In this study, an hour-long videotaped burglary trial was presented to undergraduates eligible for jury duty. The tape was followed by either no instructions, general pattern instructions concerning the jury's duties but excluding any specific instructions, or general pattern instructions plus 3 specific pattern instructions pertaining to reasonable doubt, intent, and restrictions on the use of evidence concerning prior convictions. Half the subjects were instructed to deliberate for 30 minutes, while half were not. All subjects completed a questionnaire to indicate guilt or no guilt and to assess subjects' ability to apply instructions. New instructions were proposed and tested on the same subjects.
Results show more accurate responses with the revised instructions.
Juror understanding was enhanced when language was clear and when there was opportunity to discuss legal concepts through deliberation. Four hundred and thirty-five state superior court judges preferred a revised version of the intent instructions over the pattern and supersimplified forms.