Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
22 - Deciphering Directives
Juror Decision-Making Challenges with Understanding Judicial Instructions
from Part III - Trial Phase Decision-Making
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 February 2024
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Editors
- Contributors
- Part I Introduction Chapters
- Part II Pretrial Phase Decision-Making
- Part III Trial Phase Decision-Making
- 20 Social Cognition of Jury Decision-Making
- 21 Beliefs About Juror Decision-Making and the Jury Process
- 22 Deciphering Directives
- 23 Decisions Surrounding the Use of Expert Testimony
- 24 Legal and Extralegal Factors that Affect Jurors’ Decisions
- 25 Decisions Regarding Insanity
- 26 Decision-Making in the Shadow of Evidence Law
- 27 Decision-Making in Contested Divorce Child Custody Cases
- Part IV Postconviction Phase Decisions
- Part V Other Legal Decision-Making
- Part VI Perspectives from the Field
- Part VII Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
In the United States, judges use “pattern instructions” to inform jurors of laws relevant to the case at hand, and for the procedures they are to use in order to carry out their duties. Although these instructions are written in a legally accurate manner, social science research has demonstrated that they are often not well understood by jurors, who consequently render decisions based on an incomplete, or inaccurate, understanding of the law. This chapter reviews factors that lead to comprehension problems associated with judicial instructions, including: the language and sentence structure typically used to write instructions, jurors’ education level and life experiences that contribute to preexisting beliefs about the law, and trial complexity. The chapter also reviews the effectiveness of solutions that have been proposed for improving jurors’ understanding of judicial instructions, so that more legally accurate decisions can be rendered.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Psychology and Legal Decision-Making , pp. 339 - 354Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2017). Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors’ application of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000234Google Scholar
Bentele, U., & Bowers, W. (2001). How jurors decide on death: Guilt is overwhelming; aggravation requires death; and mitigation is no excuse. Brooklyn Law Review, 66(1), 1011–1079.Google Scholar
Boyde v. California, 949 US 370 (1990).Google Scholar
CA Penal Code § 1096 (1995). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1096.&lawCode=PEN.Google Scholar
Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1036.Google Scholar
Cecil, J. S. (1988). Jury service in lengthy civil trials (Vol. 87, No. 6). Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842.Google Scholar
Davis, J. P., Wheatman, S., & Stephansky, C. (2016). Writing better jury instructions: Antitrust as an example. West Virginia Law Review, 119(1), 235–296.Google Scholar
Dhami, M. K., Lundrigan, S., & Mueller-Johnson, K. (2015). Instructions on reasonable doubt: Defining the standard of proof and the juror’s task. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000038.Google Scholar
Diamond, S. (2003). Truth, justice, and the jury. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26(1), 143–155.Google Scholar
Ede, T., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question trails in trials: Structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37(2), 114–136.Google Scholar
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it. Law and Human Behavior, 1(2), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Michie.Google Scholar
Finkel, N. J. (2000). Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), 591–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.591.Google Scholar
Gallup (2022, April 30). Confidence in institutions. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx.Google Scholar
Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(3), 252–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x.Google Scholar
Greene, E. (2009). Psychological issues in civil trials. In Lieberman, J. D. & Krauss, D. A. (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process (pp. 183–205). Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Greene, E., & Johns, M. (2001). Jurors’ use of instructions on negligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 840–859. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01416.x.Google Scholar
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153 (1976).Google Scholar
Halverson, A. M., Hallahan, M., Hart, A. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). Reducing the biasing effects of judges’ nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.590.Google Scholar
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 575–595. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024804629759.Google Scholar
Hans, V., & Ermann, M. (1989). Responses to corporate versus individual wrongdoing. Law and Human Behavior, 13(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.Google Scholar
Kagehiro, D. (1990). Defining the standard of proof. Psychological Science, 1(3), 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00197.x.Google Scholar
Kazalyn v. State, 108 Nev. 67, 825 P.2d 578 (1992).Google Scholar
Kramer, G., & Koening, D. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan juror comprehension project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23, 401–437.Google Scholar
Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 1998(1), 297–342.Google Scholar
Leipold, A. D., & Abbasi, H. A. (2006). The impact of joinder and severance on federal criminal cases: An empirical study. Vanderbilt Law Review, 5(2), 349–404.Google Scholar
Lieberman, J. D. (2009). The psychology of jury instructions. In Lieberman, J. D. & Krauss, D. (Eds.), Psychology in the courtroom: Volume 1 – jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process (pp. 129–155). Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997 ). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 589–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589.Google Scholar
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 US 586 (1978).Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2009). The social psychology of capital cases. In Lieberman, J. D. & Krauss, D. A. (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of the trial process (pp. 157–181). Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. & Haney, C. (2011). Mapping the racial bias of the white male capital juror: Jury composition and the “empathetic divide.” Law and Society Review, 45(1), 69–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2011.00428.x.Google Scholar
Nieland, R. G. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at the modern movement to improve the jury system. American Judicature Society.Google Scholar
Ogloff, J. R. P., & Rose, V. G. (2005). The comprehension of judicial instructions. In Brewer, N. & Williams, K. D. (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 407–444). Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Praeger, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 3, 187–193.Google Scholar
Ramirez, G., Zemba, D., & Geiselman, R. E. (1996). Judges’ cautionary instructions on eyewitness testimony. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14(1), 31–66.Google Scholar
Reed, K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Juries, joinder, and justice. The Jury Expert, 27(3), 1–5.Google Scholar
Reifman, A., Gusick, S. M., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16(5), 539–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044622.Google Scholar
Robbennolt, J. (2002). Punitive damage decision making: The decisions of citizens and trial court judges. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015376421813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 9(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.2.262.Google Scholar
Shaffer, D. R., & Wheatman, S. R. (2000). Does personality influence reactions to judicial instructions? Some preliminary findings and possible implications. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 6(3), 655–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.655.Google Scholar
Skalon, A., & Beaudry, J. L. (2020). The effectiveness of judicial instructions on eyewitness evidence in sensitizing jurors to suggestive identification procedures captured on video. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(4), 565–594. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09381-2.Google Scholar
Smith, A. E., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0.Google Scholar
Smith, V. L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 857–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.857.Google Scholar
Steele, W. W., & Thornburg, E. G. (1988). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67(1), 77–119.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. (2009). Communicating with Juries: How to draft more understandable jury instructions. Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper (2009-44), 1–37.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. (2020). Instructions to jurors: Redrafting California’s jury instructions. In Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 267–280). Routledge.Google Scholar
Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455.Google Scholar
Wiener, R., Rogers, M., Winter, R., et al. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 10(4), 516–576. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516.Google Scholar
Wright, D. B., & Hall, M. (2007). How a “reasonable doubt” instruction affects decisions of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331254.Google Scholar