Vol. 14 (2025)
Artificial Intelligence and the Language of Law

Research Articles

Reading or Listening Between the Lines: Enhancing Jury Instruction Comprehension for a Fair Legal System

Published 21.06.2025

  • Francesca Grixoni
    • ,
  • Nur Yağmur Demir

Francesca Grixoni
Northern Arizona University

Nur Yağmur Demir
Northern Arizona University

Abstract

Jurors' comprehension of jury instructions (JIs) is pivotal for ensuring fair legal proceedings (Charrow & Charrow, 1979). This study investigates the impact of different presentation modes on JI comprehensibility, utilizing a novel comprehension assessment method. Contrary to the misconception that listening is passive, prolonged active listening, such as during JIs, may accelerate cognitive fatigue (Schneider et al., 2019). To address this issue, this study tests the effect of different modes of presentation: listening-only, reading while listening (synchronous), and first reading-only then listening (asynchronous), building upon earlier findings (Randall, 2013, 2015). Sixty participants from undergraduate courses were randomly assigned to five groups based on the mode of JI presentation and access to written instructions during deliberation. A mixed-methods approach was employed, involving comprehension assessments, perception surveys and qualitative analysis.

Quantitative analyses revealed that while the hypotheses regarding presentation mode and access to written instructions were not fully supported, asynchronous exposure to both spoken and written instructions demonstrated slightly superior performance compared to synchronous exposure. Access to written instructions during scenario-based tasks showed slightly better performance and more positive emotions, suggesting its potential effectiveness in aiding jurors' comprehension and confidence. Moreover, qualitative analysis shed light on nuanced reasoning behind participants’ choices. The findings indicated that correct answers did not always align with correct interpretations, and participants struggled to synthesize and apply JIs when scenarios were less straightforward.

Overall, this study highlights the importance of considering presentation modes and written access in enhancing juror comprehension. The positive impact of varied modalities underscores the need for ongoing evaluation and refinement of JI practices. By adopting a multifaceted approach that integrates quantitative assessments, perception surveys and qualitative analysis, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing juror comprehension and contributes to the ongoing discourse on improving JI practices within the legal system.

Cite as: Grixoni et al., JLL 14 (2025), 204–239, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2025.204

Keywords

jury instructions, legal language, comprehension assessment, presentation mode, reading and listening, juror comprehension, scenario-based tasks

PDF

References

  1. American Bar Association (2019). How courts work. Available at americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/ - :~:text=The judge reads the instructions,be familiar to the jurors (accessed 9 May 2025).
  2. Baguley, Chantelle M.; McKimmie, Blake M. & Masser, Barbara M. (2020). Re-evaluating how to measure jurors’ comprehension and application of jury instructions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(1), 53–66. DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2019.1634195.
  3. Benson, Robert W. (1984). The end of legalese: The game* is over. Review of Law & Social Change, 13, 519–579.
  4. Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: University Press.
  5. Biber, Douglas (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: University Press.
  6. Boledzczyk, Emilia (2017). Plain language solutions to the problems of legalese – A Case Study of Wills. Comparative Legilinguistics, 5(1), 67–84.
  7. Campbell, John L.; Quincy, Charles; Osserman, Jordan & Pedersen, Ove K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320. DOI: 10.1177/0049124113500475.
  8. Chang, Anna Ching-Shyang & Read, John (2006). The effects of listening support on the listening performance of EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 375–397. DOI: 10.2307/40264527.
  9. Chang, Anna Ching-Shyang (2009). Gains to L2 listeners from reading while listening versus listening only in comprehending short stories. System, 37, 652–663. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.009.
  10. Chang, Anna Ching-Shyang & Millett, Sonia (2014). The effect of extensive listening on developing L2 listening fluency: Some hard evidence. ELT Journal, 68(1), 31–40. DOI: 10.1093/elt/cct052.
  11. Chang, Anna Ching-Shyang & Millett, Sonia (2015). Improving reading rates and comprehension through audio-assisted extensive reading for beginner learners. System, 52, 91–102. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2015.05.003.
  12. Charrow, Robert P. & Charrow, Veda R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 79(7), 1306–1374. DOI: 10.2307/1121842.
  13. Clauss, Hannah Bradford (2020). The History of The Plain Language Movement and Legal Language and an Analysis of US Nuclear Treaty Language. Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. Available at https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/2380 (accessed June 2025).
  14. Conklin, Kathy; Alotaibi, Sara; Pellicer-Sanchez, Ana & Vilkaitė-Lozdienė, Laura (2020). What eye-tracking tells us about reading-only and reading-while-listening in a first and second language. Second Language Research, 36(3), 267–290. DOI: 10.1177/0267658320921496.
  15. Elwork, Amiram; Sales, Bruce Dennis & Alfini, James J. (1982). Making Jury Instructions Understandable. Charlottesville: Michie.
  16. Goh, Christine (1999). How much do learners know about the factors that influence their listening comprehension. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 17–40.
  17. Gray Bethany (2015). Linguistic Variation in Research Articles. John Benjamins.
  18. Grieshofer, Tatiana (2023). Reimagining communication and elicitation strategies in private family proceedings. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 45(1), 41–61. DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2023.2175546.
  19. Halliday, Michael; McIntosh, Angus & Strevens, Peter (1964). The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  20. Heuer, Larry & Penrod, Steven D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 13(4), 409–430. DOI: 10.1007/BF01056412.
  21. Hockey, G. Robert (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1-3), 73–93. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05223-4.
  22. Kramer, Sophia; Kapteyn, Theo S. & Houtgast, Tammo (2006). Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work. International Journal of Audiology, 45(9), 503–512. DOI: 10.1080/14992020600754583.
  23. Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. DOI: 10.2307/2529310.
  24. Laudan, Larry (2003). Is reasonable doubt reasonable?. Legal Theory, 9(4), 295–331. DOI: 10.1017/S1352325203000132.
  25. Lightbown, Patsy M. (1992). Can they do it themselves? A comprehension-based ESL course for young children. In Courchêne, St. John, Thérien & Glidden (Eds.), Comprehension-Based Second Language Teaching. Ottawa: University Press.
  26. Lynch, Tony & Mendelsohn, David (2010). Listening. In Schmitt (Ed.), An Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp. 180–196). London: Arnold.
  27. Luchini, Pedro Luis (2015). Simultaneous reading and listening is less effective than reading alone: A study based on cognitive load theory. Second Language Learning and Teaching, 31, 71–80. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14334-7_5.
  28. May, Christopher N. (1995). What do we do now: Helping juries apply the instructions. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 28, 869–901.
  29. Mellinkoff, David (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  30. Miller, M. David.; Linn, Robert L. & Gronlund, Norman Edward (2008). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching. Pearson.
  31. Murphy, Brandi (2021). Listening Fatigue in College Students [PhD Thesis]. Texas: Tech University Libraries.
  32. Nachtegaal, Janneke; Kuik, Dirk & Anema, Johannes R.; Goverts, S. Theo; Festen, Joost M & Kramer, Sophia E. (2009). Hearing status, need for recovery after work, and psychosocial work characteristics: Results from an internet-based national survey on hearing. International Journal of Audiology, 48(10), 684–691. DOI: 10.1080/14992020902962421.
  33. Nieland, Robert G. (1979). Pattern Jury Instructions: A Critical Look at a Modern Movement to Improve the Jury System. Chicago: American Judicature Society.
  34. Randall, Janet (2013). Plain English jury instructions for Massachusetts: First steps. Paper presented at the Linguistics Society of America Annual Meeting. Boston.
  35. Randall, Janet (2014). Tackling “Legalese”: How linguistics can simplify legal language and increase access to justice. Emonds (Ed.), Language Use and Linguistic Structure (pp. 239–254), Olomouc: Univerzita Palackeho.
  36. Randall, Janet (2015). Improving juror comprehension: Reading while listening. Paper presented at the LSA Annual Meeting. Portland.
  37. Randall, Janet & Graf, Lucas R. (2014). Linguistics meets “legalese”: Syntax, semantics, and jury instruction reform. LSA Annual Meeting Extended Abstracts, 5, 25–1.
  38. Randall, Janet; Cherry, Julien & Montag, Abigail (2021). Collaborations in the courthouse: Making legal language accessible. Revue Linguistique et Référentiels Interculturels, 2(1), 2–12. DOI: 10.34874/IMIST.PRSM/liri-v2i1.27499.
  39. Reifman, Alan; Gusick, Spencer M. & Ellsworth, Phoebe C. (1992). Real jurors’ understanding of the law in real cases. Law and Human Behavior, 16(5), 539–554. DOI: 10.1007/BF01044622.
  40. Rogers, Max (2020). Laypeople as learners: Applying educational principles to improve juror comprehension of instructions. Northwestern University Law Review, 115(4), 1185–1225.
  41. Rose, V. Gordon & Ogloff, James (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25(4), 409–431. DOI: 10.1023/a:1010659703309.
  42. Saxton, Bradley (1998). How well do jurors understand jury instructions – a field test using real juries and real trials in Wyoming. Land & Water Law Review, 33, 59–189.
  43. Schneider, Elena N.; Bernarding, Corinna; Francis, Alexander L.; Hornsby, Benjamin W. Y. & Strauss, Daniel J. (2019). A quantitative model of listening-related fatigue. 9th International IEEE/EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering (NER), 619–622. DOI: 10.1109/NER.2019.8717046.
  44. Schwarzer, William W. (1981). Communicating with juries: Problems and remedies. California Law Review, 69(3), 731–769.
  45. Shapiro, James A. & Muth, Karl T. (2021). Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: Juries Don't Get It. Loy. U. Chi. LJ, 52, 1029.
  46. Tavakol, Mohsen & Dennick, Reg (2011). Making sense of Cronbac’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. DOI: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
  47. Tiersma, Peter & Curits, Mathew (2008). Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of Court Innovation, 1, 231–261.
  48. United States Code. (n.d.). Section 413 of 28 U.S.C. § 1865 – Qualifications for jury service.
  49. Wiener, Richard L.; Rogers, Melanie; Winter, Ryan; Hurt, Linda; Hackney, Amy; Kadela, Karen; Seib, Hope; Rauch, Shannon; Warren, Laura & Morasco, Ben (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10(4), 516–576. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.516.
  50. Ződi, Zsolt (2019). The limits of plain legal language: understanding the comprehensible style in law. International Journal of Law in Context, 15(3), 246–262. DOI: 10.1017/S1744552319000260.