What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process.

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.

The effect of biased and non-biased information on judgments of witness credibility

“…One major source of information is the instructions given by the judge, which provide jurors with a legal context to guide their decision making (Liberman & Sales, 1997). However, any effect of jury instructions depends upon the judge heror himself not hosting corresponding biases and stereotypes or, if so, that the judge's instructions are not accompanied by nonverbal behavior that conveys the stereotype (Halverson et al, 1997).…”

Jury Nullification: The Influence of Judicial Instruction on the Relationship Between Attitudes and Juridic Decision-Making

“…Finally, for a decision to be classified as nullification, it should be shown that the jurors comprehended the jury instructions and, nevertheless, decided to disregard them. Many studies have shown that jurors often do not understand the instructions given to them by the judge (e.g., see Lieberman & Sales, 1997Shaffer & Wheatman, 2000). If a verdict results from the jurors' misunderstanding of the judge's instructions, then this cannot be classed as willful defiance of those instructions.…”

Jury Nullification Instructions as Amplifiers of Bias

“…72 In the present study, using a revised version of the same basic trial, the opposite occurred-recipients of nullification instructions were more likely to convict when the victim was relatively unsympathetic. While there were many differences in the trial content and mode of presentation between the two studies, 73 it is still noteworthy that the bad character of the victim served 68 See Lieberman & Sales (1997) for a review. 69 E.g., Barrett et al (2001); Schwarz & Clore (1996) 70 E.g.…”