The relationship between capital jury instructions and imposition of the death penalty in the United States is analyzed through 36 semi-structured interviews collected as part of the archives of the national Capital Jury Project (CJP) at the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York in Albany. Former capital jurors expressed confusion, frustration, or ambivalence in areas of instruction clarity and procedural integrity. Specifically, jurors reported significant degrees of confusion as to the clarity of the instructions and the verbiage used to define their role and the exact parameters guiding both their sentencing decision and findings of fact. Moreover, a discrepancy was found in the degree to which statutory aggravation influenced decision making as opposed to mitigating testimony, calling into question both the constitutionality of the death penalty and its compliance with legal precedent. The article concludes with a discussion of the relevance these findings have for forensic social workers working in capital cases including implications for policy and practice.
AntonioME (2006) ‘I didn’t know it’d be so hard:’ Jurors’ emotional reactions to serving on a capital trial. Judicature89(5): 282–288.
4.
BaldusDCPulaskiCAJrWoodworthG (1990) Equal Justice and the Death Penalty, Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
5.
BannerS (2002) The Death Penalty: An American History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
BedauH (1997) The Death Penalty in America: Current Controversies, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
7.
Benson-AmramG (2004) Protecting the integrity of the court: Trial court responsibility for preventing ineffective assistance of counsel in criminal cases. New York University Review of Law and Social Change29(3): 425–458.
8.
BetancourtBDolmageKJohnsonCLeachTMenchacaJMonteroDWoodT (2006) Social workers’ roles in the criminal justice system. International Social Work49(5): 615–627.
9.
BlankenshipMLuginbuhlJCullenFRedickW (1997) Jurors’ comprehension of sentencing instructions: A test of the death penalty process in Tennessee. Justice Quarterly14(2): 325–352.
10.
BowersW (1995) The capital jury project: Rationale, design and preview of early findings. Indiana Law Journal70(4): 1043–1091.
11.
BowersWBrewerTLanierC (2009) The capital jury experiment of the Supreme Court. In: LanierCSBowersWJAckerJR (eds) The Future of America’s Death Penalty, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 199–221.
12.
BowersWFogliaW (2003) Still singularly agonizing: Law’s failure to purge arbitrariness from capital sentencing. Criminal Law Bulletin39(1): 51–61.
13.
BowersWFogliaWEhrhard-DietzelSKellyC (2010) Jurors’ failure to understand or comport with constitutional standards in capital sentencing: Strength of the evidence. Criminal Law Bulletin46(6): 1147–1240.
14.
BowersWSandysMSteinerB (1998) Foreclosing impartiality in capital sentencing: Jurors’ predispositions, attitudes and premature decision-making. Cornell Law Review83(6): 1476–1556.
15.
Brewer T (2005) The attorney-client relationship in capital cases and its impact on juror receptivity to mitigation evidence. Justice Quarterly 22(3): 340–363.
16.
ChemerinskyE (2006) The Rehnquist court and the death penalty. Georgetown Law Journal94(6): 1367–1383.
17.
ChiltonEHenleyP (1996) Improving the Jury System: Jury Instructions: Helping Jurors Understand the Evidence and the Law, Public Law Research Institute ReportAvailable at: http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spr96tex/juryinst.html.
18.
ConnellN (2009) Death by Jury: Group Dynamics and Capital Sentencing, El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
19.
CorbinJStraussA (2008) Basics of Qualitative Research, (3rd edn). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
20.
FrankJApplegateB (1998) Assessing juror understanding of capital sentencing. Crime and Delinquency44(3): 412–433.
21.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
22.
GarnerBA (1999) Black’s Law Dictionary, (7th edn). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
23.
GarveyS (1998) Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think?Columbia Law Review98(6): 1538–1576.
24.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909 (1976).
25.
GuinCNobleDNMerrillTS (2003) From misery to mission: Forensic social workers on multidisciplinary mitigation teams. Social Work48(3): 362–371.
26.
HaneyCLynchM (1994) Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California’s capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior18(4): 411–436.
27.
JasperM (1998) The Law of Capital Punishment, Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publications.
28.
LanierC (2004) The Role of Experts and Other Witnesses in Capital Penalty Hearings: The Views of Jurors Charged with Determining the Simple Sentence of Death, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Albany.
29.
LynchMHaneyC (2000) Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior24(3): 337–358.
30.
McGowenR (2011) Getting the question right? Ways of thinking about the death penalty. In: McGowanRMeranzeMGarlandD (eds) America’s Death Penalty: Between Past and Present, New York: New York University Press, pp. 1–29.
31.
PadgettD (1998) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
32.
PalmerLJ (1998) The Death Penalty: An American Citizen’s Guide to Understanding Federal and State Laws, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc.
33.
PlataniaJSmallR (2010) Instructions as a safeguard against prosecutorial misconduct in capital sentencing. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice6(2): 62–75.
34.
RitterJL (2004) Your lips are moving… but the words aren’t clear: Dissecting the presumption that jurors understand instructions. Missouri Law Review69(1): 163–214.
35.
SandysMTrahanA (2008) Death qualification, life qualification, and juror decision-making: Is the relationship tenable?Justice System Journal29(3): 385–395.
36.
SchroederJ (2003) Forging a new practice area: Social work’s role in death penalty mitigation investigations. Families in Society84(3): 423–432.
37.
SchroederJGuinCPogueRBordelonD (2006) Mitigating circumstances in death penalty decisions: Using evidence-based research to inform social work practice in capital trials. Social Work51(4): 355–364.
38.
SiglerM (2003) Contradiction, coherence, and guided discretion in the Supreme Court’s capital sentencing jurisprudence. American Criminal Law Review40(3): 1151–1194.
39.
SorensonJ (2009) Researching future dangerousness. In: LanierCSBowersWJAckerJR (eds) The Future of America’s Death Penalty, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp. 359–378.
40.
SundbyS (1991) The Lockett paradox: Reconciling guided discretion and unguided mitigation in capital sentencing. University of California Los Angeles Law Review38(5): 1147–1208.
41.
SundbyS (2010) War and peace in the jury room: How capital juries reach unanimity. Hastings Law Journal62(1): 103–154.
42.
Taylor-ThompsonK (2000) Empty voices in jury deliberations. Harvard Law Review113(6): 1261–1320.
43.
TerrellJStallerKM (2003) Buckshot’s case: Social work and death penalty mitigation in Alabama. Qualitative Social Work2(1): 7–23.
44.
WienerRPritchardCWestonM (1995) Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology80(4): 455–467.
45.
WeisbergR (2005) The death penalty meets social science: Deterrence and jury behavior under new scrutiny. Annual Review of Law and Social Science1: 151–170.
46.
WhitmanM (1999) Communicating with capital juries: How life versus death decisions are made, what persuades, and how to most effectively communicate the need for a verdict of life. Capital Defense Journal11(2): 263–292.
