Jurors' use of hearsay evidence: The effects of type and timing of instructions

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 501-518

  Paglia, Angela ^a   Schuller, Regina A ^b  

^a CENTRE FOR ADDICTION AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; DOCUMENT EXAMINATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION; JUSTICE; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; NORMAL HUMAN; WITNESS;

EID: 0031760080     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025735313134     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1990). Cognitive psychology and its implications (3rd ed.). New York: Freeman.
2. Baddeley, A. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
3. Biysh, P. J. (1974). Abolish the rule against hearsay. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 35, 602-622.
4. Carter, P. B. (1993). Hearsay: Whether and wither? Law Quarterly Review, 169, 573-594.
5. Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behavior, 4, 31-55.
6. Cruse, D., & Browne, B. A. (1987). Reasoning in a jury trial: The influence of instructions. Journal of General Psychology, 114, 129-133.
7. Delisle, R. J. (1989). Evidence: Principles and problems. Toronto: Carswell.
8. Delisle, R. J. (1991). R. v. Smith: The relevance of hearsay. 2 C.R. 4d, 260-267.
9. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior 21, 561-571.
10. Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513-563.
11. Eichhorn, L. (1989). Note: Social science findings and the jury's ability to disregard evidence under the federal rules of evidence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 341-353.
12. Federal Rules of Evidence. (1984). St. Paul, MN: West.
13. Ferguson, G. (1989). Canadian criminal jury instruction, (2nd ed.). Vancouver: Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia.
14. ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: Effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 14-21.
15. Goldberg, J. C. (1981). Memory, magic, and myth: The timing of jury instructions. Oregon Law Review, 59, 451-475.
16. Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 193-207.
17. Hans, V. P., & Doob, A. N. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada Evidence Act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235-253.
18. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.
19. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. New York: Praeger.
20. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877-1887.
21. Kovera, M. B., Park, R. C., & Penrod, S. D. (1992). Jurors' perceptions of eyewitness and hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 703-722.
22. Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409-438.
23. Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1991). A research essay: A preliminary empirical enquiry concerning the prohibition of hearsay evidence in American courts. Law and Psychology Review, 15, 65-85.
24. Loh, W. D. (1984). Social research in the judicial process. New York: Springer.
25. McCormick, C. (1984). Federal rules of evidence (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Praeger.
26. Miene, P., Park, R. C., & Borgida, E. (1992). Juror decision making and the evaluation of hearsay evidence. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 683-701.
27. Park, R. (1987). A subject approach to hearsay reform. Michigan Law Review, 86, 51-94.
28. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
29. People v. Madison, 638 P. 2d 18 (1981).
30. People v. Hamilton, 362 P. 2d 473 (1961).
31. Rakos, R. F., & Landsman, S. (1992). Researching the hearsay rule: Emerging findings, general issues, and future directions. Minnesota Law Review, 76, 655-681.
32. Regina v. P.(R.), 58 C.C.C. 3d 334 (1990).
33. Rosenberg, M. (1993). B.(K.G.)-Necessity and reliability: The new pigeon-holes. Criminal Reports, 19, 69-86.
34. Schuller, R. A. (1995). Expert evidence and hearsay: The influence of "second-hand" information on jurors' decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 345-362.
35. Siegel, M. L. (1992). Rationalizing hearsay. Boston University Law Review, 72, 893-950.
36. Smith, V. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220-228.
37. Stasser, G., Kerr, N. L., & Bray, R. M. (1982). The social psychology of jury deliberations: Structure, process, and product. In R. M. Bray & N. L. Kerr (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 221-256). New York: Academic Press.
38. Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345-353.
39. Tanford, J. A. (1990). The law and psychology of jury instructions. Nebraska Law Review, 69, 71-111.
40. Tanford, J. A., & Cox, M. (1987). Decision processes in civil cases: The impact of impeachment evidence on liability and credibility judgments. Social Behavior, 2, 165-182.
41. Tanford, S., & Cox, M. (1988). The effects of impeachment evidence and limiting instructions on individual and group decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 477-497.
42. Thompson, W. C., Fong, G. T., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453-463.
43. Tindale, R. S. (1993). Decision errors made by individuals and groups. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 109-124). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
45. Wildman v. The Queen, 14 C.C.C. 3d 321 (1984).
46. Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37-48.
47. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.
48. Younger, I. (1980). Reflections on the rule against hearsay. South Carolina Law Review, 32, 281-305.