Abstract
The right to trial by jury granted by the Constitution is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. Jury trials allow the public to participate in the judicial process, which prevents the process from being unfairly used by the government. Without properly understanding the relevant law, jurors are unable to carry out their duties effectively, which can result in unjust outcomes such as innocent defendants being convicted. Judges give jurors instructions to help them understand how to apply the law to the case at hand. The chapter begins by evaluating jurors’ general comprehension of jury instructions, and then presents additional sections on special types of criminal jury instructions, including death penalty instructions, instructions on how to evaluate eyewitness testimony, curative/limiting instructions, joinder instructions, Allen (dynamite) charges, and jury nullification instructions. Each section provides an overview of the law regarding each particular topic, presents the psychological research available on the topic, and provides recommendations on how to apply research findings to improve the effectiveness of the instructions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abramson, J. (1998). Two ideals of jury deliberation. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 125.
Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896).
American Bar Association. (1968). Project on minimum standards for criminal justice.
American Bar Association. (1996). ABA standards for criminal justice discovery and trial by jury.
Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037–1049.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718.
Bateman, S. P. (2010). Blast it all: Allen charges and the dangers of playing with dynamite. University of Hawaii Law Review, 32, 323–358.
Bennett, J. H. (1972). The hung jury and the dynamite charge. American Journal of Criminal Law, 1, 156–178.
Bennett v. Angelone, 92 F.3d 1336, 1346-47 (4th Cir. 1996).
Berberich, L. B. (2001). Jury instructions regarding deadlock in capital sentencing. Hofstra Law Review, 29, 1301–1331.
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.
Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1985). Joinder of criminal offenses: A review of the legal and psychological literature. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 339–353. doi:10.1007/BF01044475.
Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1986). Prejudicial joinder of multiple offenses: Relative effects of cognitive processing and criminal schema. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(4), 243–258. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0704_1.
Borgida, E., & Park, R. (1988). The entrapment defense: Juror comprehension and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 19–40. doi:10.1007/BF01064272.
Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (in press). The jury under attack: Myth, controversy, and reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bornstein, B. H., & Hamm, J. A. (2012). Jury instructions on witness identification. Court Review, 48, 48–53.
Bowers, W. J., & Steiner, B. D. (1999). Death by default: An empirical demonstration of false and forced choices in capital sentencing. Texas Law Review, 77, 605–717.
Boyd v. French, 147 F.3d 319, 329 (4th Cir. 1998).
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic.
Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 765–776. doi:10.1002/acp.1036.
Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19–30. doi:10.1007/BF01045284.
Brody, D. C. (1995). Sparf and Dougherty revisited: Why the court should instruct the jury of its nullification right. American Criminal Law Review, 33, 89–112.
Brown, D. K. (1997). Jury nullification within the rule of law. Minnesota Law Review, 81, 1149–1200.
Carretta, T. R., & Moreland, R. L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291–309. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb01741.x.
Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. D. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291–310.
Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374.
Cho, S. (1994). Capital confusion: The effect of jury instructions on the decision to impose death. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 532–561.
Chomos, J. C., Miller, M. K., Sicafuse, L. L., Richardson, J. T., Peoples, C. D., & Bremer, C. F. (2011). Increasing juror satisfaction: A call to action for judges and researchers. Drake Law Review, 59, 707–731.
Clark, S. J. (1999). The courage of our convictions. Michigan Law Review, 97, 2381–2447.
Cohen, N. P. (2000). Communicating with juries: The timing of jury instructions. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 681–697.
Conrad, C. S. (1998). Jury nullification: The evolution of a doctrine. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behaviour, 4, 31–55.
Crispo, L. W., Slansky, J. M., & Yriarte, G. M. (1997). Jury nullification: Law versus anarchy. Loyola of Low Angeles Law Review, 31, 1–62.
Crocker, P. L. (1997). Concepts of culpability and deathworthiness: Differentiating between guilt and punishment in death penalty cases. Fordham Law Review, 66, 21–86.
Cronan, J. P. (2002). Is any of this making sense? Reflecting on guilty pleas to aid criminal juror comprehension. American Criminal Law Review, 39, 1187–1259.
Cush, R. K., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). The influence of limiting instructions on processing and judgments of emotionally evocative evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 13, 110–123. doi:10.1375/pplt.13.1.110.
Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370070206.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191. doi:10.1007/BF01062972.
Daftary‐Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 133–154. doi:10.1348/135532509X465624.
Dattu, F. (1998). Illustrated jury instructions: A proposal. Law and Psychology Review, 22, 67–102.
Dawson, R. O. (1979). Joint trials of defendants in criminal cases: An analysis of efficiencies and prejudices. Michigan Law Review, 77, 1379–1455.
Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberation groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–717. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.622.
Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224–232.
Diamond, S. S., Murphy, B., & Rose, M. R. (2012). The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review, 106, 1537–1608.
Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., & Murphy, B. (2006). Revisiting the unanimity requirement: The behavior of the non-unanimous civil jury. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 201–230.
Dolnik, L., Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 267–287.
Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Some empirical evidence on the effect of S. 12 of the Canada evidence act upon an accused. The Criminal Law Quarterly, 15, 88–96.
Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock juror decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485–501. doi:10.1023/A:1024823706560.
Dumas, B. K. (2000). Jury trials: Lay jurors, pattern jury instructions, and comprehension issues. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 701–742.
Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79, 1–17.
Ellias, R. (1995). Should courts instruct juries as to the consequences to a defendant of a “not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(4), 1062–1083.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 788–821. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.788.
Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. (1985). Jury instructions. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280–297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Elwork, A., Alfini, J. J., & Sales, B. D. (1982). Toward understandable jury instructions. Judicature, 65, 432–443.
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. doi:10.1007/BF01053437.
English, P. W., & Sales, B. D. (1997). A ceiling or consistency effect for the comprehension of jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 381–401. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.381.
Faigman, D. L., Blumenthal, J., Cheng, E., Mnookin, J., Murphy, E., & Sanders, J. (2014). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/West.
Farnham, D. (1996). Jury nullification: History proves it’s not a new idea. Criminal Justice, 11, 4–14.
Farrin, J. (1989). Rethinking criminal joinder: An analysis of the empirical research and its implications for justice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 325–340.
Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215–1226.
Finkel, N. J. (2000). Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 591–628. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.591.
Finkel, N. J., Hurabiell, M. L., & Hughes, K. C. (1993). Right to die, euthanasia, and community sentiment: Crossing the public/private boundary. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 487–506. doi:10.1007/BF01045070.
Fishman, C. S. (2005). Defense witness as “accomplice:” Should the judge give a “Care and Caution” instruction? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96(1), 1–24.
Foglia, W. D. (2003). They know not what they do: Unguided and misguided discretion in Pennsylvania capital cases. Justice Quarterly, 20, 187–211.
Frank, J. (1930). Law and the modern mind. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Frank, J., & Applegate, B. K. (1998). Assessing juror understanding of capital-sentencing instructions. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 412–433. doi:10.1177/0011128798044003005.
Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Garrett, B. L. (2012). Eyewitnesses and exclusion. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65, 2011–2017.
Gastil, J., Dees, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Geiselman, R. E., & Mendez, B. A. (2005). Assistance to the fact finder: Eyewitness expert testimony versus attorneys' closing arguments. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(2), 5–15.
Gordon, R. A., & Anderson, K. S. (1995). Perceptions of race-stereotypic and race-nonstereotypic crimes: The impact of response-time instructions on attributions and judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 455–470. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1604_4.
Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x.
Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67–77. doi:10.1007/BF01499073.
Greene, E., & Johns, M. (2001). Jurors’ use of instructions on negligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 840–859. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01416.x.
Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 193–207. doi:10.1007/BF01067051.
Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
Hamm, J. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Perkins, J. (2013). Jury nullification: The myth revisited. In D. Fung (Ed.), The psychology of policy-making (pp. 49–71). New York, NY: Nova Science.
Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California’s capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 411–436. doi:10.1007/BF01499048.
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(6), 575–595. doi:10.1023/A:1024804629759.
Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., & Munsterman, G. T. (2002). Are hung juries a problem? National Center for State Courts, 114. Retrieved from http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/What-We-Do/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/What%20We%20Do/Are%20Hung%20Juries%20A%20Problem.ashx
Hans, V. P., & Doob, A. N. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada evidence act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235–253.
Hansen, M. (2001). All about Allen: Judges’ charge to deadlocked juries comes under scrutiny. ABA Journal, 24–25.
Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22(3), 287–314. doi:10.1023/A:1025754422703.
Higgins, M. (1998). Not so plain English. ABA Journal, 84, 40–43.
Hoffheimer, M. H. (1989). Requiring jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence at Federal criminal trials. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80, 585–672.
Horowitz, I. A. (1985). The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 25–36. doi:10.1007/BF01044287.
Horowitz, I. A. (1988). Jury nullification: The impact of judicial instructions, arguments, and challenges on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 439–453. doi:10.1007/BF01044627.
Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Reasonable doubt instructions: Commonsense justice and standard of proof. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2-3), 285–302. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.285.
Horowitz, I. A. (2008). Jury nullification: An empirical perspective. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 28, 425–452.
Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 121–130. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.121.
Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (1980). A comparison of verdicts obtained in severed and joined criminal trials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 444–456. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00723.x.
Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: Emotional bias and juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163–181.
Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., & Niedermeier, K. E. (2000). Jury nullification: Legal and psychological perspectives. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1207–1249.
Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instruction on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 655–670.
Hreno, T. (2008). The Jury Nullification Instruction and the De Jure/De Facto Debate: A Hohfeldian analysis. Public Affairs Quarterly, 22, 231–251.
Hunter, R. M. (1935). Law in the jury room. The Ohio State University Law Journal, 2, 1–19.
Jones, A.M. (2015). Sensitizing jurors to factors influencing the accuracy of eyewitness identification: Assessing the effectiveness of the Henderson instructions (Doctoral dissertation).
Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–250. doi:10.1007/BF01061711.
Kassin, S. M., Smith, V. L., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). The dynamite charge: Effects on the perceptions and deliberation behavior of mock jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 537–538.
Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046–1054. doi:10.1177/01461672972310005.
Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46. doi:10.1023/A:1024814009769.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspectives. Carlsbad, CA: Hemisphere.
Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 733–745.
Kerr, N. L., Boster, F. J., Callen, C. R., Braz, M. E., O’Brien, B., & Horowitz, I. (2008). Jury nullification instructions as amplifiers of bias. International Commentary on Evidence, 6, 2–21. doi:10.2202/1554-4567.1068.
Kerr, N. L., & Sawyers, G. W. (1979). Independence of multiple verdicts within a trial by mock jurors. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 10, 16–27.
Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162. doi:10.1177/0146167294202002.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.
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, 3, 401–437.
Laub, C. E., Kimbrough, C. D., Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Mock juror perceptions of eyewitnesses vs. earwitnesses: do safeguards help? (Unpublished manuscript). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE
Leipold, A. D. (1996). Rethinking jury nullification. Virginia Law Review, 82, 253–324.
Leipold, A. D., & Abbasi, H. A. (2006). The impact of joinder and severance on federal criminal cases: An empirical study. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 349–404.
Lieberman, J. D. (2009). The psychology of the jury instruction process. In J. D. Lieberman & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes: Psychology in the courtroom (Vol. 1, pp. 129–155). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677–711. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.677.
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. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589.
Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2000). Jury instructions: Past, present, and future. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 587–590. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.587.
London, K., & Nuñez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932.
Lowenfield v. Phelps, 108 U.S. 546 (1988).
Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges’ instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203–218. doi:10.1007/BF01044798.
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337–358. doi:10.1023/A:1005588221761.
Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 481–496. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2.
Mallard, D., & Perkins, D. P. (2005). Disentangling the evidence: Mock jurors, inadmissible testimony and integrative encoding. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 289–297. doi:10.1375/pplt.12.2.289.
Marder, N. S. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–511.
Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 225–236. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9134-z.
Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Pfeifer, J. E. (2003). Jury nullification: The influence of judicial instruction on the relationship between attitudes and juridic decision-making. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 243–254. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_07.
Milgram, S. (1978). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Miller, M. K., & Chamberlain, J. (2014). “There ought to be a law!”: Understanding community sentiment. In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, & J. Chamberlain (Eds.), Handbook of community sentiment (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Springer.
Miller, M. K., & Hayward, R. D. (2008). Religious characteristics and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 113–123. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9090-z.
Neilson, W. S., & Winter, H. (2005). The elimination of hung juries: Retrials and nonunanimous verdicts. International Review of Law and Economics, 25, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2005.05.004.
Nieland, R. G. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at a modern movement to improve the jury system. Chicago, IL: American Judicature Society.
Ogloff, J. R. P. (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 509–531. doi:10.1007/BF01650292.
Otto, C. W., Applegate, B. K., & Davis, R. K. (2007). Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 502–517. doi:10.1177/0011128706294681.
Paglia, A., & Schuller, R. A. (1998). Jurors' use of hearsay evidence: The effects of type and timing of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 501–518. doi:10.1023/A:1025735313134.
Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 204–244. doi:10.1080/15228932.2013.795816.
Perez, L., & Miller, M. K. (2015). How cognitive processing traits impact judicial instructions and evaluations of eyewitnesses. Paper presented at the 2015 American Psychological Association Convention, Toronto, ON.
Peters, M., & Lecci, L. (2012). Predicting verdicts, adherence to judge’s instructions, and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 817–831. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.566872.
Pfeifer, J. E., Brigham, J. C., & Robinson, T. (1996). Euthanasia on trial: Examining public attitudes toward nonphysician-assisted death. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 119–129. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01571.x.
Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407–424.
Pickel, K. L., Karam, J. J., & Warner, T. C. (2009). Jurors’ responses to unusual inadmissible evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 466–480. doi:10.1177/0093854809332364.
Prager, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 2, 187–193.
Priolo, N. M. (1997). Evidence—Can a curative instruction effectively remedy impermissible references to a defendant’s past criminal behavior? Suffolk University Law Review, 30, 583.
Read, J. H., & Allen, N. (2012). Living, dead, and undead: Nullification past and present. American Political Thought, 1(2), 263–297. doi:10.1086/667615.
Reed, K. & Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Juries, joinder, and justice. The Jury Expert, 27(3), 1–5.
Richardson v. Marsh 481 U.S. 200 (1987).
Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409–431. doi:10.1023/A:1010659703309.
Saks, M. J. (1993). Judicial nullification. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 1281–1295.
Saks, M. J., & Weighner, M. M. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 451–467. doi:10.1023/A:1024819605652.
Schul, Y., & Manzury, G. (1990). The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 337–349.
Schwarzer, W. W. (1981). Communicating with juries: Problems and remedies. California Law Review, 69, 731–769.
Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 262–270. doi:10.1375/pplt.2002.9.2.262.
Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198–233.
Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law & Society Review, 17, 153–197. doi:10.2307/3053535.
Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (2008). Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 603–617. doi:10.1002/bsl.829.
Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors’ information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220–228. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.220.
Smith, A. E., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 339–350. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0.
Smith, V. L., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Effects of the dynamite charge on the deliberations of deadlocked mock juries. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 625–640.
Smithson, M., Deady, S., & Gracik, L. (2007). Guilty, not guilty, or …? Multiple options in jury verdict choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 481–498. doi:10.1002/bdm.572.
Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368–1377. doi:10.1177/01461672012710012.
Spackman, M. P., Belcher, J. C., Calapp, J. W., & Taylor, A. (2002). An analysis of the effects of subjective and objective instruction forms on mock-juries’ murder/manslaughter distinctions. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 605–623. doi:10.1023/A:1020977400474.
Sparf v. United States 156 U.S. 51 (1895).
State v. Gallagher, 654 A.2d 1206 (R.I. 1995).
State v. Henderson 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011).
Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235. doi:10.1023/A:1022325019080.
Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7.
Steele, W. W., & Thornburg, E. G. (1988). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 77–120.
Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. (1975). Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 59, 478–483.
Sue, S., Smith, R., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171.
Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social inference processes in juror judgments of multiple-offense trials. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 749–765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.749.
Tanford, S., Penrod, S., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319.
Thimsen, S., Bornstein, B. B., & Miller, M. K. (2009). The dynamite charge: Too explosive for its own good? Valparaiso University Law Review, 44, 93–123.
Thompson, C. M., & Dennison, S. (2004). Graphic evidence of violence: The impact on juror decision-making, the influence of judicial instructions and the effect of juror biases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(2), 323–337. doi:10.1375/1321871042707188.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Jury instructions in the new millennium. Court Review, 36, 28–63.
Tiersma, P., & Curtis, M. (2008). Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1, 231–261.
Trenary, A. D. (2013). State v. Henderson: A model for admitting eyewitness identification testimony. University of Colorado Law Review, 84, 1257–1303.
Turgeon, J., Francis, E., & Loftus, E. (2014). Crafting model jury instructions for evaluating eyewitness testimony. The Pennsylvania Lawyer, 36, 49–52.
United States v. Foutz 540 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1976).
United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120, 134 (1st Cir. 1987).
United States v. Telfaire 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
Van Dyke, J. (1970). The jury as a political institution. Catholic Law Review, 16, 224–270.
van Knippenberg, A., Dijksterhuis, A., & Vermeulen, D. (1999). Judgement and memory of a criminal act: The effects of stereotypes and cognitive load. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 191–201. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/3<191::AID-EJSP923>3.0.CO;2-O.
Ward, J. D. (2004). California adopts plain-English civil jury instructions. Judicature, 87, 300–301.
Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x.
Wheatman, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 167–183. doi:10.1023/A:1005645414992.
Whittemore, K. E., & Ogloff, J. P. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making: Disposition instructions and mental state at the time of the trial. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 2Z83–303. doi:10.1007/BF01501661.
Wiener, R. L., Morasco, B., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., & Warren, L. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516–576. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516.
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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455.
Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48.
Zeisel, H. (1971). …And then there were none: The diminution of the federal jury. The University of Chicago Law Review, 38, 710–724.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Alvarez, M.J., Miller, M.K., Bornstein, B.H. (2016). “It will be your duty…:” The Psychology of Criminal Jury Instructions. In: Miller, M., Bornstein, B. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29405-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29406-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)