Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 339-350

  Smith, Amy E ^a   Haney, Craig ^b  

^a SAN FRANCISCO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Death penalty; Juror comprehension; Legal psychology language comprehension; Psycholinguistics; Social psychology

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUNISHMENT; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CALIFORNIA; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; COMPREHENSION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL;

EID: 79961172243     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. FA Bleasdale 1987 Concreteness-dependent association priming: Separate lexical organization for concrete and abstract words Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13 4 582 594 10.1037/0278-7393.13.4. 582 10.1037/0278-7393.13.4.582
2. Bransford, J. D. (1979). Human Cognition: Learning, understanding and remembering. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
3. N Brekke E Borgida 1988 Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 372 386 10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.372 10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.372
4. Buchanan v. Angelone, 522 U.S. 269 (1998).
5. RP Charrow VR Charrow 1979 Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions Columbia Law Review 79 1306 1374 10.2307/1121842
6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. BM Dann 1993 "Learning lessons" and "speaking rights": Creating educated and democratic juries Indiana Law Journal 68 1229
8. Death Penalty Information Center. (2007). Death row inmates by state. Retrieved October 7, 2007, from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php? scid=9&did=188#state.
9. SS Diamond JN Levi 1996 Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions Judicature 79 224 232 (Pubitemid 126075228)
10. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
11. PW English BD Sales 1997 A ceiling or consistency effect for the comprehension of jury instructions Psychology, Public Policy & Law 3 381 10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.381 10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.381
12. Fleury-Steiner, B. (2005). Jurors' stories of death: How America's death penalty invests in inequality. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13. S Fox H Walters 1986 The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment Law and Human Behavior 10 215 228 10.1007/BF01046211 10.1007/BF01046211
14. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
15. Gleason, J. B., & Ratner, N. B. (Eds.). (1998). Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace College Pub.
16. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
17. RA Griggs JR Cox 1982 The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason's selection task British Journal of Psychology 73 407 420 10.1111/j.2044-8295. 1982.tb01823.x
18. Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. New York: Oxford University Press.
19. C Haney M Lynch 1994 Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions Law and Human Behavior 18 4 411 436 10.1007/BF01499048 10.1007/BF01499048 (Pubitemid 24255267)
20. C Haney M Lynch 1997 Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments Law and Human Behavior 21 6 575 595 10.1023/A:1024804629759 10.1023/A:1024804629759 (Pubitemid 28010942)
21. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American Jury. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
22. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006).
23. MB Kovera AW Gresham E Borgida E Gray PC Regan 1997 Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making? A social cognitive analysis Journal of Applied Psychology 82 178 191 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178 9119796 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178
24. JN Levi 1993 Evaluating jury comprehension of Illinois capital-sentencing instructions American Speech 68 20 49 10.2307/455834
25. JD Lieberman BD Sales 1997 What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process Psychology, Public Policy & Law 3 589 644 10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589 10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589
26. J Luginbuhl J Howe 1995 Discretion in capital sentencing instructions: Guided or misguided? Indiana Law Journal 70 1161 1180
27. M Lynch C Haney 2000 Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty Law and Human Behavior 24 3 337 358 10.1023/A:1005588221761 10846376 10.1023/A:1005588221761 (Pubitemid 30346647)
28. M Lynch C Haney 2000 Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination Law and Human Behavior 33 481 496 10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2 10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2
29. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (Supreme Court 1992).
30. N Pennington R Hastie 1991 A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The Story Model Cardozo Law Review 13 519 557
31. People v. Benson, 802 P.2d 330 (1990).
32. People v. Steele, 120 Cal. Rptr. 2d 432 (2002).
33. People v. Wilson, 258 Cal. App. 2d 578 (1968).
34. Ring v. Arizona, 534 U.S. 1103 (2002).
35. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 31 (1996).
36. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247 (2002).
37. LJ Severance E Greene E Loftus 1984 Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 75 1 198 10.2307/1143210
38. N Shaked-Schroer M Costanzo A Marcus-Newhall 2008 Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials Behavioral Sciences and the Law 26 603 617 10.1002/bsl.829 18788078 10.1002/bsl.829
39. S Sherman 1995 The capital jury project: The role of responsibility and how psychology can inform the law Indiana Law Journal 70 1241 1248
40. Smith v. State, 290 S.E.2d 43 (1982).
41. WW Steele Jr EG Thornburg 1988 Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate North Carolina Law Review 67 77
42. P Tiersma 1995 Dictionaries and death: Do capital jurors understand mitigation? Utah Law Review 1995 1 49
43. Tiersma, P. M. (2006). Communicating with Juries: How to draft more understandable jury instructions. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. (Originally published in Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 10, 1 (2005-2006).).
44. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).
45. PC Wason D Shapiro 1971 Natural and contrived experience in a reasoning problem Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 23 63 71 10.1080/00335557143000068 10.1080/00335557143000068
46. RL Wiener CC Pritchard M Weston 1995 Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases Journal of Applied Psychology 80 455 467 10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455
47. RL Wiener M Rogers R Winter L Hurt A Hackney K Kadela H Seib S Rauch L Warren B Morasco 2004 Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 10 516 576 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516 (Pubitemid 39594109)
48. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
49. RA Zwaan GA Radvansky 1998 Situation models in language comprehension and memory Psychological Bulletin 123 2 162 185 9522683 10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162