Greene, E., Chopra, S.R., Kovera, M.B., Penrod, S.D., Rose, V.D., Schuller, R. and Studebaker, C.A. (2002) Jurors and Juries: A Review of the Field. In: Ogloff, J.R.P., Ed., Taking Psychology and Law into the Twenty-First Century, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, 225-284.

has been cited by the following article:

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

  AUTHORS: John Coleman, Russ K. E. Espinoza, Jennifer V. Coons

  KEYWORDS: Juror Instructions/Comprehension, California Legal Terminology

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Access Library Journal, Vol.4 No.2, February 17, 2017

  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.