바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.21 No.3

Citation Share

An Effect of the Jury Instruction Procedure on The Level of the Threshold for the Decision to Convict

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues / Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, (P)1229-0661; (E)1229-0661
2015, v.21 no.3, pp.497-510


& (2015). An Effect of the Jury Instruction Procedure on The Level of the Threshold for the Decision to Convict. Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues, 21(3), 497-510.

Abstract

The jury instruction consists of a set of legal rules and provides a guide for jurors to interpret evidence and the legal standard of a proof beyond reasonable doubt. Jury instructions are usually given after the closing arguments (at the end of the trial). But some research has shown that jury instruction provided before the evidence may have an impact on verdict. The present study was to determine the cognitive process caused by early instruction: (1) Early instruction may influence the verdict by upwardly adjusting the threshold for the decision to convict; (2) early instruction may influence the verdict through evaluations of the probative values of evidence; (3) Or both. 187 people older than 20 years of age participated in the on-line survey. With a trial scenario, one independent variable, Instruction Procedure, was manipulated in three levels: before-and-after the evidence procedure, after-only evidence procedure, and no-instruction procedure. The instruction procedure conditions did not show any difference in the evaluation of the probative values of evidence. On the other hand, before-and-after condition showed the lowest rate of guilty verdict and the highest probability of guilt for the defendant in the scenario. This latter result clearly suggested that the instruction procedure affects the decision threshold. Specifically, instruction provided twice, once before and again after the evidence, may upwardly shift the threshold for the decision to convict.

keywords
jury instruction, proof beyond reasonable doubt, probability of commission, the threshold for the decision to convict, evaluation of evidence, 법적설시, 합리적의심의 초월기준, 유죄인정율, 유죄판단 역치, 증거의 증명력, 국민참여재판

Reference

1.

강동우 (2013). 형사법상 합리적 의심에 관한 연구. 홍익법학, 14(1), 419-443.

2.

김성민 (2006). 증거능력과 증명력. 고시연구, 33(4), 455-468.

3.

박미숙, 이정민, 황지태, 김광준, 추형관, 임유석 (2008). 형사정책과 사법개혁에 관한 조사․연구 및 평가(Ⅱ): 국민참여재판에 대한 참관 및 조사연구. 형사정책연구원 연구총서, 17-492.

4.

석동현, 김미진 (2013). 평결 판단에서 웰스효과의 확인과 평결 오류 위험성 지각의 영향. 한국심리학회지: 문화 및 사회문제, 19(2), 159-178.

5.

황일호 (2010). 국민참여재판의 배심원에 대한 실증적 연구. 한양법학, 29, 513-540.

6.

Cohen, N. P. (2000). The Timing of Jury Instructions. Tennessee Law Review, 67, 681- 699.

7.

Dane, F. C. (1985). In search of reasonable doubt. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 141-158.

8.

Dhami, M. K. (2008). On measuring quantitative interpretations of reasonable doubt. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 353-363.

9.

Ellsworth, P. C. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one?. Law and Contemporary Problems, 205-224.

10.

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.

11.

Federal Judicial Center. (1987). Pattern criminal jury instructions. Washington, DC: Author.

12.

ForsterLee, L., & Horowitz, I. A. (2003). The effects of jury-aid innovations on juror performance in complex civil trials. Judicature, 86(4), 184-190.

13.

ForsterLee, L., Horowitz, I. A., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1993). Juror competence in civil trials: Effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 14.

14.

Fried, M., Kaplan, K. J., & Klein, K. W. (1975). Juror selection: An analysis of voir dire. In R. J. Simon (Ed.), The juror system in America: A critical overview (pp.58-64). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

15.

Gigerenzer & Todd (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Evolution and cognition. New York: Oxford University Press.

16.

Goldberg, J. C. (1981). Memory, Magic, and Myth: The Timing of Jury Instructions. Oregon Law Review, 59(4), 451-454.

17.

Hastie, R., Penrod, S., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

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

19.

In re Winship (1970). 397 U.S. 358.

20.

Ingriselli, E. (2015). Mitigating Jurors' Racial Biases: The Effects of Content and Timing of Jury Instructions. Yale LJ, 124, 1690-1825.

21.

Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159-178.

22.

Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1877.

23.

MacCoun, R. J. (1984). Modeling the impact of extralegal bias and defined standards of proof on the decisions of mock jurors and juries. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 700B.

24.

MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation: Jurors’ bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.

25.

MacCoun, R. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The basis of citizen's perceptions of the criminal jury. Law and Human Behavior, 12(3), 333-352.

26.

McBride, R. L. (1969). The art of instruction the jury. Cincinnate, Ohio: W. H. Anderson.

27.

McCauliff, C. M. A. (1982). Burdens of proof: Degrees of belief, quanta of evidence, or constitutional guarantees? Vanderbilt Law Review, 35, 1293-1335.

28.

McCullough v. State (1983). 657 P. 2d 1157.

29.

Nagel, S. S. (1979). Bringing the values of jurors in line with the law. Judicature, 63, 189-195.

30.

Nagel, S., Lamm, D., & Neef, M. (1981). Decision theory and juror decision-making. Perspectives in law and psychology: The trial process, 2, 353-386.

31.

Newman, J. (1993). Beyond reasonable doubt. New York University Law Review, 68, 979-1002.

32.

Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(3), 534- 552.

33.

Simon, D. (2004). A third view of the black box: Cognitive coherence in legal decision making. The University of Chicago Law Review, 511-586.

34.

Simon, R. J. (1969). Judges’ translations of burdens of proof into statements of probability. Trial Lawyer’s Guide, 13, 103-114.

35.

Simon, R. J., & Mahan, L. (1971). Quantifying burdens of proof. A view from the bench, the jury, and the classroom. Law and Society Review, 319-330.

36.

Smith, V. L. (1991). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 220-228.

37.

Stoffelmayr, E., & Diamond, S. S. (2000). The Conflict between Precision and Flexibility in Explaining “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, 769-787.

38.

Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993). 508 U.S. 275.

39.

Thomson, W. C., Cowan, C. L., Ellsworth, P. C., & Harrington, J. C. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95-113.

40.

Tribe, L. H. (1971). Trial by mathematics: Precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review, 84, 1329-1393.

41.

United States v. Fatico (1979). 458 F. Supp. 388 (E.D.N.Y. 1978), aff'd, 603 F.2d 1053.

42.

Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739-752.

Korean Psychological Journal of Culture and Social Issues

e-Submission OA Policy