Findings from studies of jurors' use of judges' instructions have been equivocal. This article examines conceptual and methodological features of these studies that may have contributed to their inconsistent results. Past research has focused exclusively on jurors' cognitive “rule-following” and consequently may have neglected to consider social dimensions of “rule-use.” Many studies have failed to include a group deliberation; these studies generally report that jurors are not responsive to judges' instructions. This article suggests that group deliberation may provide the occasion for jurors' use of judges' instructions as instrumental resources for accounting and persuasive purposes in the production of a group verdict. Conversational data from transcribed mock deliberations is presented to support this contention and the research implications for this model of instrumental rule-use are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BITTNER, E.
(1967) “The police on skid-row: a study of peace-keeping.”Amer. Soc. Rev.32 (October): 699-715.
2.
COLASANTO, D.
and J. SANDERS (1978) “Methodological issues in simulated jury research.” Revision of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association.
3.
DAVIS, J. H.
, R. M. BRAY and R. W. HOLT (1977) “The empirical study of decision processes in juries: a critical review,” pp. 326-361 in S. L. Tapp and F. J. Levine (eds.) Law, Justice, and the Individual in Society. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
4.
DAVIS, J. H.
, N. KERR, R. ATKIN, R. HOLT, and D. MEEK (1975) “The decision process of 6- and 12-person mock juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology32: 1-14.
5.
ELWORK, A.
, B. D. SALES and J. J. ALFINI (1977) “Juridic decisions: in ignorance of the law or in light of it?”Law and Human Behavior1,2: 163-190.
6.
GASKING, D.
(1965) “Mathematics and the world,” pp. 431 in A. Flew (ed.) Logic and Language. New York: Garden City.
7.
GERBASI, K. C.
, M. ZUCKERMAN, and H. T. REIS (1977) “Justice needs a new blindfold: a review of mock jury research.”Psych. Bull.84, 2:323-345.
8.
JAMES, R. M.
(1959) “Jurors' assessment of criminal responsibility.”Social Problems7, 1: 58-69.
9.
KALVEN, H.
and H. ZEISEL (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
10.
KAPLAN, M. F.
and C. E. MILLER (1977) “Judgments and group discussion: effects of presentation and memory factors on polarization.”Sociometry40, 4: 337-342.
11.
KASSEN, S. M.
and L. S. WRIGHTSMAN (1979) “On the requirements of proof: the timing of judicial instructions on mock juror verdicts.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology37, 10: 177-187.
12.
KERR, N. L.
, R. S. ATKIN, G. STASSER, D. MEEK, R. W. HOLT and J. H. DAVIS (1976) “Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology34, 2: 282-294.
13.
KLINE, F. G.
and P. H. JESS (1966) “Prejudicial publicity: its effect on law school mock juries.”Journalism Q.43: 113-116.
14.
MITCHELL, H. E.
and D. BYRNE (1972) “Minimizing the influence of irrelevant factors in the courtroom: the defendant's character, judges' instructions, and authoritarianism.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Cleveland.
15.
MORISSETTE v. UNITED STATES (1952) 342 U.S. 246.
16.
REED, R. S.
(1980) “The trial stimuli in jury simulation: the impact of judges' instructions and attorney tactics on decision-making.”J. of Criminal Law and Criminology71, 1: 68-72.
17.
SEALY, A. P.
and W. R. CORNISH (1973) “Juries and the rules of evidence.”Criminal Law Rev. (April): 208-223.
18.
SIMON, R. J.
(1967) The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.
19.
SIMON, R. J.
(1966) “Murder, juries and the press.”Trans-action3, 4: 40-42.
20.
SUE, S.
, R. E. SMITH, and C. CALDWELL (1973) “Effects of inadmissable evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: a moral dilemma.”J. of Applied Social Psychology3, 4: 345-353.
21.
SUE, S.
, R. E. SMITH, and R. GILBERT (1974) “Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions.”J. of Criminal Justice2, 2: 163-172.
22.
THOMPSON, W. C.
, G. T. FONG and D. L. ROSENHAN (1981) “Inadmissable evidence and juror verdicts.”J. of Personality and Social Psychology40, 3: 453-463.
23.
WEITEN, W.
(1980) “The attraction-leniency effect in jury research: an examination of external validity.”J. of Applied Social Psychology10, 4: 340-343.
24.
WEITEN, W.
and S. S. DIAMOND (1979) “A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm.”Law and Human Behavior3, 1/2:71-94.
25.
WOLF, S.
and D. A. MONTGOMERY (1977) “Effects of inadmissable evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors.”J. of Applied Social Psychology7, 3:205-219.
26.
ZIMMERMAN, D. H.
(1970) “The practicalities of rule use,” pp. 221-238 in J. Douglas (ed.) Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago: Aldine.
