NCJ Number
110170
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1988) Pages: 19-40
Date Published
1988
Length
22 pages
Annotation
To test differences between subjective and objective tests of the entrapment defense, 83 male and 64 female student 'jurors' viewed a videotaped cocaine trial and were presented with either subjective or objective test instructions.
Abstract
The admission of prior conviction evidence was also varied. The jurors deliberated, returned a verdict, and then completed a questionnaire that measured their understanding of the instructions and trial facts. Juror comprehension of the principal features of the objective test was very poor. Instructions describing the objective test should be simplified. If simplification does not improve comprehension, the judge, not the jury, should decide the entrapment defense when the objective test is used. Admission of a prior conviction had a significant impact on verdicts under the subjective test condition but not in the objective test condition. This suggests that the subjective test instructions are effective in encouraging jurors to use prior convictions as evidence of guilt. The content of the objective test instruction may also account for part of the difference in impact. Jurors in the objective test condition were instructed not to take the defendant's predisposition into account, and a substantial minority of the jurors understood this aspect of the instruction. 2 tables and 43 references. (Author abstract modified)