Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions.

Abstract

This research examined the effects of several versions of capital penalty phase instructions on juror comprehension. Study One documented the impact of California's recently implemented "plain language" instruction. It showed that although the new instruction has clear advantages over the previous version, significant comprehension problems remain. Study Two evaluated several modified instructions designed to enhance comprehension. Participants heard either a standard patterned instruction or one of two alternatives-a psycholinguistically improved instruction, or a "pinpoint" instruction using case-related facts to illustrate key terms-in a simulated death penalty sentencing phase. Persons who heard modified instructions demonstrated higher levels of comprehension on virtually every measure as compared to those in the standard instruction condition.

Death Penalty Decisions: Instruction Comprehension, Attitudes, and Decision Mediators

“…Speaking specifically to the issue of instruction comprehension, the current studies replicate prior research demonstrating alarmingly low levels of jury comprehension of actual capital sentencing instructions (see, e.g., Haney & Lynch, 1994; 1997; Luginbuhl, 1992, Luginbuhl & Howe, 1995, Wiener et al, 1995; 1998; 2004), and also support the promising findings suggesting that the comprehensibility of capital sentencing instructions can be improved (e.g., Diamond & Levi, 1996; Otto, Applegate, & Davis, 2007; Smith & Haney, 2011; Wiener et al, 1995; 1998; 2004). While we observed abysmally low comprehension for the pattern Virginia instructions, comprehension was markedly higher when participants received revised instructions.…”

“…Many states require that aggravating factors must be unanimously determined to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, while mitigating factors may be found to exist by fewer than all of the jurors and must be found to exist only by a preponderance of the evidence. Experimental research suggests that there is widespread misunderstanding about judicial instructions on the relaxed standard of proof and unanimity requirements for finding mitigating circumstances that are important in the capital sentencing schemes of many states (Luginbuhl, 1992; Haney & Lynch, 1997; Smith & Haney, 2011). Since most other aspects of the criminal trial (in most capital cases, all other aspects) must be unanimously agreed upon by the jury to exist beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not surprising that there is some confusion about these issues (Luginbuhl, 1992).…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…The goal of "Plain Language" instructions is to improve juror comprehension (e.g., Marder, 2006 ;Tiersma & Curtis, 2008 ). Mock jurors' comprehension when using these "Plain Language" instructions is greater than comprehension when using standard pattern instructions (Smith & Haney, 2011 ;Tiersma & Curtis, 2008 ).…”

“…Jury instructions tend to rely extensively on legal jargon, which might be diffi cult for jurors to understand because they lack legal training (Charrow & Charrow, 1979 ;Haney & Lynch, 1994 ;Smith & Haney, 2011 ). Additionally, psycholinguistic analyses of jury instructions indicate that understanding the sentence structure of these instructions requires greater effort compared to sentences which present the same information in a more straightforward manner (Charrow & Charrow, 1979 ;Elwork, Sales, & Alfi ni, 1977 ).…”

Black vs. White, Life vs. Death; Using Automatic vs. Controlled Processing as a Framework for Understanding Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System

“…Partly in reaction to this lack of comprehension, California rewrote their capital sentencing instructions using a number of psycholinguistically sound principles; more concrete terms, less legal jargon, fewer negatives and better organization. A glimmer of hope with respect to the effect of this change has been provided by Smith and Haney [28]. In their study participants heard either the standard or the simplified California capital penalty phase instructions.…”