NCJ Number
170414
Journal
Justice Quarterly Volume: 14 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1997) Pages: 325-351
Date Published
1997
Length
27 pages
Annotation
To test jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions in death penalty cases, this study provided 495 persons summoned for jury duty in Shelby County, Tenn. (which includes Memphis) with a copy of Tennessee's death penalty sentencing instructions and asked them to complete a questionnaire.
Abstract
The scenarios in the questionnaire measured comprehension of differences in the levels of proof and requirements for unanimity on the existence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, of the process of weighing mitigating against aggravating circumstances, and of non-enumerated mitigating circumstances. The findings suggest that juror comprehension is relatively high when the instructions are clear and concise; however, when the instructions are poorly worded or vague, or when serious omissions regarding the law exist, jurors' comprehension is severely limited. Respondents tended not to consider fully mitigating circumstances. Thus, when errors were made in following sentencing instructions, they were likely to be in the direction of sending offenders to death row. In 1989 the Tennessee Supreme Court found that for approximately 25 percent of the condemned men and women, no evidence of mitigating circumstances was presented during their trials. This in itself is an alarming discovery. Equally tragic is the probability that an untold number of persons were condemned to death simply because the sentencing instructions failed to adequately convey to the jurors the legal standards for mitigating circumstances. 5 tables, 49 references, and a list of cases cited