| The purpose of this study was to examine if the new standardized criminal jury instructions for the state of California (Calcrim) increase juror comprehension of legal terminology when compared to the old standardized version (Caljic). Ninety-four participants read through a trial transcript that varied juror instructions (Calcrim, Caljic, or nondescript instructions). They were then asked to render a verdict in the case, recommend a sentence, and were questioned on comprehension, the legal definitions of reasonable doubt, circumstantial and direct evidence, defendant intent, and were measured on various legal attitude scales. A between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the mean differences between type of jury instructions and the dependent measures was conducted.;There was a significant difference between the Calcrim, Caljic, and nondescript instructional groups such that the Calcrim instructions group had significantly higher scores on rating the integrity of the legal system compared with both the Caljic and nondescript groups. However, though there were trends in the expected direction, the Calcrim instructions are clearer than the Caljic or nondescript instruction groups, no other analyses yielded significant results. Future research with venire person participants as well as a non-college student sample as well as refining dependent measures is discussed. |
