The Jury in Canada

doi:10.1017/9781108669290.009

9 - The Jury in Canada

Testing the Comprehensibility of Styles of Jury Instructions and the Effectiveness of Aids

from Part II - Enduring Systems of Lay Participation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2021

Marie Comiskey

Edited by

Sanja Kutnjak Ivković ,

Shari Seidman Diamond ,

Valerie P. Hans and

Nancy S. Marder

Show author details

Sanja Kutnjak Ivković: Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Shari Seidman Diamond: Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Valerie P. Hans: Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Nancy S. Marder: Affiliation:
Chicago-Kent College of Law

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter examines the issue of how well Canadian jurors comprehend legal instructions and whether there are jury aids that can enhance their comprehension. It traces the design of the first study in Canada to assess the relative efficacy of two competing styles of instructions used in Canada and to compare them with the plain language criminal law instructions used in California, USA. The style that used a series of logical questions to be answered was associated with the highest levels of comprehension. The results also revealed that the type of aid provided had a modest impact on overall comprehension score and that those who received either both aids (written instructions and decision trees) or written instructions had scores that were significantly different from either those with no aid or the decision tree alone. This chapter also explores some of the challenges associated with cross-jurisdictional research. Additional studies are needed to ensure that jurors have an accurate understanding of the law and to make clear how styles of jury instruction and jury aids can impact comprehension levels.

Keywords

jury instructions jury aids written instructions decision tree plain language instructions Canadian juries

Type: Chapter
Information: Juries, Lay Judges, and Mixed Courts
A Global Perspective
, pp. 174 - 194

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108669290.009 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baguley, C. M., McKimmie, B. M., & Masser, B. M. (2017). Deconstructing the simplification of jury instructions: How simplifying the features of complexity affects jurors’ application of instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(3), 284–304.Google Scholar

Bertrand, M. I., & Jochelson, R. (2018). Mock-jurors’ self-reported understanding of Canadian judicial instructions (is not very good). Criminal Law Quarterly, 66, 137–161.Google Scholar

Brewer, N., Harvey, S., & Semmler, C. (2004). Improving comprehension of jury instructions with audio-visual presentations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 765–776.Google Scholar

Canadian Judicial Council. (1996–1997). Annual report. www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_annualreport_1996–1997_en.pdf Google Scholar

Canadian Judicial Council model jury instructions. (2004). www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/?langSwitch=en Google Scholar

Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia. (2017). Celebrating 30 years of CRIMJI. www.cle.bc.ca/celebrating-30-years-of-crimji/Google Scholar

Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374.CrossRef Google Scholar

Clough, J., Spivak, B., Ogloff, J. R. P., Tinsley, Y., & Young, W. (2018). The judge as cartographer and guide: The role of fact-based directions in improving juror comprehension. Criminal Law Journal, 42(5), 278–295.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.Google Scholar

Coleman, J., Espinoza, R. K. E., & Coons, J. V. (2017). An empirical comparison of the old and revised jury instructions of California: Do jurors comprehend legalese better or does bias still exist? Open Access Library Journal, 4, 1–15. https://doi:10.4236/oalib.1103164 Google Scholar

Comiskey, M. (2010). Initiating dialogue about jury comprehension of legal concepts: Can the “stagnant pool” be revitalized? Queen’s Law Journal, 35(2), 625–678.Google Scholar

Dann, B. M., Hans, V. P., & Kaye, D. H. (2004). Testing the effects of selected jury trial innovations on juror comprehension of contested mtDNA evidence: Final technical report. National Institute of Justice. www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211000.pdf Google Scholar

Department of Justice (Can.). (2009). Report on jury reform. Steering Committee on Justice Efficiencies and Access to the Justice System. www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/esc-cde/scje-cdej/toc-tdm.html Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S., & Levi, J. N. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79(5), 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(4), 1537–1608.Google Scholar

Diamond, S. S., & Rose, M. R. (2005), Real juries. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 255–285.Google Scholar

Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors’ decisions in a murder trial. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 485–501.Google Scholar

Ede, T., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2013). Question trails in trials: Structured versus unstructured juror decision-making. Criminal Law Journal, 37(2), 114–136.Google Scholar

Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52(4), 205–224.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ellsworth, P. C., & Reifman, A. (2000). Juror comprehension and public policy: Perceived problems and solutions. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6(3), 788–821.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(2), 163–189.Google Scholar

Ewanation, L. A., Yamamoto, S., Monnink, J., & Maeder, E. M. (2017). Perceived realism and the CSI-effect. Cogent Social Sciences, 3, Article 129446.Google Scholar

Ferguson, G. A., Dambrot, M. A., & Bennett, E. (2005). CRIMJI: Canadian criminal jury instructions. 4th ed. Vancouver: Continuing Legal Education Society of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Goodman, J., & Greene, E. (1989). The use of the paraphrase analysis in the simplification of jury instructions. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4(3), 237–251.Google 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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 409–430.Google Scholar

Jones, C. S., & Myers, E. R. (1979). Comprehension of jury instructions in a simulated Canadian court. Studies on the jury. Canada Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar

Judicial Council of California. (1996). Blue ribbon commission on jury system improvement: Final report. www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BlueRibbonFullReport.pdf Google Scholar

Judicial Council of California.(2005). California criminal jury instructions for judges and attorneys (CALCRIM). Advisory Committee on Criminal Jury Instructions. www.courts.ca.gov/partners/juryinstructions.htm Google 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, 23(3), 401–437.Google Scholar

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.Google Scholar

Lynch, M., & Haney, C. (2018). Death qualification in black and white: Racialized decision making and death-qualified juries. Law & Policy, 40(2), 148–171.Google Scholar

MacKinnon, P. (1977). Conspiracy and sedition as Canadian political crimes. McGill Law Journal, 23, 622–643.Google Scholar

Maeder, E. M., & Dempsey, J. L. (2013). A likely story? The influence of type of alibi and defendant gender on juror decision-making. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(4), 543–552.Google Scholar

Marder, N. (2006). Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. Notre Dame Law Review, 81, 449–511.Google Scholar

McKimmie, B. M., Antrobus, E., & Baguley, C. (2014). Objective and subjective comprehension of jury instructions in criminal trials. New Criminal Law Review, 17(2), 163–183.Google Scholar

Nieland, R. (1979). Pattern jury instructions: A critical look at a modern movement to improve the jury system. Chicago: American Judicature Society.Google Scholar

Ogloff, J. R. P. (1991a). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 15(5), 509–531.Google Scholar

Ogloff, J. R. P.(1991b). The use of the insanity defence in BC: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Ottawa: Department of Justice, Canada.Google Scholar

Ogloff, J. R. P.(1998). Judicial instructions and the jury: A comparison of alternative strategies. Vancouver: BC Law Foundation.Google Scholar

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Vidmar, N. (1994). The impact of pretrial publicity on jurors: A study to compare the relative effects of television and print media in a child sex abuse case. Law and Human Behavior, 18(5), 507–525.CrossRef Google Scholar

Parliament of Canada. (2018). Improving support for jurors in Canada. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. 42nd Parl., 1st Session. www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/JUST/Reports/RP9871696/justrp20/justrp20-e.pdf Google Scholar

Patry, M.W., & Penrod, S. D. (2013). Death penalty decisions: Instruction comprehension, attitudes, and decision mediators. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(3), 204–244.Google Scholar

Prager, I. G., Deckelbaum, G., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). Improving juror understanding for intervening causation instructions. Forensic Reports, 2(3), 187–193.Google Scholar

Thibert, R. v., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 37 (Can.).Google Scholar

Rose, G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409–431.Google Scholar

Schuller, R. A., Ryan, A., Krauss, D., & Jenkins, G. (2013). Mock juror sensitivity to forensic evidence in drug facilitated sexual assaults. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(2), 121–128.Google Scholar

Schuller, R. A., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors’ decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1266–1280.Google Scholar

Severance, L. J., Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1984). Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 75(1), 198–233.Google Scholar

Shams, L., & Seitz, A. R. (2008). Benefits of multisensory learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 411–417.Google Scholar

Shams, L., Wozny, D. R., Kim, R., & Seitz, A. (2011). Influences of multisensory experience on subsequent unisensory processing. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 264, 1–9.Google Scholar

Thomas, C. (2010). Are juries fair? Ministry of Justice research studies. No. 1/10. London: HMSO. www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research.htm 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(1), 231–262.Google Scholar

Watt, D. (2005). Watt’s manual of criminal jury instructions. Toronto: Thomson Carswell.Google Scholar

Whittemore, K. R., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (1995). Factors that influence jury decision making: Disposition instructions and mental state at the time of trial. Law and Human Behavior, 19(3), 283–303.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(4), 455–467.Google Scholar

Book contents

9 - The Jury in Canada

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive