Advertisement

How Just Is Justice? Ask a Psycholinguist

  • Janet RandallEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)

Abstract

You are a member of a jury. After the trial, the judge reads you and your fellow jurors a set of instructions. One of them begins: Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon… Confused? Now imagine that your native language is not English or that you never finished high school. Or both. Our justice system depends on jurors making informed decisions to reach a verdict, so when jury instructions are too challenging, jurors not only disengage but return misinformed verdicts. Courtroom practices make jurors’ jobs even harder. Many states don’t provide copies of the instructions and some don’t permit jurors to take notes. Can we make instructions easier for jurors, and in so doing, improve justice? In two studies, we show that jury instruction comprehension significantly improves (a) when subjects read the texts of the instructions while listening to them and (b) when the instructions are rewritten in Plain English, minimizing two linguistic factors: passive verbs and unfamiliar legal expressions, or “legalese”. Improvements were even greater for Study 2’s MTurk subjects than Study 1’s undergraduates. Since these new subjects are closer demographically to jurors, this new data provides even more evidence that current jury instructions need to be rewritten. Taken together, the studies lay the groundwork for reform, psycholinguistics providing judiciaries with the evidence that they need to implement change.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the Massachusetts Bar Association for their initial interest in this project, for sponsoring me as a Research Fellow and awarding me and my team a small grant to get our research going. Since then, we have benefitted from a grant from the Northeastern University Humanities Center and from a series of student research and travel grants from the Provost’s office and the College of Social Science and Humanities. In addition, many individuals played roles in many aspects of this research and to them I extend my personal thanks: the Honorable Gabrielle Wolohojian, Associate Justice, Massachusetts Appeals Court, the Honorable Judith Fabricant, Chief Justice, Massachusetts Superior Court, the Honorable Francis Fecteau, Associate Justice, Massachusetts Appeals Court (Emeritus), Jack McDevitt, Northeastern University Associate Dean, College of Social Sciences and Humanities, and Jeremy Paul, former Dean, Northeastern University School of Law. But my largest debt is to my hard-working research team. These students have earned my deepest thanks: for their dedication to our work, for their comments, suggestions, and thought-provoking ideas, and for keeping things going through thick and thin. This year’s team members were (in alphabetical order): Kathryn Aucella, Leah Butz, Julien Cherry, Avery Isaacs, Shaughnessy Jones, Samantha Laureano, Abbie MacNeal, Matthew Monjarrez, Francielle Reis, Benjamin Rubin, Rachel Smith, and Yian Xu. I am also grateful to our alumni, on whose shoulders our current team is working. A special shout-out goes to two recent ones, Katherine Fiallo and Alexander Jones, for holding up the legal side of this project. And though they all have been invaluable in the work presented here, all errors and omissions are mine.

References

  1. American Bar Association, & American Jury Project. (2005). Principles for juries and jury trials. American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  2. Bever T. G. (1970). The influence of speech performance on linguistic structure. In G. B. Flores d’Arcais & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics. (pp. 4–30). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Benson, R. W. (1985). The end of legalese: The game is over. NYU Review of Law and Social Change, 13(3), 519–573.Google Scholar
  4. Boch, F., & Piolat, A. (2005). Note taking and learning: A summary of research. The Writing Across the Curriculum Journal, 16, 101–113.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broda-Bahm, K. (2016). Let the jurors take and review notes. The Persuasive Litigator. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2016/10/let-the-jurors-take-and-review-notes.html.pdf.
  6. Broder, J. M. (2005, June 12). Instructions, all 98 pages, may be slowing Jackson jury. The New York Times. Retrieved February 14, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/us/instructions-all-98-pages-may-be-slowing-jackson-jury.html.
  7. Brown, R., Waring, R., & Donkaewbua, S. (2008). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from reading, reading-while-listening, and listening to stories. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 136–163.Google Scholar
  8. California., In Richards, P. H., & California. (1969). California jury instructions, civil: Book of approved jury instructions (BAJI). St. Paul: West Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, A. C. (2009). Gains to L2 listeners from reading while listening vs. listening only in comprehending short stories. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37(4), 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Connor, J. (2004, February 25). Jurors need to have their own copies of instructions. The Los Angeles Daily Journal, 7.Google Scholar
  12. Dąbrowska, E., & Street, J. (2006). Individual differences in language attainment: Comprehension of passive sentences by native and non-native English speakers. Language Sciences, 28(6), 604–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dann, B. M., & Logan, G., III. (1996). Jury reform: The Arizona experience. Judicature, 79(5), 280–286.Google Scholar
  14. Diamond, S., Murphy, B., & Rose, M. R. (2012). The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: Success, failures and next steps. Northwestern Law Review, 106(4), 1573–1608.Google Scholar
  15. Diamond, S. (2003). Truth, justice and the jury. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 26, 143–155.Google Scholar
  16. Diamond, S., & Levi, J. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224–231.Google Scholar
  17. Diana, R. A., & Reder, L. M. (2006). The low-frequency encoding disadvantage: Word frequency affects processing demands. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 805–815.Google Scholar
  18. Duffelmeyer, F. A. (1979). The effect of rewriting prose material on reading comprehension. Reading World, 19(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Einstein, G. O., Morris, J., & Smith, S. (1985). Note-taking, individual differences, and memory for lecture information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 522–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Elwork, A., Sales, B., & Alfini, J. (1982). Making jury instructions understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
  21. Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI 2003, updated, 2018: http://www.courts.ca.gov/partners/317.htm). Accessed 25 April 2018.
  24. Just, M. A., & Clark, H. H. (1973). Drawing inferences from the presuppositions and implications of affirmative and negative sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A., Keller, T. A., Eddy, W. F., & Thulborn, K. R. (1996). Brain activation modulated by sentence comprehension. Science, 274(5284), 114–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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(10), 1877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kiewra, K. A. (1984). The relationship between notetaking over an extended period and actual course-related achievement. College Student Journal, 17, 381–385.Google Scholar
  29. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Marder, N. S. (2005). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–512.Google Scholar
  31. Marder, N. S. (2009). Answering jurors’ questions: next steps in Illinois. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 41, 727–752.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, G. A., & Chomsky, N. (1963). Finitary models of language users. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  33. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning: When reading helps listening. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mueller, P. A., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2014). The pen is mightier than the keyboard: Advantages of longhand over laptop note taking. Psychological science, 25(6), 1159–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Olson, D. R., & Filby, N. (1972). On the comprehension of active and passive sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2004). Cognitive effort of note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sand, L. B. et al. (2005). Modern federal jury instructions, Criminal.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, S. M., & Rothkopf, E. Z. (1984). Contextual enrichment and distribution of practice in the classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 1(3), 341–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spyridakis, J. H., & Isakson, C. S. (1998). Nominalizations vs denominalizations: do they influence what readers recall? Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 28(2), 163–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thalheimer, W. (2006, February). Spacing learning events over time: what the research says. Retrieved February 22, 2018, from http://www.work-learning.com/catalog/.pdf.
  41. Thorley, C. (2016). Note taking and note reviewing enhance jurors’ recall of trial information. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 655–663.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tiersma, P. M. (2009). Communicating with juries: How to draft more understandable jury instructions. Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2009-44.Google Scholar
  43. Tiersma, P. M. (2001). The rocky road to legal reform: Improving the language of jury instructions. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1081–1118.Google Scholar
  44. Tiersma, P. M. (1993). Reforming the language of jury instructions. Hofstra Law Review, 22, 37–78.Google Scholar
  45. Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Jury instructions in the new millennium. Court Review, 36, 28–36.Google Scholar
  46. van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students’ theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). Distributing learning over time: the spacing effect in children’s acquisition and generalization of science concepts. Child Development, 83(4), 1137–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wason, P. C. (1972). Thinking and reasoning: Selected readings. Harmondworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, R. L., & Eggert, A. C. (2002). Notetaking in college classes: student patterns and instructional strategies. The Journal of General Education, 51(3), 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations