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: 97209 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Do Juries Understand?
Author(s): I Potas; D Rickwood
Corporate Author: Australian Institute of Criminology
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 71
Sponsoring Agency: Australian Institute of Criminology
Canberra ACT, 2601, Australia
National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
GPO Box 2944
Canberra ACT, 2601,

National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Instructional Material
Language: English
Country: Australia
Annotation: Understanding of standardized jury instructions developed for use in the Criminal Courts of New South Wales was evaluated by examining subjects' ability to comprehend and apply the instructions.
Abstract: It was hypothesized that understanding would vary between the instructions according to their complexity and effectiveness and between the subjects according to their chronological ages and levels of educational attainment. Subjects were 128 students with an average age of 18 years from Stirling College and 15 students aged between 20 and 45 selected from evening criminology college classes at the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE). A script of the judge's summing up based on a hypothetical trial of three persons accused of murder and armed robbery was read to each experimental group. A randomly selected control group of 24 Stirling College students was given the facts of the case as required by the script, but the 9 jury instructions (9 of 20 standard jury instructions developed by the Jury Committee were selected for testing) were omitted. A questionnaire examined students' understanding of the instructions and required the student to decide a verdict. In general, study results support the initial hypotheses. Understanding varied according to the perceived complexity and effectiveness of the instructions. All CCAE students understood the instructions moderately to very well; only about half the Stirling College students understood the instructions equally well. The only difference between students who did and did not receive the instructions was that those who received instructions were more severe in their verdicts. Figures and footnotes are included.
Index Term(s): Australia; Juror instructional materials; Jury instructions
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.