由于这些被告被无罪释放，检方线人的证词显然是错误的。对包括作证动机、犯罪历史、与被告关系和证词在内的线人特征进行编码。大多数线人是检察机关的线人；然而，也有辩护监狱线人和检方合作证人。无论线人类型如何，大多数人都否认接受过奖励，有犯罪史，是被告的朋友/熟人，并有证词不一致。在结案陈词中，律师通过强调或质疑其可靠性来依赖线人的证词。从真相默认理论（TDT）、基本归因错误和起诉保证方面讨论了线人证词对陪审员决定的影响。