全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

An Empirical Comparison of the Old and Revised Jury Instructions of California: Do Jurors Comprehend Legal Ease Better or Does Bias Still Exist?

DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1103164, PP. 1-15

Subject Areas: Psychology

Keywords: Juror Instructions/Comprehension, California Legal Terminology

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract

We examined the old (Caljic) and new (Calcrim) standardized criminal jury instructions for the state of California for juror comprehension and objectivity of legal terminology. Three-hundred and twelve native English speaking participants acted as mock jurors and read through a trial transcript that varied juror instructions (Calcrim, Caljic, or non-descript instructions). After completion of the trial transcript, jurors were asked to render a verdict, recommend a sentence, and were questioned on comprehension, the legal definitions of reasonable doubt, circumstantial and direct evidence, and intent. Results demonstrated that jurors comprehended the new instructions significantly better compared with the old instructions. This comprehension was shown by jurors reaching a correct verdict significantly more often with the new instructions compared with the old. It was also shown that jurors could better identify reasonable doubt and evidence significantly better in the new instruction condition compared with the old and non-descript conditions.

Cite this paper

Coleman, J. , Espinoza, R. K. E. and Coons, J. V. (2017). An Empirical Comparison of the Old and Revised Jury Instructions of California: Do Jurors Comprehend Legal Ease Better or Does Bias Still Exist?. Open Access Library Journal, 4, e3164. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1103164.

References

[1]  Charrow, R.P. and Charrow, V.R. (1979) Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842
[2]  Elwork, A., Sales, B.D. and Alfini, J.J. (1977) Juridic Decisions: In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of It? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053437
[3]  Severance, L.J., Greene, E. and Loftus, E.F. (1984) Toward Criminal Jury Instructions That Jurors Can Understand. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198-233. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143210
[4]  Tiersma, P.M. and Curtis (2008) Testing the Comprehensibility of Jury Instructions: California’s Old and New Instructions on Circumstantial Evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1, 231-261.
[5]  Ellsworth, P.C. and Reifman, A. (2000) Juror Comprehension and Public Policy: Perceived Problems and Proposed Solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 788-821. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.788
[6]  American Bar Association (1999) Perceptions of the US Justice System Executive Summary. Retrieved October 14, 2012. http://www.abanet.org/media/perception/perceptexec.html
[7]  Imwinkelried, E.J. and Schwed, L.R. (1987) Guidelines for Drafting Jury Instructions: An Introduction to the Use of Psycholinguistics. Criminal Law Bulletin, 23, 135-150.
[8]  Plainlanguage.gov. Improving Communication from the Federal Government to the Public at PlainLanguage.gov. Retrieved October 14, 2008. http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before_after/jury.cfm
[9]  Holland, J. (1988) Effective Legal Writing: Who Put the Ease in Legalese? Trial, 24, 56-57.
[10]  Tiersma, P.M. (2005) Communicating with Juries: How to Draft More Understandable Instructions. The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing, 10, 1-54.
[11]  Goodman, J. and Greene, E. (1989) The Use of Paraphrase Analysis in the Simplification of Jury Instructions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 237-251.
[12]  Dane, F.C. (1985) In Search of Reasonable Doubt: A Systematic Examination of Selected Quantification Approaches. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141-158. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067048
[13]  Otto, C.W., Applegate, B.K. and Davis, R.K. (2007) Improving Comprehension of Capital Sentencing Instructions. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 502-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128706294681
[14]  Chomsky, N. (2005) Three Factors in Language Design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993655
[15]  Hemmens, C., Scarborough, K.E. and del Carmen, R.V. (1997) Grave Doubts about Reasonable Doubt: Confusion in State and Federal Courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 231-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00008-1
[16]  Greene, E., Chopra, S.R., Kovera, M.B., Penrod, S.D., Rose, V.D., Schuller, R. and Studebaker, C.A. (2002) Jurors and Juries: A Review of the Field. In: Ogloff, J.R.P., Ed., Taking Psychology and Law into the Twenty-First Century, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, 225-284.
[17]  Hurt, L.E. (1999) Juror Decision Making in Capital Murder Trials: A Social Cognitive Exploration of Guided Discretion. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Saint Louis University, Saint Louis.
[18]  Easley, D.F. (2004) “Plain English” Jury Instructions: Why They’re Still Needed and What the Appellate Community Can Do to Help. Florida Bar Journal, 78, 66-70.
[19]  Kramer, G. and Koenig, D. (1990) Do Jurors Understand Criminal Jury Instructions? Analyzing the Results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project. The University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23, 401-437.
[20]  Stewart, J.B. (2001) Race, Science, and Just-Us: Understanding Juror’s Reasonable Doubt in the OJ Simpson Trial. The Black Scholar, 25, 43-45.
[21]  Finkel, N.J. (2000) Commonsense Justice and Jury Instructions: Instructive and Reciprocating Connections. Psychology, public Policy, and Law, 3, 591-628. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.591
[22]  Lexis Nexis (2005) California Jury Pool Prefers New Plain-English Instructions, Survey Finds; Thirty-One Percent of Prospective Jurors Look forward to Being Called to Duty by Business Wire (16 November 2005).
[23]  Allen, M., Mabry, E. and McKelton, D.M. (1998) Impact of Juror Attitudes about the Death Penalty on Juror Evaluations of Guilt and Punishment: A Meta-Analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 715-731. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025763008533
[24]  Cohn, E.S. and Modecki, K.L. (2007) Gender Differences in Predicting Delinquent Behavior: Do Individual Differences Matter? Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 359-374. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.3.359
[25]  Espinoza, R.K.E. and Willis Esqueda, C. (2008) Defendant and Defense Attorney Characteristics and Their Effects on Juror Decision Making and Prejudice against Mexican-Americans. The Journal of Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 364-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012767
[26]  Espinoza, R.K.E. and Willis-Esqueda, C. (2014) The Influence of Defendant’s Mitigating Information, Race and SES on Death Penalty Decisions by European American and Hispanic Venire Persons. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 288-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037646
[27]  Rendell, J.A., Huss, M.T. and Jensen, M.L. (2010) Expert Testimony and the Effects of a Biological Approach, Psychopathy, and Juror Attitudes in Cases of Insanity. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 411-425. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.913
[28]  Martin, T.A. and Cohn, E.S. (2004) Attitudes toward the Criminal Legal System: Scale Development and Predictors. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 367-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160310001629265
[29]  Schiffhauer, K. and Wrightsman, S. (1995) The Measurement of Attitudes toward the Legal System. Unpublished Paper, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
[30]  Kravitz, D.A., Cutler, B.L. and Brock, P. (1993) Reliability and Validity of the Original and Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661-677. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044688
[31]  Wright, D.B. and Hall, M. (2007) How a Reasonable Doubt Instruction Affects Decisions of Guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 91-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530701331254
[32]  Bornstein, B. (1999) The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441

Full-Text


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413