Jurors' use of instructions on negligence

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 840-859

  Greene, Edith ^a   Johns, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035297809     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01416.x     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. American Bar Association. (1991). Jury comprehension in complex cases. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Bornstein, B. H., & Rajki, M. (1994). Extra-legal factors and product liability: The influence of mock jurors' demographic characteristics and intuitions about the cause of an injury. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 12, 127-147.
3. Cecil, J., Hans, V., & Wiggins, E. (1991). Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: Lessons from civil jury trials. American University Law Review, 40, 727-774.
4. Charrow, R., & Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.
5. Diamond, S. (1993). What jurors think: Experiences and reactions of citizens who serve as jurors. In R. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system (pp. 282-305). Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
6. Diamond, S., & Levi, J. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224-232.
7. Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205-224.
8. Elwork, A., Sales, B., & Alfini, J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163-190.
9. Forston, R. (1975). Sense and non-sense: Jury trial communication. Brigham Young University Law Review, 601-637.
10. Hans, V. (1992). Jury decision making. In D. Kagehiro & W. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 56-94). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
11. Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, CT: Harvard University Press.
12. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409-430.
13. Jeansonne v. Landau et al. (1997). Unreported Denver County District Court case that was resolved by settlement before judgment was reached.
14. Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153-162.
15. Kramer, G., & Koenig, D. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 23, 409-438.
16. Landsman, S., Diamond, S., Dimitropoulos, L., & Saks, M. (1998). Be careful what you wish for: The paradoxical effects of bifurcating claims for punitive damages. Wisconsin Law Review, 297-342.
17. Lieberman, J., & Sales, B. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 589-644.
18. O'Barr, W., & Conley, J. (1988). Lay expectations of the civil justice system. Law and Society Review, 22, 137-161.
19. Prager, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 3, 187-193.
20. Reifman, A., Gusick, S., & Ellsworth, P. (1992). Real jurors' understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539-554.
21. Saltzburg, S. (1993). Improving the quality of jury decision making. In R. Litan (Ed.), Verdict: Assessing the civil jury system (pp. 341-377). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22. Severance, L., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that people can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198-233.
23. Smith, V. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.
24. Steele, W., & Thornburg, E. (1988). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 77-119.
25. Thornburg, E. (1998). The power and the process: Instructions and the civil jury. Fordham Law Review, 66, 1837-1893.
26. Vidmar, N. (1995). Medical malpractice and the American jury: Confronting the myths about jury incompetence, deep pockets, and outrageous damage awards. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
27. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S., Millard, R., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator's word frequency guide. New York, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates.