skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 228008 Find in a Library
Title: Juror Understanding of Judicial Instructions in Criminal Trials
Author(s): Lily Trimboli
Date Published: September 2008
Page Count: 15
Sponsoring Agency: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
Publication Number: ISBN 978-1-921306-29-7
Sale Source: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
Level 8, St James Centre
111 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000,
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: In a study conducted in New South Wales (Australia), 1,225 jurors from 112 juries completed a structured questionnaire that solicited their self-reported understanding of judicial instructions, judicial summing-up of trial evidence, and other aspects of the trial process.
Abstract: The majority of jurors (94.9 percent) reported that they either “understood completely” (47.2 percent) the judge’s instructions on the law or “understood most things” the judge said (47.7 percent). The majority of the jurors (81.7 percent) perceived that the judge’s “summing-up” of the trial evidence to be “about the right length.” The majority of the jurors indicated that they understood either “everything” or “nearly everything” that the judge said during his/her summing-up of the trial evidence. Nearly all jurors stated that in the summing-up of evidence, the judge generally used words they easily understood. The study recommends that aids be provided to jurors, such as written materials, so that jurors do not have to rely on their memory of what was said by the judge. This could also eliminate the possibility of different jurors applying different interpretations of the judge’s meaning, as well as reduce jurors’ reliance on their notes, which may not be comprehensive. Jurors completed a short, structured questionnaire at the end of criminal trials heard in the NSW Supreme Court and four district court registries. The data-collection period extended from mid-July 2007 to the end of February 2008. Approximately equal proportions of men and women participated in the survey, and equal proportions of jurors were between the ages of 25 and 34 years old. 10 tables, 7 notes, 20 references, and appended data on confidence intervals for key outcome measures and juror sociodemographic characteristics
Main Term(s): Court statistics
Index Term(s): Burden of proof; Communication techniques; Court research; Foreign criminal justice research; Juror instructional materials; Jury instructions; New South Wales
Note: Crime and Justice Bulletin, Number 119, September 2008
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.