Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Jury nullification instructions give jurors permission to disregard a law if they feet that its strict application would result in an unjust verdict. In a jury simulation, dogmatic and nondogmatic juries were given either standard or null fication instruc tions by the judge after hearing a euthanasia trial. Because of their alleged respect for and reliance on the pronouncements of authority figures, it was hypothesized that dogmatic juries would be more influenced than nondogmalic juries by the type of judge's instructions they received. Results from verdicts rendered, content analyses of jury deliberations, and postexperimental questionnaire data supported this hypothesis. Some implications of these outcomes are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bandwehr, S.J. , & Novotny, R. (1976). Juror authoritarianism and trial judge partiality: An experiment In jury decision making. Journal of Experimental Study in Politics, 5,28-33.

Becker, B.C. (1980). Jury nullification: Can a jury be trusted? Trial, 16, 18-23.

Berg, K.S. , & Vidmar, N. (1975). Authoritarianism and recall of evidence about criminal behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 9,147-157.

Bettinghaus, E. , Miller, G. , & Steinfatt, T. (1970). Source evaluation, syllogistic content, and judgments of logical validity by high and tow-dogmatic persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 238-244.

Bray, R.M. , & Noble, A.M. (1978). Authoritarians and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,1424-1430.

Buckhout, R. , Licker, J. , Alexander, M. , Gambardella. J. , Eugenio, R. , & Kakoullis, B. (1979). Discretion injury selection. In L. E. Apt & J. R. Stuart (Eds.), Social psychology and discretionary law. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Council of Superior Court Judges of Georgia. ( 1977). Georgia's jury instructions: Giminal Atlanta, GA: Author.

DiPerna, P. (1984). Juries on trial. New York: Dembner.

Ellison, K.W. , & Buckhout, R. (1981). Psychology and criminaljustice. New York. Harper & Row.

10.

Horowitz, I.A. (1985). The effect of jury nullification instructions on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 25-36.

11.

Kalven, H.,Jr. , & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: little, Brown.

12.

Larson, C.E. (1965). Interaction, dogmatism, and communication effectiveness: An exploratory study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.

13.

Powell, F.A. (1962). Open- and closed-mindedness and the ability to differentiate source and message. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61-64.

14.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.

15.

Shaffer, D.R. , &c Case, T. (1982). On the decision to testify in one's own behalf: Effects of withheld evidence, defendant's sexual preferences, and juror dogmatism on juridic decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 42, 335-346.

16.

Shaffer, D.R. , Plummer, D. , & Hammock, G. (1966). Hath he suffered enough? Effects of jury dogmatism, defendant similarity, and defendant's pretrial suffering on juridic decisions . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,1059-1067.

17.

Simson, G. (1976).Jury nullification in the American system: A skeptical view. Taxas Law Review, 54, 488-526.

18.

Troldahl.V. , & Powell, A. (1965). A short form dogmatism scale for use in field studies Sacial Forces, 44, 211-215.

19.

Vacchiano, R.B. (1977). Dogmatism. In T. Blass (Ed,), Personality variables in social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Van Dyke, J. (1970). The jury as a political institution. Catholic Law Review, 16, 224-270.

21.

Wrightsman, L.S. (1987). Psychology and the legal system. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

The Effects of Jury Dogmatism on Reactions to Jury Nullification Instructions

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References