An Empirical Comparison of the Old and Revised Jury Instructions of California: Do Jurors Comprehend Legal Ease Better or Does Bias Still Exist?

HTML  XML Download Download as PDF (Size: 306KB)  PP. 1-15  
DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1103164    1,054 Downloads   2,586 Views  Citations

ABSTRACT

We examined the old (Caljic) and new (Calcrim) standardized criminal jury instructions for the state of California for juror comprehension and objectivity of legal terminology. Three-hundred and twelve native English speaking participants acted as mock jurors and read through a trial transcript that varied juror instructions (Calcrim, Caljic, or non-descript instructions). After completion of the trial transcript, jurors were asked to render a verdict, recommend a sentence, and were questioned on comprehension, the legal definitions of reasonable doubt, circumstantial and direct evidence, and intent. Results demonstrated that jurors comprehended the new instructions significantly better compared with the old instructions. This comprehension was shown by jurors reaching a correct verdict significantly more often with the new instructions compared with the old. It was also shown that jurors could better identify reasonable doubt and evidence significantly better in the new instruction condition compared with the old and non-descript conditions.

Share and Cite:

Coleman, J. , Espinoza, R. and Coons, J. (2017) An Empirical Comparison of the Old and Revised Jury Instructions of California: Do Jurors Comprehend Legal Ease Better or Does Bias Still Exist?. Open Access Library Journal, 4, 1-15. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1103164.
Journals Menu
Follow SCIRP
Contact us
+1 323-425-8868
customer@scirp.org
WhatsApp +86 18163351462(WhatsApp)
Click here to send a message to me 1655362766
Paper Publishing WeChat

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.