James J. Alfini

Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it?

Pattern jury instructions have been criticized for being less than understandable to the average juror and thus for causing arbitrary juridic decisions. Two studies were conducted to establish whether these criticisms are justified and to find solutions to these problems. Both studies established the validity of the criticisms by demonstrating that the presentation of presently used Michigan negligence instructions is about as effective in helping jurors understand the laws as the presentation of no instructions at all. It was found that by rewriting these instructions in accordance with empirical knowledge of what elements affect perception, memory, and comprehension of language, their effectiveness was significantly improved. Furthermore, it was found that the presentation of instructions both at the beginning and at the end of a case would allow jurors a greater opportunity to focus their attention on relevant evidence and to remember it. The studies demonstrate the urgent need for jurisdictions around the country to improve the way jury instructions are written and delivered, Jf they expect jurors to reach verdicts in light of the law rather than in ignorance of it.Pattern jury instructions have been criticized for being less than understandable to the average juror and thus for causing arbitrary juridic decisions. Two studies were conducted to establish whether these criticisms are justified and to find solutions to these problems. Both studies established the validity of the criticisms by demonstrating that the presentation of presently used Michigan negligence instructions is about as effective in helping jurors understand the laws as the presentation of no instructions at all. It was found that by rewriting these instructions in accordance with empirical knowledge of what elements affect perception, memory, and comprehension of language, their effectiveness was significantly improved. Furthermore, it was found that the presentation of instructions both at the beginning and at the end of a case would allow jurors a greater opportunity to focus their attention on relevant evidence and to remember it. The studies demonstrate the urgent need for jurisdictions around the country to improve the way jury instructions are written and delivered, if they expect jurors to reach verdicts in light of the law rather than in ignorance of it.

Free press and fair trial: The role of behavioral research

The growth of mass media has complicated the relatioship between the courts and the media. Free press and fair trial rights are kept in balance by the use of judicial restraints and remedies such asvoir dire, change of venue, and gag orders. This balance has shifted back and forth during the past two decades. Current case law and legal codes are inconsistent and provide insufficient guidance to judges in their use of restraints and remedies. Nor is there a body of empirical research on the impact of news coverage and juror behavior capable of informing the courts at this time. In this paper, we review and critically assess the empirical social science literature as it pertains to the legal issues involving free press and fair trial. We argue that carefully conducted empirical research could provide important information to the courts. We suggest research directions and methodological caveats to increase legal relevance and scientific validity.

Improving Comprehension for Jury Instructions

“What happens if a jury misunderstands the judge’s instructions and finds a defendant guilty when it really meant to free him? Last week in Washington, D.C., Judge Joseph M. Hannon was confronted with this question— and had precious few precedents to draw on.

Trial Judges' Participation in Plea Bargaining: An Empirical Perspective

The trial judges role in plea bargaining is examined, using national survey data supplemented by observations and interviews. We analyze the frequency with which judges participate in plea discussions and the organizational, social, and legal contexts that affect the judicial role. Our data suggest the trial judge is often an important or crucial actor in the construction of plea agreements, a finding that contradicts much of the legal and social science literature. Several variables directly influence what role a judge will adopt, including self-perceived skill at negotiating and whether the state has a court rule or case law prohibiting or discouraging judicial participation. Future research should focus upon the impact of judicial participation in plea bargaining.