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, Benjamin Morasco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

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 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Homicide
Jurisprudence
homicide
Psychology
instruction
Research
penalty
simulation
jurisprudence
deliberation
testimony
amendment
comprehension

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases : The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. / Wiener, Richard L.; Rogers, Melanie; Winter, Ryan; Hurt, Linda; Hackney, Amy; Kadela, Karen; Seib, Hope; Rauch, Shannon; Warren, Laura; Morasco, Benjamin.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 10, No. 4, 12.2004, p. 516-576.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wiener, RL, 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, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 516-576. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516
Wiener, Richard L. ; Rogers, Melanie ; Winter, Ryan ; Hurt, Linda ; Hackney, Amy ; Kadela, Karen ; Seib, Hope ; Rauch, Shannon ; Warren, Laura ; Morasco, Benjamin. / Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases : The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. 2004 ; Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. 516-576.
@article{ccea58612ed240028d8301b0bc0a8062,
title = "Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge",
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.",
author = "Wiener, {Richard L.} and Melanie Rogers and Ryan Winter and Linda Hurt and Amy Hackney and Karen Kadela and Hope Seib and Shannon Rauch and Laura Warren and Benjamin Morasco",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "516--576",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases

T2 - The role of declarative and procedural knowledge

AU - Wiener, Richard L.

AU - Rogers, Melanie

AU - Winter, Ryan

AU - Hurt, Linda

AU - Hackney, Amy

AU - Kadela, Karen

AU - Seib, Hope

AU - Rauch, Shannon

AU - Warren, Laura

AU - Morasco, Benjamin

PY - 2004/12

Y1 - 2004/12

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=9944253676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=9944253676&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516

DO - 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 516

EP - 576

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 4

ER -