Improving Comprehension of Capital Sentencing Instructions

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that judicial instructions on the law are not well understood by jurors tasked with applying the law to the facts of a case. The past research has also shown that jurors are often confused by the instructions used in the sentencing phase of a capital trial. The current research tested the effectiveness of a “debunking” approach to improving juror misunderstanding associated with capital sentencing instructions. Participants were randomly assigned to hear either Florida's pattern instructions used in the penalty phase of a capital trial or the same instructions with additional statements that mentioned and refuted misconceptions thought to be associated with established areas of miscomprehension. After participants heard the judicial instructions, their understanding of the law on capital punishment decision making was assessed. The results revealed that comprehension was higher for participants exposed to the bias-refutation statements than for participants who were exposed to only the pattern instructions.

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.…”

An Examination of Juveniles' Miranda Abilities: Investigating Differences in Miranda Recall and Reasoning

“…As a promising alternative, pilot research is underway regarding the potential effectiveness of refutation texts to correct Miranda misconceptions. Sinatra and Broughton (, p. 383) recently reviewed the effectiveness of refutation texts, which are described as, “persuasive in nature because they present a compelling argument that is designed to shift the reader's views.” Used forensically to debunk jurors' misconceptions (Otto, Applegate, & Davis, ), refutation texts typically (a) clearly state the error, (b) provide direct confrontation, and (c) emphasize the correction information (Hynd, ). The following is an example of how refutation texts could be applied to Miranda misconceptions: Error: “I already gave up my rights, so I can't ask for them again.” Correction: “You can always choose to be silent.…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…As a result, it might be necessary to provide jurors with more extensive information to challenge their preconceived notions. Similar instructions challenging common misconceptions about general legal concepts have improved jurors' comprehension of instructions (Otto et al, 2007 ). The fact that instructions infl uence some aspects of jurors' perception of the trial (e.g., infl uence of eyewitness testimony on verdict; Greene, 1988 ) demonstrates that jurors are receptive to the instructions.…”

“…Some of these novel formats involve the use of "pinpoint" instructions, which explicitly state case facts (e.g., referring to the defendant by name) and link these facts to the appropriate legal standard (Smith & Haney, 2011 ). Another novel approach is to include statements that dispel common misconceptions about legal concepts, for example, by explaining to jurors that, unlike other elements of a death penalty trial, mitigating circumstances do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Otto, Applegate, & Davis, 2007 ). Other novel approaches involve incorporating visual stimuli to jury instructions to improve comprehension.…”

“…Researchers have paid special attention to instructions in death penalty trials, as over a dozen studies have tested the infl uence of death penalty jury instructions in states including California (Haney & Lynch, 1994, Missouri (Wiener et al, 1995 ), North Carolina (Luginbuhl, 1992 ), South Carolina (Eisenberg & Wells, 1993 ), Florida (Otto et al, 2007 ); Pennsylvania (Foglia, 2003 ), and Tennessee (Blankenship, Luginbuhl, Cullen, & Redick, 1997 ). Results are generally the same as with other jury instructions: jurors have poor comprehension of instructions, generally ranging from 25 to 70 % accuracy depending on the topic (e.g., Blankenship et al, 1997 ;Frank & Applegate, 1998 ;Wiener et al, 1995 ).…”