Toward Criminal Jury Instructions That Jurors Can Understand

Severance, Laurence J.; Greene, Edith; Loftus, Elizabeth F.

doi:10.2307/1143210

Cited by 57 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, no significant differences were found for evidence, F (3, subscale 1 (authoritarianism) of the RLAQ were less likely to comprehend the legal terms of reasonable doubt and evidence (see Table 3). However, no significant differences were found for murder aforethought, F (3,308 …”

Section: Juror Instructions and Legal System Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 80%

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

Coleman¹,

Espinoza²,

Coons³

2017

OALib

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Juror Instructions and Legal System Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 80%

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

Coleman¹,

Espinoza²,

Coons³

2017

OALib

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, we measured comprehension in the abstract, that is, without involving any discussion or instruction from a lawyer who, one would hope, could explain the concepts in ways that the client could understand. In their study of the comprehensibility of jury instructions, Severance, Greene, and Loftus (1984) showed that jurors' understanding was enhanced when jury instructions were simplified and when individual jurors had the opportunity to deliberate as a jury.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do People Comprehend Legal Language in Wills?

Greene

Fogler

Gibson

2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed the ability of laypeople to understand a document that most have read and signed: a last will and testament. We focused on concepts that are frequently included in wills, examined whether understanding can be enhanced by psycholinguistic revisions, and assessed comprehension as a function of age. Participants ages 32 to 89 years read will-related concepts in (i) their traditional format, (ii) a version revised to increase readability, or (iii) a version in which, in addition to those changes, we explained archaic and legal terms. Results showed that increasing the readability and explaining terms enhanced participants' abilities to apply will-related concepts to novel fact patterns and to explain their reasoning. We found no age-related effects on comprehension, consistent with well-documented findings that processing at the situation level of text comprehension is preserved in older adults. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest ideas for further research.

show abstract

“…Pattern instructions are diffi cult to understand because they tend to be quite lengthy and rely heavily on legal jargon (Severance, Greene, & Loftus, 1984 ). Legal professionals who write instructions might also be unaware of research on psycholinguistics, which suggests what factors might infl uence reading or auditory comprehension (e.g., Charrow & Charrow, 1979 ).…”

Section: The Legal Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%