Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-17T23:08:20.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law Reform by Courts, Legislatures, and Commissions Following Empirical Research on Jury Instructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

J. Alexander Tanford
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Empirical research demonstrates that jurors have difficulty understanding and following traditional instructions about the law. The social science literature recommends several procedural reforms, including giving important instructions at the start of the trial and providing jurors with written instructions. This article examines changes in the law following the publication of this social science research, comparing courts, legislatures and rule-making commissions. Analysis reveals that although all three institutions are dominated by lawyers, they have acted differently. Commissions have made substantial changes in the law consistent with the recommendations of social scientists, legislatures have made few changes, and courts have changed case law in the opposite direction, suggesting support for a theory of institutional context.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , 1991 , pp. 155 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by The Law and Society Association

Footnotes

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the Indiana University School of Law, Bryant Garth, and the Center for the Study of Law and Society at Indiana University. The data were presented at the 1990 Law and Society Meetings, and valuable comments were received from Robin Stryker, Phoebe Ellsworth, James Alfini, and others. John Flood provided sound advice on quantitative methodology. I also received helpful comments from Shari Diamond and three anonymous reviewers.

References

References

ABEL, Richard L. (1988) Lawyers in Society, Vol. 1. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
AVAKIAN, Spurgeon (1979) “Let's Learn to Instruct the Jury,” 18 Judges Journal 40 (Summer).Google Scholar
BAZAR, Beth (1987) State Legislators' Occupations: A Decade of Change. Denver: National Conference of State Legislators.Google Scholar
BLAIR, George S. (1967) American Legislatures: Structure and Process. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
CHARROW, Robert P., and Veda D., CHARROW (1979) “Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions,” 79 Columbia Law Review 1306.Google Scholar
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS (1985) State Legislative Leadership, Committees and Staff. Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments.Google Scholar
CRUSE, Donna, and Beverly A., BROWNE (1987) “Reasoning in a Jury Trial: The Influence of Instructions,” 114 Journal of General Psychology 129.Google Scholar
DAVIS, Peggy C. (1987) “‘There is a book out ...‘: An Analysis of Judicial Absorption of Legislative Facts,” 100 Harvard Law Review 1539.Google Scholar
ELWORK, Amiram, ALFINI, James J., and Bruce D., SALES (1982) “Toward Understandable Jury Instructions,” 65 Judicature 433.Google Scholar
ELWORK, Amiram, SALES, Bruce D., and James J., ALFINI (1977) “Juridic Decisions: In Ignorance of the Law or in Light of It?” 1 Law and Human Behavior 163.Google Scholar
ELWORK, Amiram, SALES, Bruce D., and James J., ALFINI (1982) Making Jury Instructions Understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Co.Google Scholar
EULAU, Heinz, and John D., SPRAGUE (1964) Lawyers in Politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER BOARD OF EDITORS (1977) Manual for Complex Litigation. New York: Boardman.Google Scholar
FORSTON, Robert (1973) “Justice, Jurors and Judges' Instructions,” 12 Judges Journal 68.Google Scholar
FORSTON, Robert (1975) “Sense and Non-sense: Jury Trial Communication,” 1975 Brigham Young Law Review 601.Google Scholar
HAFEMEISTER, Thomas L., and Gary B., MELTON (1987) “The Impact of Social Science Research on the Judiciary,” in Melton, G. (ed.), Reforming the Law: Impact of Child Development Research. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
HANEY, Craig (1980) “Psychology and Legal Change: On the Limits of a Factual Jurisprudence,” 4 Law and Human Behavior 147.Google Scholar
HOROWITZ, Irwin A., and Thomas E., WILLGING (1984) The Psychology of Law: Integrations and Applications. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
HUNTER, Robert (1935) “Law in the Jury Room,” 2 Ohio State Law Journal 1.Google Scholar
KALVEN, Harry Jr. (1968) “The Quest for the Middle Range: Empirical Inquiry and Legal Policy,” in Hazard, G. (ed.), Law in a Changing America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
KAPLAN, Martin F., and Gwen D., KEMMERICK (1974) “Juror Judgment as Information Integration: Combining Evidential and Nonevidential Information,” 30 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 493.Google Scholar
KASSIN, Saul M., and Lawrence S., WRIGHTSMAN (1979) “On the Requirements of Proof: The Timing of Judicial Instruction and Mock Juror Verdicts,” 37 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1877.Google Scholar
KERR, Norbert L., ATKIN, Robert S., STASSER, Garold, MEEK, D., HOLT, R. W., and J., DAVIS (1976) “Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Effects of Concept Definition and Assigned Decision Rule on the Judgments of Mock Jurors,” 34 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 282.Google Scholar
LEMPERT, Richard O. (1988) “‘Between Cup and Lip’: Social Science Influences on Law and Policy,” 10 Law & Policy 167.Google Scholar
LOFTUS, Elizabeth F. (1979) Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
LOFTUS, Elizabeth F., and James M., DOYLE (1987) Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
MARYLAND STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, Minutes, October 15/16 (1982) (photocopy).Google Scholar
McCAFFREY, Francis J. (1953) Statutory Construction. New York: Central Book Co.Google Scholar
MISSOURI SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS (1981) Missouri Approved Jury Instructions 3d ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
NIELAND, Robert G. (1979) Pattern Jury Instructions: A Critical Look at a Modern Movement to Improve the Jury System. Chicago: American Judicature Society.Google Scholar
NIEMEYER, Paul V., and Linda M., RICHARDS (1984) Maryland Rules Commentary. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE (1984) “Proposed Amendments to Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rules 1113 and 1119,” 14 Pennsylvania Bulletin 3358.Google Scholar
PERLMAN, Harvey S. (1986) “Pattern Jury Instructions: The Application of Social Science Research,” 65 Nebraska Law Review 520.Google Scholar
PRETTYMAN, E. Barrett (1960) “Jury Instructions—First or Last?” 46 American Bar Association Journal 1066.Google Scholar
ROWLAND, C. K., SONGER, Donald R., and Robert A., CARP (1988) “Presidential Effects on Criminal Justice Policy in the Lower Federal Courts: The Reagan Judges,” 22 Law & Society Review 191.Google Scholar
RUBACK, R. Barry, and Christopher A., INNES (1988) “The Relevance and Irrelevance of Psychological Research: The Example of Prison Crowding,” 43 American Psychologist 683.Google Scholar
SAKS, Michael J., and Charles H., BARON (1980) The Use/Nonuse/Misuse of Applied Social Research in the Courts. Cambridge, MA: Abt.Google Scholar
SCHWARZER, William W. (1981) “Communicating With Juries: Problems and Remedies,” 69 California Law Review 731.Google Scholar
SEVERANCE, Laurence J., and Elizabeth F., LOFTUS (1982) “Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury Instructions,” 17 Law & Society Review 153.Google Scholar
STRAWN, David U., BUCHANAN, Raymond W., PRYOR, Bert, & K. Phillip, TAYLOR (1977) “Reaching a Verdict, Step By Step,” 60 Judicature 383.Google Scholar
STRAWN, David U., and Raymond W., BUCHANAN (1976) “Jury Confusion: A Threat to Justice,” 59 Judicature 478.Google Scholar
STRYKER, Robin S. (1989) “Limits on Technocratization of Law: The Elimination of the National Labor Relations Board's Division of Economic Research,” 54 American Sociological Review 341.Google Scholar
STRYKER, Robin S. (1990a) “A Tale of Two Agencies: Class, Political-Institutional, and Organizational Factors Affecting State Reliance on Social Science,” 18 Politics and Society 101.Google Scholar
STRYKER, Robin S. (1990b) “Science, Class, and the Welfare State: A Class-centered Functional Account,” 96 American Journal of Sociology 684.Google Scholar
TANFORD, J. Alexander (1986) “An Introduction to Trial Law,” 51 Missouri Law Review 623.Google Scholar
TANFORD, J. Alexander (1989) “30 Years and Still Waiting: The Negligible Effect of Jury Instruction Research on Judicial Decisions.” Presented at 1989 Law and Society meetings.Google Scholar
TANFORD, J. Alexander (1990) “The Limits of a Scientific Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and Psychology,” 66 Indiana Law Journal 137.Google Scholar
TAYLOR, K. Phillip, BUCHANAN, Raymond W., PRYOR, Bert, and David U., STRAWN (1980) “Avoiding the Legal Tower of Babel,” 19 Judges Journal 10.Google Scholar
THOMPSON, William C. (1989) “Death Qualification After Wainwright v. Witt and Lockhart v. McCree,” 13 Law and Human Behavior 185.Google Scholar
THOMPSON, William C., and Schumann, Edward L. (1987) “Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials: The Prosecutor's Fallacy and the Defense Attorney's Fallacy,” 11 Law and Human Behavior 167.Google Scholar
TREMPER, Charles R. (1987) “Sanguinity and Disillusionment Where Law Meets Social Science,” 11 Law and Human Behavior 267.Google Scholar
WELTNER, Charles L. (1979) “Why the Jury Doesn't Understand the Judge's Instructions,” 18 Judges Journal 18 (Spring).Google Scholar
Who's Who in American Politics 12th ed. (1989–90). New York: R. R. Bowker.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

Copeland v. United States, 152 F.2d 769 (Ct. App. D.C. 1945).Google Scholar
Dunn v. Syring, 425 So.2d 1081 (Ala. 1983).Google Scholar
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986).Google Scholar
McElhaney v. State, 420 S.W.2d 643 (Tenn. 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan v. LaLumiere, 493 N.E.2d 206 (Mass. App. 1986).Google Scholar
People v. Gonzalez, 430 N.Y.2d 655 (1980).Google Scholar
People v. Vincenty, 501 N.E.2d 587 (N.Y. 1986).Google Scholar
Sanders v. State, 426 So.2d 497 (Ala. Ct. Crim. App. 1982).Google Scholar
State v. McCloud, 349 N.W.2d 590 (Minn. 1984).Google Scholar
State v. Parrish, 327 S.E.2d 613 (N.C. App. 1985).Google Scholar
Taylor v. Monroe County, 423 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. App. 1981).Google Scholar
United States v. Alston, 551 F.2d 315 (D.C. Cir. 1976).Google Scholar

Rules Cited

Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 51.Google Scholar
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.Google Scholar
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.470.Google Scholar
Florida Criminal Procedure Rule 3.390.Google Scholar
Indiana Trial Rule 51.Google Scholar
Michigan Court Rule 2.516.Google Scholar
Minnesota Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.03 subd. 18.Google Scholar
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1119.Google Scholar
Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 51.Google Scholar
West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 51.Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

Arkansas Code § 16-64-114, Ark. Stat. Ann (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
California Code of Civil Procedure, § 612.5, Cal. Civil Code (West 1982). California Penal Code, § 1093 (West 1982).Google Scholar
Florida Statutes § 918.10, Fla. Stat. Ann. (West 1986).Google Scholar
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, § 36.18, Tex. Crim. Pro. Code Ann. (West 1978).Google Scholar
West Virginia Code § 56-6-20 (1991).Google Scholar