Effect of judicial instructions on jury consideration of defendant's refusal to testify (The)

The basic rule limiting character evidence is quite sensible. Personality traits predict less than most people (including jurors) realize; situations, and person-by-situation interactions, are more potent forces. As the law suspects, people tend to perceive the behavior of others through lenses of propensity; consequently, they over-attribute and over-predict consistency between character and conduct. In fashioning the character evidence rules, common law judges correctly diagnosed a problem and took steps to temper those attributional tendencies to avoid inaccurate and unfair verdicts. The rules allow numerous exceptions, admitting some character evidence out of fairness or to permit helpful evidence while barring its most misleading variants. For example, defendants in criminal cases are permitted to offer evidence of their own character or the character of a victim. Other exceptions are made to assist factfinders to evaluate witness credibility. A special class of that rule deals with witnesses’ criminal records: a maze of sub-rules governs admissibility of prior crimes. Research finds that people tend to rely on prior crime evidence for its improper propensity purpose, contrary to judicial instructions about the limited use to which it may be put. A relatively new set of rules permits prior criminal sexual conduct to be admitted, allowing factfinders to draw inferences about “any matter to which it is relevant.” These rules are controversial because they invite jurors to engage in the very propensity thinking that centuries of evidence doctrine prohibited. Moreover, behavioral data do not support the theory behind a special rule for prior criminal sexual conduct.

Download Full-text

Do Judicial Instructions Aid in Distinguishing Between Reliable and Unreliable Jailhouse Informants?

Criminal Justice and Behavior ◽

10.1177/0093854820908628 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 47 (5) ◽

pp. 582-600 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Stacy A. Wetmore ◽

Jeffrey S. Neuschatz ◽

Melanie B. Fessinger ◽

Brian H. Bornstein ◽

Jonathan M. Golding

Keyword(s):

Wrongful Convictions ◽

Judicial Instructions ◽

Trial Transcript ◽

Reliable Informant

Jailhouse informants are a leading cause of wrongful convictions. In an attempt to preempt such miscarriages of justice, several states (e.g., Connecticut and California) have mandated that judicial instructions be provided to act as a safeguard against false testimony. This study evaluated the effectiveness of these instructions in helping jurors distinguish between reliable and unreliable jailhouse informants. Participants read a trial transcript that varied instructions (Standard, Connecticut, Enhanced) and informant reliability (reliable, unreliable). The results indicated that the instructions had no effect on verdict decisions. Even though verdicts did not vary, participants rated the unreliable informant as less trustworthy, honest, and interested in justice than the reliable informant. This is consistent with previous findings that indicate that participants are aware of the legal prescriptions given in the instructions, but they do not implement them in making decisions. Therefore, instructions may be an insufficient safeguard.

Download Full-text

EFFECTS OF PROHIBITIVE AND INFORMATIVE JUDICIAL INSTRUCTIONS ON JURY DECISIONMAKING

Social Behavior and Personality An International Journal ◽

10.2224/sbp.1995.23.4.319 ◽

1995 ◽

Vol 23 (4) ◽

pp. 319-325 ◽

Cited By ~ 25

Author(s):

Jerry I. Shaw ◽

Paul Skolnick

Keyword(s):

Group Discussion ◽

Psychological Reactance ◽

Criminal Case ◽

Mock Jurors ◽

Judicial Instructions ◽

Jury Verdicts ◽

Black Defendants

A study was conducted to determine the extent to which jurors follow judicial instructions. Based upon Brehm's (1966) theory of psychological reactance, it was hypothesized that prohibitive judicial instructions will not be adhered to as well as similar instructions formulated in a more informative tone. The reactive effects of prohibitive instructions were predicted to be exaggerated when an irrelevant defendant characteristic such as race was an issue. Three hundred and sixteen mock jurors read one of four versions of a hypothetical criminal case varying the type of instructions (prohibitive or informative) and race of defendant (white or black) and rendered both individual judgments and jury verdicts on the case. Results confirmed that juries reacted against prohibitive instructions but more closely followed informative instructions. It was also found that individual jurors were harsher toward white than black defendants, however, group discussion effectively eliminated this reverse racism bias.

Download Full-text