“It will be your duty…:” The Psychology of Criminal Jury Instructions

The right to trial by jury granted by the Constitution is one of the cornerstones of American democracy. Jury trials allow the public to participate in the judicial process, which prevents the process from being unfairly used by the government. Without properly understanding the relevant law, jurors are unable to carry out their duties effectively, which can result in unjust outcomes such as innocent defendants being convicted. Judges give jurors instructions to help them understand how to apply the law to the case at hand. The chapter begins by evaluating jurors’ general comprehension of jury instructions, and then presents additional sections on special types of criminal jury instructions, including death penalty instructions, instructions on how to evaluate eyewitness testimony, curative/limiting instructions, joinder instructions, Allen (dynamite) charges, and jury nullification instructions. Each section provides an overview of the law regarding each particular topic, presents the psychological research available on the topic, and provides recommendations on how to apply research findings to improve the effectiveness of the instructions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 85.59 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 105.49 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Incentivized to Testify: Informant Witnesses

Decision-Making in the Courtroom: Jury

The Social Science of the Death Penalty: Before, during, and after Trial

References

• Abramson, J. (1998). Two ideals of jury deliberation. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 125. Google Scholar
• Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896). Google Scholar
• American Bar Association. (1968). Project on minimum standards for criminal justice. Google Scholar
• American Bar Association. (1996). ABA standards for criminal justice discovery and trial by jury. Google Scholar
• Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037–1049. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70, 1–70. doi:10.1037/h0093718. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bateman, S. P. (2010). Blast it all: Allen charges and the dangers of playing with dynamite. University of Hawaii Law Review, 32, 323–358. Google Scholar
• Bennett, J. H. (1972). The hung jury and the dynamite charge. American Journal of Criminal Law, 1, 156–178. Google Scholar
• Bennett v. Angelone, 92 F.3d 1336, 1346-47 (4th Cir. 1996). Google Scholar
• Berberich, L. B. (2001). Jury instructions regarding deadlock in capital sentencing. Hofstra Law Review, 29, 1301–1331. Google Scholar
• Blankenship, M. B., Luginbuhl, J., Cullen, F. T., & Redick, W. (1997). Jurors’ comprehension of sentencing instructions: A test of the death penalty process in Tennessee. Justice Quarterly, 14, 325–351. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1985). Joinder of criminal offenses: A review of the legal and psychological literature. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 339–353. doi:10.1007/BF01044475. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bordens, K. S., & Horowitz, I. A. (1986). Prejudicial joinder of multiple offenses: Relative effects of cognitive processing and criminal schema. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(4), 243–258. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0704_1. Google Scholar
• Borgida, E., & Park, R. (1988). The entrapment defense: Juror comprehension and decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 19–40. doi:10.1007/BF01064272. Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (in press). The jury under attack: Myth, controversy, and reform. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H., & Hamm, J. A. (2012). Jury instructions on witness identification. Court Review, 48, 48–53. Google Scholar
• Bowers, W. J., & Steiner, B. D. (1999). Death by default: An empirical demonstration of false and forced choices in capital sentencing. Texas Law Review, 77, 605–717. Google Scholar
• Boyd v. French, 147 F.3d 319, 329 (4th Cir. 1998). Google Scholar
• Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic. Google Scholar
• Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 765–776. doi:10.1002/acp.1036. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19–30. doi:10.1007/BF01045284. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Brody, D. C. (1995). Sparf and Dougherty revisited: Why the court should instruct the jury of its nullification right. American Criminal Law Review, 33, 89–112. Google Scholar
• Brown, D. K. (1997). Jury nullification within the rule of law. Minnesota Law Review, 81, 1149–1200. Google Scholar
• Carretta, T. R., & Moreland, R. L. (1983). The direct and indirect effects of inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 291–309. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb01741.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Casper, J. D., Benedict, K., & Perry, J. D. (1989). Juror decision making, attitudes, and the hindsight bias. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 291–310. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cho, S. (1994). Capital confusion: The effect of jury instructions on the decision to impose death. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 532–561. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Chomos, J. C., Miller, M. K., Sicafuse, L. L., Richardson, J. T., Peoples, C. D., & Bremer, C. F. (2011). Increasing juror satisfaction: A call to action for judges and researchers. Drake Law Review, 59, 707–731. Google Scholar
• Clark, S. J. (1999). The courage of our convictions. Michigan Law Review, 97, 2381–2447. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cohen, N. P. (2000). Communicating with juries: The timing of jury instructions. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 681–697. Google Scholar
• Conrad, C. S. (1998). Jury nullification: The evolution of a doctrine. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Google Scholar
• Cox, M., & Tanford, S. (1989). Effects of evidence and instructions in civil trials: An experimental investigation of rules of admissibility. Social Behaviour, 4, 31–55. Google Scholar
• Crispo, L. W., Slansky, J. M., & Yriarte, G. M. (1997). Jury nullification: Law versus anarchy. Loyola of Low Angeles Law Review, 31, 1–62. Google Scholar
• Crocker, P. L. (1997). Concepts of culpability and deathworthiness: Differentiating between guilt and punishment in death penalty cases. Fordham Law Review, 66, 21–86. Google Scholar
• Cronan, J. P. (2002). Is any of this making sense? Reflecting on guilty pleas to aid criminal juror comprehension. American Criminal Law Review, 39, 1187–1259. Google Scholar
• Cush, R. K., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). The influence of limiting instructions on processing and judgments of emotionally evocative evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 13, 110–123. doi:10.1375/pplt.13.1.110. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215–225. doi:10.1002/bsl.2370070206. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191. doi:10.1007/BF01062972. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Daftary‐Kapur, T., Dumas, R., & Penrod, S. D. (2010). Jury decision‐making biases and methods to counter them. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 133–154. doi:10.1348/135532509X465624. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Dattu, F. (1998). Illustrated jury instructions: A proposal. Law and Psychology Review, 22, 67–102. Google Scholar
• Dawson, R. O. (1979). Joint trials of defendants in criminal cases: An analysis of efficiencies and prejudices. Michigan Law Review, 77, 1379–1455. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York, NY: New York University Press. Google Scholar
• Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberation groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–717. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.622. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224–232. Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., Murphy, B., & Rose, M. R. (2012). The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review, 106, 1537–1608. Google Scholar
• Diamond, S. S., Rose, M. R., & Murphy, B. (2006). Revisiting the unanimity requirement: The behavior of the non-unanimous civil jury. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 201–230. Google Scholar
• Dolnik, L., Case, T. I., & Williams, K. D. (2003). Stealing thunder as a courtroom tactic revisited: Processes and boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 267–287. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doob, A. N., & Kirshenbaum, H. M. (1973). Some empirical evidence on the effect of S. 12 of the Canada evidence act upon an accused. The Criminal Law Quarterly, 15, 88–96. Google Scholar
• Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock juror decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law and Human Behavior, 21, 485–501. doi:10.1023/A:1024823706560. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dumas, B. K. (2000). Jury trials: Lay jurors, pattern jury instructions, and comprehension issues. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 701–742. Google Scholar
• Duncan v. Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968). Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79, 1–17. Google Scholar
• Ellias, R. (1995). Should courts instruct juries as to the consequences to a defendant of a “not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85(4), 1062–1083. Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224. Google Scholar
• Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and proposed solutions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 788–821. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.788. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Elwork, A., & Sales, B. D. (1985). Jury instructions. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 280–297). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
• Elwork, A., Alfini, J. J., & Sales, B. D. (1982). Toward understandable jury instructions. Judicature, 65, 432–443. Google Scholar
• Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it? Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163–189. doi:10.1007/BF01053437. Google Scholar
• English, P. W., & Sales, B. D. (1997). A ceiling or consistency effect for the comprehension of jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 381–401. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.381. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Faigman, D. L., Blumenthal, J., Cheng, E., Mnookin, J., Murphy, E., & Sanders, J. (2014). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony. Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters/West. Google Scholar
• Farnham, D. (1996). Jury nullification: History proves it’s not a new idea. Criminal Justice, 11, 4–14. Google Scholar
• Farrin, J. (1989). Rethinking criminal joinder: An analysis of the empirical research and its implications for justice. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 325–340. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Fein, S., McCloskey, A. L., & Tomlinson, T. M. (1997). Can the jury disregard that information? The use of suspicion to reduce the prejudicial effects of pretrial publicity and inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1215–1226. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Finkel, N. J. (2000). Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 591–628. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.591. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Finkel, N. J., Hurabiell, M. L., & Hughes, K. C. (1993). Right to die, euthanasia, and community sentiment: Crossing the public/private boundary. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 487–506. doi:10.1007/BF01045070. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fishman, C. S. (2005). Defense witness as “accomplice:” Should the judge give a “Care and Caution” instruction? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 96(1), 1–24. Google Scholar
• Foglia, W. D. (2003). They know not what they do: Unguided and misguided discretion in Pennsylvania capital cases. Justice Quarterly, 20, 187–211. Google Scholar
• Frank, J. (1930). Law and the modern mind. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Google Scholar
• Frank, J., & Applegate, B. K. (1998). Assessing juror understanding of capital-sentencing instructions. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 412–433. doi:10.1177/0011128798044003005. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1972). Google Scholar
• Garrett, B. L. (2012). Eyewitnesses and exclusion. Vanderbilt Law Review, 65, 2011–2017. Google Scholar
• Gastil, J., Dees, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Geiselman, R. E., & Mendez, B. A. (2005). Assistance to the fact finder: Eyewitness expert testimony versus attorneys' closing arguments. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 23(2), 5–15. Google Scholar
• Gordon, R. A., & Anderson, K. S. (1995). Perceptions of race-stereotypic and race-nonstereotypic crimes: The impact of response-time instructions on attributions and judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 455–470. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1604_4. Google Scholar
• Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: Evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Greene, E., & Dodge, M. (1995). The influence of prior record evidence on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 67–77. doi:10.1007/BF01499073. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Greene, E., & Johns, M. (2001). Jurors’ use of instructions on negligence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 840–859. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01416.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human Behavior, 9(2), 193–207. doi:10.1007/BF01067051. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976). Google Scholar
• Hamm, J. A., Bornstein, B. H., & Perkins, J. (2013). Jury nullification: The myth revisited. In D. Fung (Ed.), The psychology of policy-making (pp. 49–71). New York, NY: Nova Science. Google Scholar
• Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California’s capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 18(4), 411–436. doi:10.1007/BF01499048. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21(6), 575–595. doi:10.1023/A:1024804629759. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hannaford-Agor, P. L., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., & Munsterman, G. T. (2002). Are hung juries a problem? National Center for State Courts, 114. Retrieved from http://www.ncsc-jurystudies.org/What-We-Do/~/media/Microsites/Files/CJS/What%20We%20Do/Are%20Hung%20Juries%20A%20Problem.ashx
• Hans, V. P., & Doob, A. N. (1976). Section 12 of the Canada evidence act and the deliberations of simulated juries. Criminal Law Quarterly, 18, 235–253. Google Scholar
• Hansen, M. (2001). All about Allen: Judges’ charge to deadlocked juries comes under scrutiny. ABA Journal, 24–25. Google Scholar
• Hastie, R., Schkade, D. A., & Payne, J. W. (1998). A study of juror and jury judgments in civil cases: Deciding liability for punitive damages. Law and Human Behavior, 22(3), 287–314. doi:10.1023/A:1025754422703. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Higgins, M. (1998). Not so plain English. ABA Journal, 84, 40–43. Google Scholar
• Hoffheimer, M. H. (1989). Requiring jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence at Federal criminal trials. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80, 585–672. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A. (1985). The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials. Law and Human Behavior, 9(1), 25–36. doi:10.1007/BF01044287. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A. (1988). Jury nullification: The impact of judicial instructions, arguments, and challenges on jury decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 439–453. doi:10.1007/BF01044627. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A. (1997). Reasonable doubt instructions: Commonsense justice and standard of proof. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3(2-3), 285–302. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.2-3.285. Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A. (2008). Jury nullification: An empirical perspective. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 28, 425–452. Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Bordens, K. S. (2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 121–130. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.121. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (1980). A comparison of verdicts obtained in severed and joined criminal trials. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 444–456. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1980.tb00723.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., Park, E. S., & Gockel, C. (2006). Chaos in the courtroom reconsidered: Emotional bias and juror nullification. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 163–181. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., Kerr, N. L., & Niedermeier, K. E. (2000). Jury nullification: Legal and psychological perspectives. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1207–1249. Google Scholar
• Horowitz, I. A., & Kirkpatrick, L. C. (1996). A concept in search of a definition: The effects of reasonable doubt instruction on certainty of guilt standards and jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 655–670. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hreno, T. (2008). The Jury Nullification Instruction and the De Jure/De Facto Debate: A Hohfeldian analysis. Public Affairs Quarterly, 22, 231–251. Google Scholar
• Hunter, R. M. (1935). Law in the jury room. The Ohio State University Law Journal, 2, 1–19. Google Scholar
• Jones, A.M. (2015). Sensitizing jurors to factors influencing the accuracy of eyewitness identification: Assessing the effectiveness of the Henderson instructions (Doctoral dissertation). Google Scholar
• Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–250. doi:10.1007/BF01061711. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., Smith, V. L., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). The dynamite charge: Effects on the perceptions and deliberation behavior of mock jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 537–538. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Sommers, S. R. (1997). Inadmissible testimony, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046–1054. doi:10.1177/01461672972310005. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46. doi:10.1023/A:1024814009769. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988). The American jury on trial: Psychological perspectives. Carlsbad, CA: Hemisphere. Google Scholar
• Katzev, R. D., & Wishart, S. S. (1985). The impact of judicial commentary concerning eyewitness identifications on jury decision making. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 733–745. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kerr, N. L., Boster, F. J., Callen, C. R., Braz, M. E., O’Brien, B., & Horowitz, I. (2008). Jury nullification instructions as amplifiers of bias. International Commentary on Evidence, 6, 2–21. doi:10.2202/1554-4567.1068. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kerr, N. L., & Sawyers, G. W. (1979). Independence of multiple verdicts within a trial by mock jurors. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 10, 16–27. Google Scholar
• Kerwin, J., & Shaffer, D. R. (1994). Mock jurors versus mock juries: The role of deliberations in reactions to inadmissible testimony. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 153–162. doi:10.1177/0146167294202002. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kramer, G. P., & Koenig, D. M. (1990). Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 3, 401–437. Google Scholar
• Laub, C. E., Kimbrough, C. D., Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Mock juror perceptions of eyewitnesses vs. earwitnesses: do safeguards help? (Unpublished manuscript). University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE Google Scholar
• Leipold, A. D. (1996). Rethinking jury nullification. Virginia Law Review, 82, 253–324. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Leipold, A. D., & Abbasi, H. A. (2006). The impact of joinder and severance on federal criminal cases: An empirical study. Vanderbilt Law Review, 59, 349–404. Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D. (2009). The psychology of the jury instruction process. In J. D. Lieberman & D. A. Krauss (Eds.), Jury psychology: Social aspects of trial processes: Psychology in the courtroom (Vol. 1, pp. 129–155). Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Google Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2000). Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social psychological explanations for the failures of instructions to disregard pretrial publicity and other inadmissible evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 677–711. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.677. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 589–644. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.3.4.589. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lieberman, J. D., & Sales, B. D. (2000). Jury instructions: Past, present, and future. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 587–590. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.587. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• London, K., & Nuñez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.932. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lowenfield v. Phelps, 108 U.S. 546 (1988). Google Scholar
• Luginbuhl, J. (1992). Comprehension of judges’ instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial: Focus on mitigating circumstances. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 203–218. doi:10.1007/BF01044798. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337–358. doi:10.1023/A:1005588221761. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2009). Capital jury deliberation: Effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 481–496. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9168-2. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mallard, D., & Perkins, D. P. (2005). Disentangling the evidence: Mock jurors, inadmissible testimony and integrative encoding. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 12, 289–297. doi:10.1375/pplt.12.2.289. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Marder, N. S. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–511. Google Scholar
• Martire, K. A., & Kemp, R. I. (2009). The impact of eyewitness expert evidence and judicial instruction on juror ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 225–236. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9134-z. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Pfeifer, J. E. (2003). Jury nullification: The influence of judicial instruction on the relationship between attitudes and juridic decision-making. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 243–254. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_07. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Milgram, S. (1978). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Google Scholar
• Miller, M. K., & Chamberlain, J. (2014). “There ought to be a law!”: Understanding community sentiment. In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, & J. Chamberlain (Eds.), Handbook of community sentiment (pp. 3–28). New York, NY: Springer. Google Scholar
• Miller, M. K., & Hayward, R. D. (2008). Religious characteristics and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 113–123. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9090-z. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Neilson, W. S., & Winter, H. (2005). The elimination of hung juries: Retrials and nonunanimous verdicts. International Review of Law and Economics, 25, 1–19. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2005.05.004. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Nieland, R. G. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at a modern movement to improve the jury system. Chicago, IL: American Judicature Society. Google Scholar
• Ogloff, J. R. P. (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 509–531. doi:10.1007/BF01650292. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Otto, C. W., Applegate, B. K., & Davis, R. K. (2007). Improving comprehension of capital sentencing instructions: Debunking juror misconceptions. Crime and Delinquency, 53, 502–517. doi:10.1177/0011128706294681. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Paglia, A., & Schuller, R. A. (1998). Jurors' use of hearsay evidence: The effects of type and timing of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 22(5), 501–518. doi:10.1023/A:1025735313134. Google Scholar
• Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13, 204–244. doi:10.1080/15228932.2013.795816. Google Scholar
• Perez, L., & Miller, M. K. (2015). How cognitive processing traits impact judicial instructions and evaluations of eyewitnesses. Paper presented at the 2015 American Psychological Association Convention, Toronto, ON. Google Scholar
• Peters, M., & Lecci, L. (2012). Predicting verdicts, adherence to judge’s instructions, and assumptions about the disposition of the defendant in a case involving the insanity defense. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 817–831. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.566872. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Pfeifer, J. E., Brigham, J. C., & Robinson, T. (1996). Euthanasia on trial: Examining public attitudes toward nonphysician-assisted death. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 119–129. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01571.x. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pickel, K. L. (1995). Inducing jurors to disregard inadmissible evidence: A legal explanation does not help. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 407–424. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Pickel, K. L., Karam, J. J., & Warner, T. C. (2009). Jurors’ responses to unusual inadmissible evidence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 466–480. doi:10.1177/0093854809332364. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Prager, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 2, 187–193. Google Scholar
• Priolo, N. M. (1997). Evidence—Can a curative instruction effectively remedy impermissible references to a defendant’s past criminal behavior? Suffolk University Law Review, 30, 583. Google Scholar
• Read, J. H., & Allen, N. (2012). Living, dead, and undead: Nullification past and present. American Political Thought, 1(2), 263–297. doi:10.1086/667615. Google Scholar
• Reed, K. & Bornstein, B. H. (2015). Juries, joinder, and justice. The Jury Expert, 27(3), 1–5. Google Scholar
• Richardson v. Marsh 481 U.S. 200 (1987). Google Scholar
• Rose, V. G., & Ogloff, J. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409–431. doi:10.1023/A:1010659703309. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Saks, M. J. (1993). Judicial nullification. Indiana Law Journal, 68, 1281–1295. Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., & Weighner, M. M. (1997). A meta-analysis of the effects of jury size. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 451–467. doi:10.1023/A:1024819605652. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Schul, Y., & Manzury, G. (1990). The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring invalid testimony. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 337–349. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Schwarzer, W. W. (1981). Communicating with juries: Problems and remedies. California Law Review, 69, 731–769. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Semmler, C., & Brewer, N. (2002). Using a flow-chart to improve comprehension of jury instructions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 262–270. doi:10.1375/pplt.2002.9.2.262. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 75, 198–233. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions. Law & Society Review, 17, 153–197. doi:10.2307/3053535. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Shaked-Schroer, N., Costanzo, M., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (2008). Reducing racial bias in the penalty phase of capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 603–617. doi:10.1002/bsl.829. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors’ information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220–228. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.220. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Smith, A. E., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 339–350. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith, V. L., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Effects of the dynamite charge on the deliberations of deadlocked mock juries. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 625–640. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Smithson, M., Deady, S., & Gracik, L. (2007). Guilty, not guilty, or …? Multiple options in jury verdict choices. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 481–498. doi:10.1002/bdm.572. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sommers, S. R., & Kassin, S. M. (2001). On the many impacts of inadmissible testimony: Selective compliance, need for cognition, and the overcorrection bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1368–1377. doi:10.1177/01461672012710012. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Spackman, M. P., Belcher, J. C., Calapp, J. W., & Taylor, A. (2002). An analysis of the effects of subjective and objective instruction forms on mock-juries’ murder/manslaughter distinctions. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 605–623. doi:10.1023/A:1020977400474. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sparf v. United States 156 U.S. 51 (1895). Google Scholar
• State v. Gallagher, 654 A.2d 1206 (R.I. 1995). Google Scholar
• State v. Henderson 27 A.3d 872 (N.J. 2011). Google Scholar
• Steblay, N. M., Besirevic, J., Fulero, S. M., & Jimenez-Lorente, B. (1999). The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: A meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–235. doi:10.1023/A:1022325019080. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9039-7. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steele, W. W., & Thornburg, E. G. (1988). Jury instructions: A persistent failure to communicate. North Carolina Law Review, 67, 77–120. Google Scholar
• Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. (1975). Jury confusion: A threat to justice. Judicature, 59, 478–483. Google Scholar
• Sue, S., Smith, R., & Gilbert, R. (1974). Biasing effects of pretrial publicity on judicial decisions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 2, 163–171. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1984). Social inference processes in juror judgments of multiple-offense trials. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 749–765. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.749. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Tanford, S., Penrod, S., & Collins, R. (1985). Decision making in joined criminal trials: The influence of charge similarity, evidence similarity, and limiting instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 319. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Thimsen, S., Bornstein, B. B., & Miller, M. K. (2009). The dynamite charge: Too explosive for its own good? Valparaiso University Law Review, 44, 93–123. Google Scholar
• Thompson, C. M., & Dennison, S. (2004). Graphic evidence of violence: The impact on juror decision-making, the influence of judicial instructions and the effect of juror biases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11(2), 323–337. doi:10.1375/1321871042707188. Google Scholar
• Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Jury instructions in the new millennium. Court Review, 36, 28–63. Google Scholar
• Tiersma, P., & Curtis, M. (2008). Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1, 231–261. Google Scholar
• Trenary, A. D. (2013). State v. Henderson: A model for admitting eyewitness identification testimony. University of Colorado Law Review, 84, 1257–1303. Google Scholar
• Turgeon, J., Francis, E., & Loftus, E. (2014). Crafting model jury instructions for evaluating eyewitness testimony. The Pennsylvania Lawyer, 36, 49–52. Google Scholar
• United States v. Foutz 540 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1976). Google Scholar
• United States v. Giry, 818 F.2d 120, 134 (1st Cir. 1987). Google Scholar
• United States v. Telfaire 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Google Scholar
• Van Dyke, J. (1970). The jury as a political institution. Catholic Law Review, 16, 224–270. Google Scholar
• van Knippenberg, A., Dijksterhuis, A., & Vermeulen, D. (1999). Judgement and memory of a criminal act: The effects of stereotypes and cognitive load. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 191–201. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199903/05)29:2/33.0.CO;2-O. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ward, J. D. (2004). California adopts plain-English civil jury instructions. Judicature, 87, 300–301. Google Scholar
• Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 45–75. doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x. PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wheatman, S. R., & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 167–183. doi:10.1023/A:1005645414992. ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whittemore, K. E., & Ogloff, J. P. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making: Disposition instructions and mental state at the time of the trial. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 2Z83–303. doi:10.1007/BF01501661. Google Scholar
• Wiener, R. L., Morasco, B., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., & Warren, L. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516–576. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516. Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wissler, R. L., & Saks, M. J. (1985). On the inefficacy of limiting instructions: When jurors use prior conviction evidence to decide on guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 37–48. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Zeisel, H. (1971). …And then there were none: The diminution of the federal jury. The University of Chicago Law Review, 38, 710–724. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. University of Nevada, Reno, Mailstop 313, National Judicial College 114, Reno, NV, 89557, USA Mauricio J. Alvarez
2. Criminal Justice Department and Interdisciplinary Social Psychology PhD Program, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA Monica K. Miller
3. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 335 Burnett Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588-0308, USA Brian H. Bornstein

1. Mauricio J. Alvarez