Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge

Richard L. Wiener, Melanie Rogers, Ryan Winter, Linda Hurt, Amy Hackney, Karen Kadela, Hope Seib, Shannon Rauch, Laura Warren, Ben Morasco

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

29 Scopus citations

Abstract

This article analyzes whether state-approved jury instructions adequately guide jury discretion in the penalty phase of first-degree murder trials. It examines Eighth Amendment jurisprudence regarding guided jury discretion, emphasizing the use of "empirical factors" to examine the quality of state-approved instructions. Psychological research and testimony on the topic of the comprehensibility of jury instructions are reviewed. Data from a recently completed simulation with 80 deliberating juries showed that current instructions do not adequately convey the concepts and processes essential to guiding penalty phase judgments. An additional simulation with 20 deliberating juries demonstrated that deliberation alone does not correct for jurors' errors in comprehension. The article concludes with recommendations for policy and future research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)516-576
Number of pages61
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume10
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2004

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Wiener, R. L., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Seib, H., Rauch, S., Warren, L., & Morasco, B. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 516-576. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516