Defining the Standard of Proof in Jury Instructions

Psychological Science

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 1990, Pages 194-200

  Kagehiro, Dorothy K ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84970226149     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00197.x     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).
2. Bass B.M. Cascio W.F. O'Connor E.J. (1974). Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 313–320.
3. Bollenbach v. United States. 66 Sup.Ct. 402 (1946).
4. Buchanan R.W. Pryor B. Taylor K.P. Strawn D.V. (1978). Legal communication: An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern jury instructions. Communication Quarterly, 26, 31–35.
5. Budescu D.V. Walisten T.S. (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 391–405.
6. Charrow R.P. Charrow V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374.
7. Civil Instructions Subcommittee of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee for Proposed Standard Jury Instructions (1981). Pennsylvania suggested standard jury instructions–Civil, § 5.50. Harrisburg., PA: Pennsylvania Bar Institute.
8. Cleary E.W. (Ed.). (1972). McCormick's handbook of the law of evidence (pp. 784–802). St. Paul, MN: West.
9. Cohen J. Dearnley E.J. Hansel C.E.M. (1958). A quantitative study of meaning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 28, 141–148.
10. Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (1980). Colorado jury instructions 2d: Civil [CJI-Civil 2d]. §§ 3.1. 3.3. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney.
11. Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Civil Jury Instructions (1983 Supp.). Colorado jury instrudhm 2d: Civil [CJl-Civil 2d]. § 3.2. San Francisco; Bancroft-Whitney.
12. Committee on Standard Jury Instructions-Criminal of the Supreme Court of Los Angeles County. California (1977). California jury instructions-Criminal [CALJIC]. § 2.90. St. Paul, MN; West.
13. Commonwealth v. Smith. 221 Pa. 552, 70 A. 850 (1908).
14. Criminal Instructions Subcommittee of Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee for Proposed Standard Jury Instructions (1979). Pennsylvania suggested standard jury instructions Criminal. § 7.01. Harrisburg., PA: Pennsylvania Bar Institute.
15. Dane F.C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt: A systematic examination of selected quantification approaches. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141–158.
16. Devitt E.J. Blackmar C.B. (Eds.). (1977). Federal jury practice and instructions (Vol. 2). § 71. St. Paul, MN: West.
17. Diamond S.S. (Ed.). (1979). Simulation research and the law [Special issue]. Law and Human Behavior. 3. (1/2).
18. Elwork A. Sales B.D. (1985). Jury instructions. In Kassin S.M., Wrightsman L.S., (Eds. ), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280–297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19. 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, 163–169.
20. Elwork A. Sales B.D. Alfini J.J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville., VA: Michie.
21. Estate of Roulet, 23 Cal, 3d 219 (1979).
22. Estelle V. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976).
23. Federal Judicial Center Committee to Study Criminal Jury Instructions (1982). Pattern criminal jury instructions (p. 28). St. Paul, MN: West.
24. Foley P.J. (1959). The expression of certainty. American Journal of Psychology, 72, 614–615.
25. Forston R.F. (1970). Judges' instructions: A quantitative analysis of jurors' listening comprehension. Today's Speech, 18, 34–38.
26. Halpem D.F. Blackman S. Saizman B. (1989). Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 251–260.
27. Hastie R. Penrod S.D. Pennington N. (1983), Inside the jury. Cambridge., MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Imwinkelried E.J. Schwed L.R. (1987). Guidelines for drafting understand-able jury instructions: An introduction to the use of psycholinguistics. Criminal Law Bulletin, 23, 135–150.
29. Indian Child Welfare, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) (1982).
30. In re Winship. 397 U.S. 358 (1970).
31. In the matter of Heintz, 554 P.2d 556 (Or. App. 1976).
32. James R. (1959). Status and competence injury deliberations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 46, 485–495.
33. Kagehiro D.K. (1986, May). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
34. Kagehiro O.K. Rosen CJ. (1986, October). Defining the standard of proof in jury instructions, II. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta.
35. Kagehiro D.K. Stanton W.C. (1985). Legal vs- quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.
36. Kansas District Judges' Association Committee on Pattern Jury instructions (1977). Pattern instructions for Kansas–Civil 2d [PIK-Civil 2d], § 2.11. San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney.
37. 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.
38. Kassin S.M. Wrightsman L.S. (Eds.). (1985), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure. Beverly Hills., CA: Sage.
39. Kentucky v. Whorton, 444 U.S. 887 (1979).
40. Kerr N.L. Atkin R.S. Stasser G. Meek D. Holt R.W. Davis J.H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282–294.
41. Kirk R.E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
42. Kozol J. (1979). Breaking the bonds of adult illiteracy in the United States. New York: Continuum.
43. Kreitlow B.W. (1977). Adult basic education. In Otto W., Peters N.A., Peters C.W., (Eds. ), Reading problems: A multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 351–378). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
44. Labov W. (1973). The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey C.-J.N., Shuy R.W., (Eds. ), New ways of analyzing variations in English (pp. 340–373). Washington., DC: Georgetown University Press.
45. Lichtenstein S. Newman J.R. (1967). Empirical scalding of common verbal phrases associated with numerical probabilities. Psychonomic Science, 9, 563–564.
46. L.S.E. Jury Project (1973). Juries and the rules of evidence. Criminal Law Review. 208–223.
47. MacCoun R.J. Kerr N.L. (1986). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors' bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21–33.
48. MacCoun R.J. Tyler T.R. (1988). The basis of citizens' perceptions of the criminal jury: Procedural fairness, accuracy, and efficiency. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 333–352.
49. McCauliff C.M.A. (1982). Burden of proof: Degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees? Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1293–1335.
50. Nagel S. Lamm D. Neef M. (1981). Decision theory and juror decision making. In Sales B.D., (Ed. ), Perspectives in law and psychology: The trial process (Vol. 2, pp. 353–386), New York: Plenum Press.
51. (New Mexico) UJI Civil Committee (1980). Uniform jury instructions-Civil [UJI-Civill].§ 3.6, 3.7, 10.17, Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
52. (New Mexico] UJI Criminal Committee (1982). Uniform jury instructions-Criminal [UJI-Criminal], § 40.60. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
53. Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958).
54. Northcutt N. (1975). Adult functional competency: A summary. Austin: University of Texas Press.
55. O'Mara J.J. von Eckartsberg R. (1977). Proposed standard jury instructions–Evaluation of usage and understanding. Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly, 48, 542–556.
56. Ostrom T.M. (1966). Perspective as an intervening construct in the judgment of attitude statements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 135–144.
57. Ostrom T.M. Upshaw H.S. (1968). Psychological perspective and attitude change. In Greenwaid A.G. Brock T.C. Ostrom T.M., (Eds), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 217–242). New York: Academic Press.
58. Park R. (1981). A critical review of developments in adult literacy. In Kamil M.L., (Ed. ), Directions in reading: Research and instruction. 30th Yearbook (pp. 279–289), Washington, D.C.: National Reading Conference.
59. People V. Gonzales. 293 N.Y. 259, 56 N.E. 2d 574 (1944).
60. People V, Miller, 6 N.Y. 2d 152. 160 N.E. 2d 74 (1959).
61. Pepper S. Prytulak L.S. (1974). Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the interpretations of quantitative expressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 95–101.
62. Richards P.H. (Ed.). (1977). California jury instructions civil: Book of approved jury instructions [BAJI], § 2.60. St. Paul, MN: West.
63. Saks M.J. Kidd R.F. (1986). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. In Arkes H.R., Hammond K.R., (Eds. ), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 213–242). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
64. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982).
65. Sargent v. Massachusetts Accident Company, 29 N.E.2d 825 (Mass. 1940).
66. 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.
67. Simon R.J. (1969). Judges' translations of burdens of proof into statements of probability. Trial Lawyers Guide. 103–114.
68. Simon R.J. (1970). “Beyond a reasonable doubt”-An experimental attempt at quantification. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, 203–209.
69. Simon R.J. Mahan L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof: A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 5, 319–330.
70. Simpson R.H. (1963)- Stability in meanings for quantitative terms; A comparison over 20 years. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 49, 146–151.
71. Smith V. Rapid Transit, 58 N.E.2d 754 (1945).
72. Sparf V. United States, 156 U.S. 52 (1895).
73. St. John Hunter C. Harman D. (1979). Adult illiteracy in the United Slates: A report for the Ford Foundation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
74. State V. Addington, 588 S.W. 2d 569 (Tex. Sup. Ct. 1979).
75. Stone D.R. Johnson R.T. (1959). A study of words indicating frequency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50. 224–227.
76. Strawn D.U. Buchanan R.W. (1976). Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 59, 478–483.
77. Tanford S. Penrod S. Collins R. (1985). Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of change similarity evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319–337.
78. Tribe L.H. (1970). An ounce of detention: Preventive justice in She world of John Mitchell. Virginia Law Review, 58, 371–373.
79. Tribe L.H. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84, 1329–1393.
80. United States v. Falico. 458 F.Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y. 1978).
81. Vago S. (1981), Law and society. Englewood Cliffs., NJ; Prentice-Hall.
82. Wallsten T.S. Budeseu D.V. (1983). Encoding subjective probabilities: A psychological and psychometric review. Management Science, 29, 151–173.
83. Wallsten T.S. Budescu D.V. Rapoport A. Zwick R. Forsyth B. (1986). Measuring the vague meanings of probability terms. Journal of Experimental Psychology; General, 115, 348–365.
84. Wallsten T.S. Fillenbaum S. Cox J.A. (1986). Base rate effects on the interpretation of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 571–587.
85. Walsh V. Michle-Gross-Dexter, Inc., 378 F, 2d 409 (3rd Cir. 1967).
86. Woodby V. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 385 U.S. 276 (1966).
87. Wright V. United States. 250 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir, 1957).