Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 457–467 | Cite as

Fostering Juror Comfort: Effects of an Orientation Videotape

  • Gregory S. Bradshaw
  • David F. Ross
  • Emily E. Bradshaw
  • Betty Headrick
  • W. Neil ThomasIII
Article

Abstract

The purpose of the present study is to assess the impact of a juror orientation videotape on juror knowledge of the legal system and comfort levels regarding jury service. Juror knowledge and comfort were measured using the Juror Knowledge and Comfort Scale (JKCS). It was hypothesized that jurors exposed to the orientation videotape would be significantly more knowledgeable about the legal system and significantly more comfortable with their role as jurors. It was further hypothesized that there would be a significant correlation between the knowledge scale and comfort scale of the JKCS. Results indicate that jurors exposed to the orientation videotape scored significantly higher on both the knowledge scale and comfort scale than jurors not exposed to the orientation videotape. There is also a significant correlation between the juror knowledge and comfort components of the JKCS. The implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

juror orientation juror knowledge juror comfort orientation videotape 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boatright, R. G. (1999). Why citizens don’t respond to jury summonses: And what courts can do about it. Judicature, 82(4), 156–164.Google Scholar
  2. Cutler, B. L., & Hughes, D. M. (2001). Judging jury service: Results of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts survey. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 305–320.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 788–821.Google Scholar
  4. Hannaford, P. L., Hans, V. P., & Munsterman, G. T. (2000). Permitting jury discussions during trial: Impact of the Arizona reform. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 359–382.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1994). Trial complexity: A field investigation of its meaning and its effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(4), 589–644.Google Scholar
  7. Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24(3), 337–358.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Penrod, S. D., & Heuer, L. (1997). Tweaking commonsense: Assessing aids to jury decision making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2), 259–284.Google Scholar
  9. Smith, V. L. (1991a). Impact of pretrial instructions on jurors’ information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 220–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Smith, V. L. (1991b). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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(2), 124–144.Google Scholar
  12. Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 455–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Williams, R. (Producer). (2001). Trial By Jury [Motion Picture]. (Available from WTCI – TV45, 4411 Amnicola Highway, Chattanooga, TN 37406).Google Scholar
  14. Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Specht, J., Stern-Cavalcante, W., & Child, C. (2002). Developing a computer workshop to facilitate computer skills and minimize anxiety for early childhood educators. Journal of Eduactional Psychology, 94(1), 164–170.Google Scholar
  15. Wyoming Commission on Jury System Improvement. (2001). Re-examining Wyoming’s jury trial procedures: Initial recommendations of the Wyoming Commission on Jury System Improvement. Wyoming Law Review, 93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory S. Bradshaw
    • 1
  • David F. Ross
    • 2
    • 3
  • Emily E. Bradshaw
    • 1
  • Betty Headrick
    • 2
  • W. Neil ThomasIII
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KentuckyUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Tennessee at ChattanoogaTennessee
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Tennessee at ChattanoogaChattanooga

Personalised recommendations