Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 262-270

  Semmler, Carolyn ^a   Brewer, Neil ^a  

^a FLINDERS UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 0036939312     PISSN: 13218719     EISSN: 19341687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1375/pplt.2002.9.2.262     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Barlett, F.C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Charrow, R.P., & Charrow, V.R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374.
3. Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) s15.
4. Dattu, F. (1998). Illustrated jury instructions: A proposal. Psychology and Law Review, 22, 67–102.
5. Elwork, A., & Sales, B.D. (1985). Jury instructions. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280–297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6. Graesser, A.C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag.
7. Halverson, A.M., Hallahan, M., Hart, A.J., & Rosenthal, R. (1997). Reducing the biasing effects of judges’ nonverbal behavior with simplified jury instruction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 590–598.
8. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S.D. (1989). A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–30.
9. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little Brown.Kramer, G., & Koening, 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, 401–437.
10. Liebermann, J.D., & Sales, B.D. (1997). What social science teaches us about jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3, 589–643.
11. Ogloff, J.R. (1995). Communication in the courtroom. Unpublished manuscript, Simon Fraser University.
12. Prager, I.G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B.L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 3, 187–193.
13. R v. Bedi. [2000] 38 SASC
14. Reifman, A., Gusick, S.M., & Ellsworth, P.C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 539–554.
15. Sand, L.B., & Reiss, S.A. (1985). A report on seven experiments conducted by district court judges in the second circuit. New York University Law Review, 60, 423–97.
16. Severance, L.J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E.F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198–233.
17. Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257–285.
18. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185–233.
19. Sweller, J., Chandler, P., Tierner, P., & Cooper, M. (1990). Cognitive load in the structuring of technical material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 176–192.
20. Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.
21. Wiener, R.L., Habert, K., Shkodriani, S., & Staebler, C. (1991). The social psychology of jury nullification: Predicting when jurors disobey the law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1379–1401.