Research Proposal

Effects of juror training and note-taking on comprehension of applicable trial

law

Introduction

Reisberg (2007)

• Language has a strong influence in molding our thoughts and decisions

• Language directs our attention and forms new connections with prior knowledge

• Without relevant connections, the ability to learn new concepts is severely compromised

Introduction

Continued:

• Without relevant connections, the ability to learn new concepts is severely compromised

• Most jurors are novices to the legal system and therefore lack prior knowledge/framework

• Complex legal terms, communicated through difficult/confusing oral/written language, affords jurors nothing to which to connect

Language and Thought

Introduction

Language and Thought

Introduction

Complex Legal

Language

?? ?

?

PriestAccountant Bus Driver

Student

Professor

Hair Dresser

Cashier

NurseEngineer Journalist

Mom

Introduction

then determine whether one or more mitigating circumstances exist that outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances so found to exist. In deciding that question, you may consider all the evidence relating to the murder.You may also consider:1. Whether the murder was committed while the defendant wasunder extreme mental or emotional disturbance.2. Whether the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform to the law was substantially impaired.You may also consider an circumstance which you find from evidence in mitigation of punishment.It is not necessary that all jurors agree on the existence of the same mitigating circumstance. If each juror finds one or more mitigating circumstance sufficient to outweigh aggravating circumstances found to exist, then you must return a verdict fixing defendant’s punishment at imprisonment for life by the Division of Corrections without eligibility for probation or parole.

Understanding Jury Instructions?If you decide that one or more sufficient aggravating circumstances exist to warrant the imposition of death, as submitted in Instruction No. 5, you must

Otto, Applegate, & Davis (2007):

• Jurors’ prior beliefs significantly affected comprehension of applicable law

• Modified instructions to eliminate belief bias improved comprehension accuracy in experimental versus control group (60% versus 46%)

Literature Review

Complex Jury Instructions

Complex Jury Instructions

Weiner, Pritchard, & Weston (1995):

• Jurors miscomprehended jury instructions during penalty phase of capital murder trials

• Clearer, simpler instructions improved comprehension accuracy in experimental versus control group (67% versus 57%)

Literature Review

Complex Jury Instructions

Diamond & Levi (1996):

• Jurors misunderstood jury responsibility as indicated in jury instructions for guilt and sentencing phase of trial

• Revised instructions improved comprehension accuracy in experimental versus control group (60% versus 50%)

Literature Review

Improving Understanding

Peters & Nunez (1999):

• Court preparation training (task-demand training and comprehension-monitoring training) improved trial understanding and evidence comprehension in child witnesses (82% v. 54% in experimental v. control group)

Literature Review

Improving Understanding

ForsterLee, Horowitz & Bourgeois (1994):

• Jurors allowed to take notes during trial recalled significantly more probative evidence and made more correct distinctions in assigning liability and awarding damages than the control group

Literature Review

•Apart from prior knowledge, only knowledge available to jurors comes from language of jury instruction

•Repeated attempts to increase comprehension via improved jury instruction showed significant, but minimal, improvement

•In addition to improved jury instruction, jurors may benefit from additional resources allowing them to increase connections between legal language and knowledge

Rationale for Research

Research Question

What are the effects of the following two factors on understanding and comprehension of revised jury instructions:

1. Juror preparation training

2. Juror note-taking

Procedures

Target Population and Sampling Method:

160 Jury-eligible South Carolinians who report for jury duty but are not selected; invited after non-selection to immediately participate in a juror research study for which they would be paid $40 for 2 hours

*Jurors would not be informed of the opportunity for research until after they were not selected as a jury member

Procedures

Note-Taking

No Note-Taking

Juror Training

Group 1 Group 3

No Juror Training

Group 2Baseline Control

Participants randomly assigned to one of four groups:

Procedures

Juror Training:

Participants in juror training groups (Groups 1 and 3) will receive Task Demand Training (TDT) and Comprehension Monitoring Training (CMT) prior to trial procedures

*TDT training verbalizes to jurors what to expect in a trial *CMT training shows jurors how to recognize linguistic confusion and ask to have questions rephrased for clarity, (Peters & Nunez, 1999)

Procedures

Juror Note-Taking:

Participants in juror note-taking groups (Groups 1 and 2) will be allowed to take notes during trial procedures – presentation of evidence and jury instructions (ForsterLee, et al., 1994)

Procedures

Design Methods:

1. All participants will read a trial fact summary (evidence) and applicable jury instructions *Jury instructions revised for simplicity, clarity and

ease of use based on trial summary and jury instructions by Wiener et al. (1995)

2. Participants will complete a jury instruction comprehension inventory (jury survey) to test understanding and comprehension of applicable law (Wiener et al., 1995)

Procedures

Data Collection Methods:

Differences Between Instruction Conditions:

• Means, percentages and standard deviations of jury survey items answered correctly for each of the four groups

2. Comparisons using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure (Wiener et al., 1995)

Hypotheses

1. Experimental groups receiving juror preparation training and allowance of note-taking (Group 1 and Group 2) will score significantly higher on comprehension measures of jury instructions compared with the baseline control group.

Hypotheses

2. The experimental group receiving both juror preparation training and allowance of note-taking (Group 3) will score significantly higher than all other groups (experimental Groups 1, 2, and the baseline control group).

Limitations

1. Sample will be limited to jury-eligible South Carolinians

2. South Carolinians will be tested using Missouri-based trial fact summary and Missouri-approved jury instructions (based on Wiener et al., 1995)

3. The complexity of the trial fact summary will not be tested

4. Delineation will be limited to jury-eligible South Carolinians (with telephone service)

References

Diamond, S.S, & Levi, J.N. (1996). Improving decision on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 5, 224-232.

ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I.A., & Bourgeois, M.J. (1994). Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 567-578.

Otto, C.W., Applegate, B.K., & Davis, R.K. (2007). Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instruction: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime & Delinquency, 5, 502-517.

Peters, W.W., & Nunez, N. (1999). Complex language and comprehension monitoring: Teaching child witnesses to recognize linguistic confusion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 661-669.

Reisberg, D. (2007). Cognition: exploring the science of the mind (3rd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

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.