Presentation Transcript

1. Trails in Trials

   Tamsin Ede Professor Jane Goodman-Delahunty Charles Sturt University
2. Juror comprehension Jurors show poor comprehension of judicial instructions They approach their task in a conscientious way They remember facts quite well But, they have difficulty understanding instructions and applying substantive lawto reach a verdict What are the consequences? Frustration for jurors and lowered satisfaction with jury experience Misunderstanding persisting into deliberations, with the potential for miscarriage of justice
3. Research on comprehension Language simplification has helped, but overall comprehension accuracy has remained low Why? Jurors’ prior knowledge of the law form schemas that are pervasive and resilient in their influence (Smith, 1991; 1993) Cognitive load theory (Sweller, 1994). The difficulty of acquiring new concepts of schemas is associated with: The interaction of concepts (Case complexity, legal & decision complexity) Volume of information (Trial length)
4. Decision trees & QTs Have been shown to be useful in medical research: Structuring and summarising information (Bekker, 2003 ) Induce a more analytical type of reasoning (Narayan, 2003) Questions in trails are explicit and follow recommended strategies to dispel preconceived notions of the law by avoiding abstractions and minimising the need for jurors to draw inferences (Simon, 2012) Aligns with cognitive load theory by integrating evidentiary and legal information into a unitary source (Sweller, 1990) QT and related empirical research in jury settings has been promising but limited (Wiggins & Breckler, 1990; Heuer & Penrod, 1994; Semmler & Brewer, 2002; Dann, Hans et al. 2007).
5. Study Rationale Due to a likely combination of ambiguous legal language, pre-existing notions of the law, and trial complexity, comprehending judicial instructions is difficult for jurors. Cognitive load theory predicts that complexity will be greatest in cases of lengthy or complex evidence, complex law, or multiple, interacting charges. Not yet tested experimentally. Question trails and copies of judicial summaries are on the agenda of law reformers, but research has been limited. Empirical research needed at the individual juror level to test the effectiveness of these interventions on cognitive load, comprehension and jurors’ subjective perceptions.
6. Aims To study structured and unstructured mock juror decision-making using a video trial. Given that endorsing a guilty verdict required jurors to weigh interacting elements, to examine differences in cognitive load as a function of jurors’ verdicts. To examine pre and post-intervention changes in cognitive load between mock-jurors who followed either a question trail (QT), a copy of the judge’s standard written instructions (CI), or no written instructions (NI). To evaluate differences in the comprehension of judicial instructions and the subjective comfort of mock jurors between each of these conditions. Finally, to assess differences in the instructional efficiency of each decision-aid, based on a combined index of cognitive load and comprehension(Paas and van Merriënboer, 1993).
7. Hypotheses The study tested four research hypotheses: Differences in pre and post-intervention cognitive load would be greater for mock mock-jurors who convicted than those who acquitted, while mock-jurors who followed a QT would report significantly greater reductions in cognitive load than mock-jurors in other conditions. Mock jurors exposed to a QT would demonstrate significantly higher comprehension scores on substantive law than mock jurors in other conditions, while evidence recall scores and procedural law comprehension would not differ between conditions.
8. Hypothesis cont. Instructional efficiency index scores, based on a comparison of mental effort and substantive comprehension, would be significantly higher for mock jurors using a QT than mock-jurors in other conditions. Mock jurors who utilised a QT would report significantly higher scores on the following subjective measures than non QT mock-jurors: perceived ease of the task, ease of reaching decision, feeling well-informed, agreement that the verdict represented a proper understanding of the judge’s instructions, and overall satisfaction with the mock-juror experience.
9. Methodology Design: Three treatment conditions examined differences between mock jurors using a structured decision tool (QT), and those using unstructured methods (CI and NI). In the three experimental conditions mock-jurors: (a) followed a question trail (QT) (b) followed a written copy of standard judicial instructions (CI), or (c) rendered a verdict based on standard oral directions from the judge without written copies of instructions (NI).
10. Methodology cont. Participants: 183 community participants recruited via online snowball and social media All legally eligible to serve on an Australian jury Materials: A professionally acted, dramatisedvideo trial (60 mins). The trial presented a filicide case in which a mother was accused of charges associated with the death of one of her triplets. Three alternate verdicts were manslaughter, criminal negligence, and infanticide. The evidence was entirely circumstantial.
11. Methodology cont Independent measures QT: A set of sequential questions was prepared that embedded legal issues and stepped mock-jurors through the necessary decision points required to reach a verdict. Containing eight separate questions, the QT was an applied version of the instructions provided by the judge at the conclusion of the trial CI: written transcript of the judge’s summation Dependent measures Post-trial questionnaire assessing verdict, perceived cognitive load (mental effort) after watching the trial and again after reaching a verdict (likert scale ), evidence recall (true/false), comprehension measuring procedural law and substantive law (true/false), subjective perceptions of the jury experience, and perceptions of legal counsel and judicial directions
12. Results Verdict 78.3% voted to acquit, 10.6% of criminal negligence, 6.7% of infanticide, and 4.4% of manslaughter. Convictions (of any type) were lower in the QT condition (17.2%), than the CI (24.1%) and NI (24.1%) conditions, although differences were not statistically significant. Cognitive load As predicted, participants who convicted reported significantly greater mental effort than those who acquitted. Rendering a guilty verdict required the consideration of an additional charge (infanticide), so this finding is consistent with cognitive load theory regarding decision complexity.
13. Results cont. Cognitive load cont. Partial support was found for differences in cognitive load between experimental conditions. Changes in cognitive load before and after the intervention varied as a function of the decision aid utilised. Tests did not reveal significant differences between specific conditions, however mean scores showed an overall decrease in cognitive load for the QT condition, and in increase in cognitive load for CI and NI conditions following the decision-aid intervention Effect sizes small
14. Results cont. Comprehension and recall QT participants revealed significantly more evidence than NI participants. Unexpected finding. Researchers testing plain language changes have not generally reported evidence recall differences between conditions It’s possible that because decision trees require active rather than passive decision making, the QT may have prompted jurors to actively sift through their memories of the evidence to answer the required questions More accurate recall of evidence may indicate better application of the law, and by extension, more effective decision-making As expected, scores on procedural law did not differ as a function of condition.
15. Results cont. Comprehension cont. As predicted, QT participants performed significantly better on questions of complex substantive comprehension than either CI or NI participants. Superior performance for the QT condition for the most difficult questions requiring deeper forms of learning. The analytical and applied approach is likely to have bypassed existing schemas or pre-conceived notions of the law. Unexpectedly, CI participants performed significantly better on simple comprehension than either QT or NI. Simple comprehension was recall based, and a likely explanation for this result, therefore, is that CI participants had secondary exposure to the verbatim judicial summary and were therefore able to recognise answers more readily.
16. Results cont. Instructional efficiency: combined measure of post-intervention cognitive load and comprehension was used to compare the instructional efficiency of experimental manipulations on substantive comprehension. As expected, exposure to the QT resulted in significantly higher scores of instructional efficiency in terms of performance on complex comprehension, than exposure to either CI or NI. In practical terms, participants utilising the QT were able to achieve better results on complex comprehension with a lower degree of effort, relative to other conditions. There were no differences in instructional efficiency for simple comprehension.
17. Results cont. Subjective perceptions Contrary to prediction, there were no significant differences in jurors’ perceptions of their jury experience as a function of the decision aid employed. One survey of jurors found that special verdicts were rated more highly as the amount of information they had to deal with increased (Heuer & Penrod, 1994). It may be that the video trial did not reach such a threshold. Jurors voting to convict reported significantly lower scores on the satisfaction index, and found it significantly harder to reach a verdict than those who acquitted.
18. Future research Further research on question trails is recommended to extend current findings in the following ways: (a) to ascertain whether the effects of question trails on evidence recall can be replicated; (b) to determine whether reductions in cognitive load with use of a QT are maintained and whether this differs as a function of the complexity of the trial in terms of evidence and verdict; (c) to test the effects of question trails and other written aids on different forms of comprehension to ascertain whether the same or different patterns of results emerge; and (d) once cognitive mechanisms are better understood at the individual level, to test the efficacy of the question trail as a structuring device for deliberating juries.
19. Conclusions Findings support the usefulness of question trails, indicating probable benefits in reducing the cognitive load on mock-jurors, improving their recall of evidence and their comprehension of complex substantive legal issues Effects were attributed firstly to a reduction in demands on working memory via the structuring of legal standards in a methodical, sequential manner Secondly, the question trail required active rather than passive engagement, invoking a form of analytical reasoning that may help override jurors’ pre-conceived ideas about the law While improvements were small and did not hold for simple comprehension, the question trail offered an encouraging method to improve juror decision-making.