Testing the Comprehensibility of Jury Instructions: California's Old and New Instructions on Circumstantial Evidence
Testing the Comprehensibility of Jury Instructions: California's Old and New Instructions on Circumstantial Evidence
复制标题
测试陪审团指示的可理解性：加州关于环境证据的新旧指示
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Curtis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Tiersma;M. Curtis
2003年和2005年，加州司法理事会批准了新的民事和刑事陪审团指示模式。本文报告的研究比较理解的新的民事指示的间接证据和旧的间接证据指示的理解。作者之一是加州陪审团指令工作组的成员，他们进行了一项研究，研究参与者被给予新的或旧的指令，然后被要求陈述16种不同场景中的每一种是否描述了直接或间接证据。作者的结论是，新的指示是更有效的，比旧的，在克服共同的理解，“间接证据”是“弱证据”。“传统的教学无法克服先前的（不正确的）知识，而包含实例的新教学在这方面相对更有效。因为即使是接受新指示的参与者也难以理解这一概念，提交人认为，成功的间接证据指示将强调强有力证据相对于弱有力证据的重要性，而不是试图教育陪审员区分直接证据和间接证据。
In 2003 and 2005 the Judicial Council of California approved new pattern civil and criminal jury instructions. This article reports on research comparing comprehension of the new civil instruction on circumstantial evidence with comprehension of the old circumstantial evidence instruction. The authors, one of whom was a member of California's Task Forces on Jury Instructions, conducted a study in which research participants were given either the new or old instruction and then asked to state whether each of 16 different scenarios described direct or circumstantial evidence. The authors conclude that the new instruction is more effective than the old one at overcoming the common understanding of "circumstantial evidence" as "weak evidence." The traditional instruction was unable to overcome prior (incorrect) knowledge, whereas the new one, which contained examples, was relatively more effective in this regard. Because even participants with the new instructions had difficulties with the concept, the authors argue that successful instructions on circumstantial evidence would emphasize the importance of strong as compared to weak evidence rather than attempting to educate jurors about the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence.