Legal communication: An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern instructions

Buchanan, Raymond W.; Pryor, Bert; Taylor, K. Phillip; Strawn, David U.

doi:10.1080/01463377809369311

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The revision was made by the Commission on Judicial Instructions after the California Supreme Court noted that the definitions, which originated from Black's Law Dictionary, offered "a helpful framework within which the jury could consider the specific circumstances in aggravation and mitigation" (People v. Dyer, 1988, p. 78). 6Specifically, in a comprehension test of criminal instructions in Florida, Buchanan, Pryor, Taylor, and Strawn (1978) found that those subjects with at least some college education scored significantly higher than those with no college experience. See also Haney and Lynch (1994) and Reitman, Ellsworth, and Gusick (1992) for a more extended discussion of this issue.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments.

Haney

Lynch

1997

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report the results of two studies designed as follow-ups to our earlier research on the comprehension of capital penalty instructions. In the first study we examine whether a California penalty instruction that was revised by the courts to improve its comprehension by jurors accomplishes this goal. In the second study we content-analyze a sample of attorney closing arguments that were given at the conclusion of actual capital penalty phases to explore whether they are likely to clarify those concepts and procedures that are so poorly comprehended in the judge's instructions. Results indicate that the revised instruction suffers from the same comprehension problems that plagued its predecessor and that attorney arguments appear unlikely to significantly reduce confusion among capital jurors.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments.

Haney

Lynch

1997

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies beginning in the 1970s examined how well mock and former jurors understood instructions on points of law necessary to determine criminal guilt or civil liability. By and large, these research projects revealed substantial miscomprehension of judicial instructions (Benson, 1985;Buchanan et al, 1978;Charrow & Charrow, 1979;Elwork, Sales, & Alfini, 1977;Kramer & Koenig, 1990;Reifman, Gusick, & Ellsworth, 1992;Severance, Greene, & Loftus, 1984;Severance & Loftus, 1982;Steele & Thornburg, 1988). More recently, scholars have examined juror understanding of the penalty phase instructions in capital trials.…”

Section: Jury Miscomprehension Of Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Comprehension of Capital Sentencing Instructions

Otto

Applegäte

Davis

2007

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Although not stated in Devitt and Blackmar's series, the purpose of such models is typically two fold: (a) to state the law correctly, and (b) to state the law simply (Buchanan et al, 1978). In general, the ultimate goal of any set of jury instructions is to help the jury understand the law so it may reach a proper verdict (Jones, 1980).…”

Section: The Federal Standard Instructionsmentioning

confidence: 98%