- 1. Research Proposal Effects of juror training and note-taking
on comprehension of applicable trial law
2. Introduction
- Language has a strong influence in molding our thoughts and
decisions
- Language directs our attention and forms new connections with
prior knowledge
- Without relevant connections, the ability to learn new concepts
is severely compromised
3. Introduction
- Without relevant connections, the ability to learn new concepts
is severely compromised
- Most jurors are novices to the legal system and therefore lack
prior knowledge/framework
- Complex legal terms, communicated through difficult/confusing
oral/written language, affords jurors nothing to which to
connect
4. Language and Thought Introduction 5. Language and Thought
Introduction Complex Legal Language ? ? ? ? 6. Priest Accountant
Bus Driver Student Professor Hair Dresser Cashier Nurse Engineer
Journalist Mom Introduction 7.
- Understanding Jury Instructions?
- If you decide that one or more sufficientaggravating
circumstancesexist to warrant the imposition of death, as submitted
in Instruction No. 5, you must
then determine whether one or moremitigating circumstancesexist
that outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances sofound
to exist .In deciding that question, you may consider all the
evidence relating to the murder. You may also consider: 1. Whether
the murder was committed while the defendant was under
extrememental or emotional disturbance . 2. Whether the capacity of
the defendant to appreciate thecriminalityof his conduct or to
conform to the law wassubstantially impaired . You may also
consider an circumstance which you find from evidence inmitigation
of punishment . It is not necessary that all jurors agree on the
existence of the samemitigating circumstance .If each juror finds
one or more mitigating circumstancesufficient to
outweighaggravating circumstances found to exist, then you must
return a verdict fixing defendants punishment at imprisonment for
life by the Division of Corrections without eligibility for
probation or parole. 8.
- Otto, Applegate, & Davis(2007):
- Jurors prior beliefs significantly affected comprehension of
applicable law
- Modified instructions to eliminate belief bias improved
comprehension accuracy in experimental versus control group (60%
versus 46%)
Complex Jury Instructions Literature Review 9. Complex Jury
Instructions
- Weiner, Pritchard, & Weston(1995):
- Jurors miscomprehended jury instructions during penalty phase
of capital murder trials
- Clearer, simpler instructions improved comprehension accuracy
in experimental versus control group (67% versus 57%)
Literature Review 10. Complex Jury Instructions
- Jurors misunderstood jury responsibility as indicated in jury
instructions for guilt and sentencing phase of trial
- Revised instructions improved comprehension accuracy in
experimental versus control group (60% versus 50%)
Literature Review 11. Improving Understanding
- Court preparation training (task-demand training and
comprehension-monitoring training) improved trial understanding and
evidence comprehension in child witnesses (82% v. 54% in
experimental v. control group)
Literature Review 12. Improving Understanding
- ForsterLee, Horowitz & Bourgeois (1994):
- Jurors allowed to take notes during trial recalled
significantly more probative evidence and made more correct
distinctions in assigning liability and awarding damages than the
control group
Literature Review 13.
- Apart from prior knowledge, only knowledge available to jurors
comes from language of jury instruction
- Repeated attempts to increase comprehension via improved jury
instruction showed significant, but minimal, improvement
- In addition to improved jury instruction, jurors may benefit
from additional resources allowing them to increase connections
between legal language and knowledge
Rationale for Research 14. Research Question
- What are the effects of the following two factors on
understanding and comprehension of revised jury instructions:
- 1. Juror preparation training
15. Procedures
- Target Population and Sampling Method :
- 160 Jury-eligible South Carolinians who report for jury duty
but are not selected; invited after non-selection to immediately
participate in a juror research study for which they would be paid
$40 for 2 hours
- *Jurors would not be informed of the opportunity for research
until after they were not selected as a jury member
16. Procedures Participants randomly assigned to one of four
groups: Note-Taking No Note-Taking Juror Training Group 1 Group 3
No Juror Training Group 2 Baseline Control 17. Procedures
- Participants in juror training groups (Groups 1and 3) will
receive Task Demand Training (TDT) and Comprehension Monitoring
Training (CMT) prior to trial procedures
- *TDT training verbalizes to jurors what to expect in a
trial*CMT training shows jurors how to recognize linguistic
- confusion and ask to have questions rephrased for clarity,
18. Procedures
- Participants in juror note-taking groups (Groups1 and 2) will
be allowed to take notes during trial procedures presentation of
evidence and jury instructions(ForsterLee, et al., 1994)
19. Procedures
- All participants will read a trial fact summary
- (evidence) and applicable jury instructions
- *Jury instructions revised for simplicity, clarity and ease of
use based on trial summary and jury instructions by Wiener et al.
(1995)
- 2. Participants will complete a jury instruction comprehension
inventory (jury survey) to test understanding and comprehension of
applicable law(Wiener et al., 1995)
20. Procedures
- Differences Between Instruction Conditions:
- Means, percentages and standard deviations of jury survey items
answered correctly for each of the four groups
- 2. Comparisons using the analysis of variance (ANOVA)
procedure(Wiener et al., 1995)
21. Hypotheses
- Experimental groups receiving juror preparation training and
allowance of note-taking (Group 1 and Group 2) will score
significantly higher on comprehension measures of jury instructions
compared with the baseline control group.
22. Hypotheses
- 2. The experimental group receiving both juror preparation
training and allowance of note-taking (Group 3) will score
significantly higher than all other groups (experimental Groups 1,
2, and the baseline control group).
23. Limitations
- Sample will be limited to jury-eligible South Carolinians
- South Carolinians will be tested using Missouri-based trial
fact summary and Missouri-approved jury instructions (basedon
Wiener et al., 1995)
- The complexity of the trial fact summary will not be
tested
- Delineation will be limited to jury-eligible South Carolinians
(with telephone service)
24. References
- Diamond, S.S, & Levi, J.N. (1996). Improving decision on
death by revising and testing jury instructions.Judicature, 79,5,
224-232.
- ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I.A., & Bourgeois, M.J. (1994).
Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a
civil trial.Law and Human Behavior, 18,567-578.
- Otto, C.W., Applegate, B.K., & Davis, R.K. (2007).
Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instruction:
Debunking juror misconceptions.Crime & Delinquency,
5,502-517.
- Peters, W.W., & Nunez, N. (1999). Complex language and
comprehension monitoring: Teaching child witnesses to recognize
linguistic confusion.Journal of Applied Psychology,
84,661-669.
- Reisberg, D. (2007).Cognition: exploring the science of the
mind (3 rded.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
- Wiener, R.L., Pritchard, C.C., & Weston, M. (1995).
Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder
cases.Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,455-467.