Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 29–51 | Cite as

Trial complexity

A field investigation of its meaning and its effects
  • Larry Heuer
  • Steven Penrod
Articles

Abstract

A field experiment is reported that examines the effects of trial complexity and trial procedures on jury performance. Juror question asking and notetaking were randomly assigned to 75 civil and 85 criminal trials. Principal components analyses of judges' responses revealed three components of trial complexity: evidence complexity, legal complexity, and quantity of information. None of these components was significantly related to judge-jury verdict agreement. Each component uniquely affected jurors' assessment of the trial, but none affected theirs or the judges' verdict satisfaction. Interactions reveal that juror questions were most beneficial for assisting the jurors with legal complexity and evidence complexity. Natural variation in judges' commenting on the weight and credibility of witnesses, or summarizing the evidence, use of special verdict forms, pattern instructions, and juror orientation was also measured. Of these, the use of special verdict forms appeared to provide the greatest benefits.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berk, R. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data.American Sociological Review, 4, 386–398.Google Scholar
  2. Cecil, J., Hans, V. P., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: Lessons from civil jury trials.American University Law Review, 40, 727–774.Google Scholar
  3. Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. (1978). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions.Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1975).Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Elwork, A., Alfini, J. J., & Sales, B. D. (1982). Toward understandable jury instructions.Judicature, 432–443.Google Scholar
  6. 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, 163–189.Google Scholar
  7. Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1982).Making jury instructions understandable. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  8. Gant V. Union Bank, 446 U.S. 929 (1980).Google Scholar
  9. Hans, V., & Vidmar, N. (1986).Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error.Econometrica, 45, 153–161.Google Scholar
  11. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1988). Increasing jurors' participation in trials: A field experiment with juror notetaking and question asking.Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–261.Google Scholar
  12. Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. (1991). Juror notetaking and question asking during trials: A national field study. Final report to the State Justice Institute, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  13. Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966).The American jury. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Krause v. State, 75 Okla Crim 381, 132 P2d 179 (1942).Google Scholar
  15. In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 631 F2d 1069 (3rd Cir., 1980).Google Scholar
  16. In re U.S. Financial Securities Litigation, 609 F.2d 411 (9th Cir., 1979).Google Scholar
  17. Lempert, R. (1981). Civil juries and complex cases: Let's not rush to judgement,Michigan Law Review, 80, 68–132.Google Scholar
  18. Louisville Bridge and Terminal Co. v. Brown, 211 Ky 176, 277 SW 320 (1925).Google Scholar
  19. MacCoun, R. J. (1987).Getting inside the black box: Toward a better understanding of civil jury behavior. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  20. McBride, R. (1969).The art of instructing the jury. Cincinnati, OH: W. H. Anderson.Google Scholar
  21. Ratton v. Busby, 230 Ark 667, 326 SW2d 889, 76 ALR2d 751 (1959).Google Scholar
  22. Schaefer v. St. Louis & Surburban R. Co., 128 Mo 64, 30 SW 331 (1895).Google Scholar
  23. Schwarzer, W. W. (1991).Reforming jury trials. F. R. D., (132), 575.Google Scholar
  24. Severance, L., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions.Law and Society Review, 17, 153–198.Google Scholar
  25. Sipes, D. A. (1988).On trial: The length of civil and criminal trials. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, Publication R-104.Google Scholar
  26. Sperlich, P. W. (1980).... And then there were six: The decline of the American jury.Judicature 63, 262, 275–277.Google Scholar
  27. Sperlich, P. W. (1982). The case for preserving trial by jury in complex civil litigation.Judicature, 65, 395–419.Google Scholar
  28. Stamp v. Commonwealth, 200 Ky 133, 253 SW 242 (1923).Google Scholar
  29. Strawn, D. U., & Munsterman, G. T. (1987). Helping juries handle complex cases. In L. S. Wrightsman, S. M. Kassin, & C. E. Willis (Eds.),In the jury box: Controversies in the courtroom (pp. 180–186). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry Heuer
    • 1
  • Steven Penrod
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Barnard CollegeColumbia UniversityNew York
  2. 2.University of Minnesota Law SchoolUSA

Personalised recommendations