Pattern jury instructions have been criticized for being less than understandable to the average juror and thus for causing arbitrary juridic decisions. Two studies were conducted to establish whether these criticisms are justified and to find solutions to these problems. Both studies established the validity of the criticisms by demonstrating that the presentation of presently used Michigan negligence instructions is about as effective in helping jurors understand the laws as the presentation of no instructions at all. It was found that by rewriting these instructions in accordance with empirical knowledge of what elements affect perception, memory, and comprehension of language, their effectiveness was significantly improved. Furthermore, it was found that the presentation of instructions both at the beginning and at the end of a case would allow jurors a greater opportunity to focus their attention on relevant evidence and to remember it. The studies demonstrate the urgent need for jurisdictions around the country to improve the way jury instructions are written and delivered, Jf they expect jurors to reach verdicts in light of the law rather than in ignorance of it.

Future dangerousness of a criminal defendant is an important consideration in eight states' capital sentencing provisions, and in Oregon and Texas a finding of dangerousness is an essential requirement for the imposition of the death penalty (Worrell, 1987).

No abstract

This article critically examines the social science research relevant to evaluating the effectiveness of judicial instructions. For several decades it has been shown repeatedly that jurors' comprehension of instructions is poor. Consequently, factors that contribute to instruction ineffectiveness are examined. In addition to focusing on the general problem of instruction comprehension, this article reviews limitations associated with a variety of specific types of instructions. Fortunately, several solutions for improving comprehension rates have been empirically demonstrated, the most notable of these being rewriting instructions based on commonly accepted psycholinguistic principles. Other solutions are also addressed. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for public policy.

Women who murder their children have been the subject of intensive media and public scrutiny. Reactions have varied from horror at the cruelty of the act to sympathy for the perpetrator, based on the belief that the mother must have been severely mentally disordered or at least suffering from a diminished mental capacity at the time of the offense. As a result, the English and American legal systems have adopted very different legal responses to this crime. Underlying these legal positions are assumptions about the effect of childbirth on mental status and the relation of mental status to the legal criteria necessary to meet a legal defense (e.g., insanity) or necessary to justify charging the offender with a lesser crime. This article critically considers the scientific knowledge on infanticide and mental illness to determine the appropriateness of these assumptions.Editor's Note. Michael Perlin served as the action editor for this article.-BDS