| The goal of this study was to extend previous research on judicial decision making to determine whether jurors selectively comply with instructions to disregard inadmissible testimony, and if so, whether judicial instructions that are supplemented with an explanation of why the testimony should be disregarded will mitigate selective compliance. Participants were asked to read a trial summary in which a critical piece of wiretap evidence was either ruled admissible or inadmissible. Furthermore, the judge either gave simple instructions or supplemented instructions which were designed to explain the importance of complying with the judge's instructions. The results of the study failed to support the original hypotheses that jurors participate in selective compliance and that supplemented instructions would mitigate this effect. A consistently high conviction rate was found across all conditions and the supplemented instructions served to have no effect or increase guilty verdicts in almost all conditions. |
