Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions

Crime and Delinquency

Volumn 53, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 502-517

  Otto, Charles W ^a,b   Applegate, Brandon K ^a   Davis, Robin King ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Capital punishment; Judicial instructions; Jury; Sentencing

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250171747     PISSN: 00111287     EISSN: 1552387X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0011128706294681     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Acker, J.R. (1993). A different agenda: The Supreme Court, empirical research evidence, and capital punishment decisions, 1986-1989. Law and Society Review, 27, 65-88.
2. Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404.
3. Benson, R.W. (1985). The end of legalese: The game is over. Review of Law and Social Change, 13, 519-573.
4. Blankenship, M.B., Luginbuhl, J., Cullen, F.T., Redick, W. (1997). Jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions: A test of the death penalty process in Tennessee. Justice Quarterly, 14, 325-351.
5. Buchanan, R.W., Pryor, B., Taylor, K.P., Strawn, D.U. (1978). Legal communication: An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern instructions. Communication Quarterly, 26, 31-35.
6. Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320 (1985).
7. Charrow, R.P., Charrow, V.R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306-1374.
8. Diamond, S.S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologists, juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48, 423-434.
9. Diamond, S.S., Levi, J.N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions, Judicature, 79, 224-232.
10. Eisenberg, T., Wells, M.T. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79, 1-17.
11. Elwork, A., Sales, B.D., Alfini, J.J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it ? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163-189.
12. Frank, J., Applegate, B.K. (1998). Assessing juror understanding of capital-sentencing instructions. Crime Delinquency, 44, 412-433.
13. Garvey, S.P., Johnson, S.L., Marcus, P. (2000). Correcting deadly confusion: Responding to jury inquiries in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 85, 627-655.
14. Geimer, W.S., Amsterdam, J. (1988). Why jurors vote life or death: Operative factors in ten Florida death penalty cases. American Journal of Criminal Law, 15, 1-54.
15. Haney, C., Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 575-595.
16. Haney, C., Sontag, L., Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 149-176.
17. Hoffman, J.L. (1995). Where's the buck? Juror misperception of sentencing responsibility in death penalty cases. Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1137-1160.
18. Imwinkeiried, E.J., Schwed, L.R. (1987). Guidelines for drafting understandable jury instructions: An introduction to the use of psycholinguistics. Criminal Law Bulletin, 23, 135-150.
19. Kramer, G.P., Koenig, D.M. (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.
20. Levine, J.P. (1992). Juries and politics. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
21. Lieberman, J.D., Sales, B.D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 589-644.
22. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
23. Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges' instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203-218.
24. Luginbuhl, J., Howe, J. (1995). Symposium: The capital jury project: Discretion in capital sentencing instructions: Guided or misguided. Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1161-1182.
25. Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988).
26. O'Keefe, D.J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communication Yearbook, 22, 209-249.
27. 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.
28. Severance, L.J., Greene, E., Loftus, E.F. (1984). Towards criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198-233.
29. Severance, L.J., Loftus, E.F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 17, 153-197.
30. Smith, V.L. (1991). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857-872.
31. Smith, V.L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507-536.
32. Steele, W.W., Thornburg, E.G. (1988). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 77-109.
33. Tanford, J.A. (1991). Law reform by courts, legislatures, and commissions following empirical research on jury instructions. Law and Society Review, 25, 155-175.
34. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).
35. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990).
36. Wiener, R.L., Hurt, L.E., Thomas, S.L., Sadler, M.S., Bauer, C.A., Sargent, T.M. (1998). The role of declarative and procedural knowledge in capital murder sentencing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 124-144.
37. 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.
38. Wiener, R.L., Richmond, T.L., Seib, H.M., Rauch, S.M., Hackney, A.A. (2002). The psychology of telling murder stories: Do we think in scripts, exemplars, or prototypes? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 119-139.
39. Wiener, R.L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., et al. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516-576.
40. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).