Jury Simulation: The Impact of Judge's Instructions and Attorney Tactics on Decisionmaking

Abstract

gate the methodology of the jury simulation paradigm. Each of these studies isolated some of the pitfalls involved in generalizing from experiments to the real world. These studies suggested that the method of presenting the stimulus,' with whom the decision rests2 and the consequences of the decision3 may all have a significant effect on the outcome of the laboratory experiment. One possible criticism of most laboratory studies is the failure to include judicial instructions. After jury selection has taken place, jurors take an oath. In this oath they promise to do two things: 1) to decide the case solely on the facts as developed from the evidence and 2) to uphold the law as it is given to them by the court. The stimulus for most laboratory experiments, however, has been some sort of presentation of the facts with judicial instructions omitted. In a real trial the judicial instructions are never optional. Judicial instructions often provide specific guidelines as to how jurors are supposed to respond to some of the typical independent variable manipulations that are found in laboratory simulations. For instance, in regard to the extraevidential factor of the judge's personality or demeanor, the following judicial caution is often given: