Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

negatives, and words with multiple meanings; using

more common words; replacing abstract concepts with

concrete terms; using party names; simplifying sen-

tence structure; and providing an analytical structure to

guide decision making can all help make instructions

more comprehensible. In addition, there is some evi-

dence that providing jurors with written copies of

instructions can lead to improved memory for and com-

prehension of the legal instructions. As noted above,

research has also shown that jurors are better able to

follow legal instructions when they include explana-

tions and reasons for the underlying legal rules.

Deliberation

Much research examining jury competence has been

conducted by examining the decisions and judgments

of individual jurors. Indeed, the predeliberation prefer-

ences and judgments of individual jurors are predictive

of ultimate jury verdicts. Juries, however, operate as

group decision-making bodies. Thus, it is important to

consider the ways in which the deliberative process

might influence jury competence. Importantly, juries

may be advantaged over an individual decision maker

(such as a judge) in that they can draw on the memo-

ries and understandings of the collective. Research has

demonstrated that jurors who deliberate are more

likely to engage in complex reasoning about the law

and the evidence and make more counterarguments,

have better memory for the trial evidence, are less sus-

ceptible to some judgmental biases, and reach more

consistent decisions. On the other hand, group deliber-

ation has been found to worsen judgmental biases in

some circumstances, and group decisions can become

more extreme.

Comparing Jurors With Judges

Any discussion of jury competence must consider the

standard by which competence is to be evaluated. One

common standard by which to evaluate jury compe-

tence is to compare jurors with the most likely alterna-

tive—trial court judges. In general, research has shown

that judges and jurors show substantial agreement in

their decisions. High rates of agreement are found both

in cases classified by judges as relatively easy to

understand and in cases involving a high degree of

legal and factual complexity. Moreover, in those cases

in which there is disagreement between jury and judge,

the judges do not attribute the disagreement to jury

misunderstandings of the case. Rather, judges are more

likely to disagree with jury decisions in cases that are

“closer calls”—that is, in cases in which there are cred-

ible arguments to support either decision. Several

studies have also shown relatively high rates of agree-

ment between juries and other expert decision makers;

for example, jury verdicts in medical malpractice cases

tend to correlate with the judgments of physicians.

In addition, research has shown that judges and

jurors engage in similar decision processes.For exam-

ple, judges and jurors consider the same factors in

assessing plaintiffs’ pain and suffering in personal

injury cases, rank the severity of cases in similar ways,

take into account similar factors in setting punitive

damage awards, and are influenced by the same vari-

ables when assigning blame in criminal cases. Judges

also suffer from many of the same difficulties that

jurors do. For example, judges, like jurors, are typically

not trained in math or science and have difficulty in

evaluating statistical and scientific evidence. In addi-

tion, judges, like jurors, have been shown to be unable

to ignore inadmissible evidence. Similarly, judges are

subject to the same sorts of cognitive illusions as are

jurors; their decisions are influenced by anchoring, out-

come and hindsight bias, and other heuristics.

Judges—as the trial participants who are in a posi-

tion to most closely observe the jury—are also well

suited to comment on jury competence. When asked

their opinions about juries, judges report high levels

of satisfaction with juries and believe that juries

understand the issues and attempt to follow the legal

instructions.

Aids to Jury Decision Making

A variety of aids have been proposed to assist juries

with their decision tasks. Many of these aids have been

controversial, but over time more courts have become

willing to incorporate some of these procedures into

their processes. This increased openness has also facil-

itated empirical assessments of the effects of these

reforms in field settings. These reforms attempt to

improve jury decision making through a range of mech-

anisms. First, a number of reforms are aimed at assist-

ing jurors in making sense of and remembering the

evidence. For example, instructing juries about the law

prior to the introduction of evidence provides jurors

with a framework that helps them structure the trial evi-

dence as they hear it. Similarly, allowing jurors to take

notes and ask questions of witnesses helps jurors under-

stand the testimony presented and remember it better.

Providing access to trial transcripts, witness lists, or

404 ———Jury Competence

J-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 404