NCJ Number
75454
Date Published
1978
Length
26 pages
Annotation
The study was conducted to discover whether jurors perceived a difference between instructions to assign guilt on a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard as compared with a 'reasonable degree of certainty' standard.
Abstract
The study included 88 communication students who read a case summary and one of four versions of jury instructions. They were then divided into six-person juries composed of people who had received identical versions of the jury instructions to deliberate the case. One group of the jurors received instructions that required them to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict, while a second group received instructions emphasizing reasonable certainty of guilt, a third group received instructions that combined the first two, and a final group received no instructions. After a verdict was reached or the jury was declared 'hung,' subjects wre asked what their final vote in the deliberation had been and how strongly they believed in the defendant's guilt. It was found that the reasonable doubt instruction and the composite instruction produced almost identical results, while the reasonable certainty instruction produced both belief-in-guilt ratings and a conviction rate lower than the first two. The no-instruction condition produced the highest mean rating of belief-in-guilt and the highest conviction rate. Data tables and a reading list are included. (ERIC abstract modified).