Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T10:20:41.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury Instructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Laurence J. Severance  and
Elizabeth F. Loftus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The complexity and linguistic construction of jury instructions can inhibit jurors' ability to comprehend and apply the law. Study 1 analyzes questions asked by actual deliberating jurors in order to identify sources of juror misunderstanding in criminal pattern jury instructions. Instructions concerning “reasonable doubt,” criminal “intent,” the use of evidence concerning prior convictions, and the general duties of jurors, are selected for further investigation. Study 2 uses videotaped trial materials to pinpoint linguistic problems that confuse jurors and interfere with their abilities to accurately comprehend and apply the selected pattern jury instructions. Available knowledge concerning psycholinguistics is then applied to rewrite the troublesome instructions; in addition, legal expertise is consulted to help assure that the rewritten instructions are legally valid. Study 3 demonstrates that the rewritten instructions improve jurors' understanding relative to Pattern or No instructions. Overall, the research indicates the availability to the criminal justice system of improved methods for instructing jurors accurately and effectively in the law.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 17 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Psychology and Law , 1982 , pp. 153 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The authors wish to especially thank Edith Greene, Carla Iafrate, and Marlene Flynn for their assistance in various phases of this research.

References

References

CHARROW, Robert P. and Veda, CHARROW (1979) “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions,” 79 Columbia Law Review 1306.Google Scholar
DOOB, Anthony N. and Hershi, KIRSHENBAUM (1973) “Some Empirical Evidence on the Effect of 5.12 of the Canada Evidence Act upon the Accused,” 15 Criminal Law Quarterly 88.Google Scholar
ELWORK, Amiram, Bruce, SALES, and James J., ALFINI (1977) “Juridic Decisions: In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of It?” 1 Law and Human Behavior 163.Google Scholar
ELWORK, Amiram (1982) Making Jury Instructions Understandable. Michie/Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
FESTINGER, Leon (1964) Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
FORSTON, Robert F. (1975) “Sense and Non-Sense: Jury Trial Communication,” 1975 Brigham Young University Law Review 601.Google Scholar
GRICE, H. Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation,” in Cole, P. and Morgan, J.L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics HI: Speech Acts. N.Y.: Seminar Press.Google Scholar
HAMES, Luther C. (1975) “Pattern Jury Instructions,” 27 Mercer Law Review 291.Google Scholar
KERR, Norbert L., Robert S., ATKIN, Garold, STASSER, David, MEEK, Robert W., HOLT, and James H., DAVIS (1976) “Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Effects of Concept Definition and Assigned Decision Rule on Judgments of Mock Jurors,” 34 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology“ 282.Google Scholar
MEYER, Bernard S. and Maurice, ROSENBERG (1971) “Questions Juries Ask: Untapped Springs of Insight,” 55 Judicature 195.Google Scholar
MYERS, E.R. and C., JONES (1979) “Language and Jury Instructions,” in (ed.), The Jury. Law Reform Commission of Canada.Google Scholar
NIELAND, Robert G. (1978) “Assessing the Impact of Pattern Jury Instructions,” 62 Judicature 185.Google Scholar
NIELAND, Robert G. (1979) Pattern Jury Instructions: A Critical Look at a Modern Movement to Improve the Jury System. Chicago: American Judicature Society.Google Scholar
O'MARA, Joseph (1972) “Standard Jury Charges: Findings of a Pilot Project,” 1972 (Jan.) Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 166.Google Scholar
O'MARA, Joseph J. and Rolf VON, ECKARTSBERG (1977) “Proposed Standard Jury Instructions—Evaluation of Usage and Understanding,” 48 Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly 542.Google Scholar
ORFIELD, Lester B. (1963) “Burden of Proof and Presumption in Criminal Cases,” 31 University of Kansas City Law Review 30.Google Scholar
SALES, Bruce D., Amiram, ELWORK, and James J., ALFINI (1977) “Improving Comprehension for Jury Instructions,” in Sales, B.D. (ed.), Perspectives in Law and Psychology: The Criminal Justice System. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SEVERANCE, Laurence, Elizabeth, LOFTUS, and Edith, GREENE (1983) Toward Criminal Jury Instructions that Jurors Can Understand (in preparation).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
STRAWN, David U. and Raymond W., BUCHANAN (1976) “Jury Confusion: A Threat to Justice,” 59 Judicature 478.Google Scholar
WARREN, C.A.B. and L., MAULDIN 1980 “Deliberation in Six Juries: A Participant Observer Study,” Qualitative Sociology (Spring, 1980) 157.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Ballew v. Georgia, 46 LW 4217, 1978.Google Scholar
Bollenbach v. United States, 66 Sup. Ct. 402, 1946.Google Scholar
Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 1972.Google Scholar
People v. Garcia, 54 Cal. App. 3d 61, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2754, 1976.Google Scholar
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 1970.Google Scholar
Walsh v. Miehle-Gross-Dexter, Inc., 378 F.2d 409, (3d Cir.), 1967.Google Scholar
Wright v. United States, 250 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir.), 1967.Google Scholar
Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar