Although recent research has suggested that juror understanding of sentencing instructions in capital cases is limited, jurors in most states retain responsibility for determining whether a defendant receives the death penalty. Using data collected from 258 individuals who were called for jury duty in a midwestern city, the present study demonstrates that (1) jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions is limited, (2) the particular areas of misunderstanding tend to place the defendant at a disadvantage, (3) juror understanding can be improved by rewriting state death penalty pattern instructions, and (4) comprehension levels also may be increased by providing jurors with a written copy of the instructions. Unfortunately, the effects that this research may have on legal policy are unclear.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Acker, James
. 1993. “A Different Agenda: The Supreme Court, Empirical Research Evidence, and Capital Punishment Decisions, 1986-1989.”Law and Society Review27:65-88.
2.
Alexander, Rudolph
. 1994. “Hands-Off, Hands-On, Hands-Semi-Off: A Discussion of the Current Legal Test Used by the United States Supreme Court to Decide Inmates' Rights.”Journal of Crime and Justice17:103-128.
3.
Anderson, Richard C.
1977. “The Notion of Schemata and the Educational Enterprise: General Discussion of the Conference.” Pp. 415-431 in Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, edited by R. C. Anderson, R. J. Spiro, and W. E. Montague. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Blankenship, Michael B.
, James Luginbuhl, Francis T. Cullen, and William Redick. 1997. “Juror Comprehension of Sentencing Instructions: A Test of Tennessee's Death Penalty Process.”Justice Quarterly14:325-351.
5.
Buchanan, Raymond W.
, Bert Pryor, K. Phillip Taylor, and David U. Strawn. 1978. “Legal Communication: An Investigation of Juror Comprehension of Pattern Instructions.”Communication Quarterly26:31-35.
6.
Call, Jack E.
1986. “Recent Case Law on Overcrowded Conditions of Confinement: An Assessment of its Impact on Facility Decisionmaking.” Pp. 238-257 in The Dilemmas of Punishment: Readings in Contemporary Corrections, edited by K. C. Haas and G. P. Alpert. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
7.
Charrow, Robert P.
and Veda R. Charrow. 1979. “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions.”Columbia Law Review79:1306-1374.
8.
Diamond, Shari S.1993. “Instructing on Death: Psychologists, Juries, and Judges.”American Psychologist48:423-434.
9.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C.
1988. “Unpleasant Facts: The Supreme Court's Response to Empirical Research on Capital Punishment.” Pp. 177-211 in Challenging Capital Punishment: Legal and Social Science Approaches, edited by K. C. Haas and J. A. Inciardi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
10.
Elwork, Amiram
and Bruce D. Sales. 1985. “Jury Instructions.” Pp. 280-297 in The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, edited by S. M. Kassin and L. S. Wrightsman. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Elwork, Amiram
, Bruce D. Sales, and James J. Alfini. 1977. “Juridic Decisions: In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of It?”Law and Human Behavior1:163-189.
12.
Elwork, Amiram
, Bruce D. Sales, and James J. Alfini. 1982. Making Jury Instructions Understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
13.
Faigman, David L.1991. “Normative Constitutional Fact-Finding: Exploring the Empirical Component of Constitutional Interpretation.”University of Pennsylvania Law Review139:541-617.
14.
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (1985).
15.
Free v. Peters, 12 F.3d. 700 (1993).
16.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
17.
Gillers, Stephen
. 1980. “Deciding Who Dies.”University of Pennsylvania Law Review129:1-124.
18.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
19.
Hans, Valerie P.
1988. “Death by Jury.” Pp. 149-175 in Challenging Capital Punishment: Legal and Social Science Approaches, edited by K. C. Haas and J. A. Inciardi. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
20.
Imwinkelried, Edward J.
and Lloyd R. Schwed. 1987. “Guidelines for Drafting Understandable Jury Instructions: An Introduction to the Use of Psycholinguistics.”Criminal Law Bulletin23:135-150.
21.
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976).
22.
Leahey, Thomas H.
and Richard J. Harris. 1985. Human Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
—. 1995. Deposition submitted to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Ohio v. Warren Waddy.
25.
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
26.
Lockhart v. McCree, 106 S. Ct. 1758 (1986).
27.
Luginbuhl, James
. 1992. “Comprehension of Judges' Instructions in the Penalty Phase of a Capital Trial.”Law and Human Behavior16:203-218.
28.
Mays, Larry
and Michelle Olszta. 1989. “Prison Litigation: From the 1960s to the 1990s.”Criminal Justice Policy Review3:279-298.
29.
McClesky v. Kemp, 107 S. Ct. 1756 (1987).
30.
Monahan, John
and Laurens Walker. 1986. “Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating, and Establishing Social Science in Law.”University of Pennsylvania Law Review134: 477-556.
31.
Prettyman, E. Barrett
. 1960. “Jury Instructions—First or Last?”American Bar Association Journal46:1066.
32.
Profitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).
33.
Radelet, Michael L.1985. “Rejecting the Jury: The Imposition of the Death Penalty in Florida.”University of California Davis Law Review18:1409-1431.
34.
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976).
35.
Sandys, Marla
. 1995. “Cross-Overs—Capital Jurors Who Change Their Minds About the Punishment: A Litmus Test for Sentencing Guidelines.”Indiana Law Journal70:1183-1221.
36.
Schwarzer, William W.1981. “Communicating With Juries: Problems and Remedies.”California Law Review69:731-769.
37.
Severance, Laurence J.
and Elizabeth F. Loftus. 1982. “Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury Instructions.”Law and Society Review17:153-197.
38.
Steele, Walter W. Jr.
and Elizabeth G. Thornburg. 1988. “Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate.”North Carolina Law Review67:77-109.
39.
Strawn, David U.
and Raymond W. Buchanan. 1976. “Jury Confusion: A Threat to Justice.”Judicature59:478-483.
40.
Tanford, J. Alexander
. 1990. “The Law and Psychology of Jury Instructions.”Nebraska Law Review69:71-111.
41.
Weltner, Charles L.1979. “Why the Jury Doesn't Understand the Judge's Instructions.”Judges Journal18:18-25.
42.
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
43.
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).
44.
Zeisel, Hans. 1990. Affidavit (August 21, 1990). United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Case No. 89C3765.
