ABSTRACT
The Project investigated how well 600 actual jurors in Michigan understood criminal jury instructions in actual trials. Once the 1987 survey identified potentially problematic instructions, the Project developed a short, easy-to-complete questionnaire. The Project assessed juror comprehension of instructions by comparing the responses of jurors instructed on a particular standard with jurors who had not received such an instruction. The first task in administering the questionnaire to actual jurors was to secure the cooperation of a number of courts. When education level was accounted for uninstructed persons with more education they were correct more often and benefitted more from instruction. Subsequent analysis revealed that younger persons in this study tended to have more education, and it may be that the difference in education rather than age produced this marginal effect. Designing instructions to improve comprehension may increase the chance of appeal, but designing technical instructions to guard against appeals may reduce juror comprehension, as indicated in the present study.
