Search results

ObjectiveOver the past five decades, numerous researchers in common‐law jurisdictions have reported that jurors often fail to understand and apply the law presented to them by the trial judge. Several researchers have attempted to improve understanding of the law through revising language and utilizing instructional aides. The present study examines a novel method of instructing the jury, known as the "fact‐based" approach, which embeds legal concepts in a series of logically ordered written factual questions that the jury must answer to reach a verdict.MethodsThe study compared 287 jurors in 45 trials who received "fact‐based" instructions in New Zealand against 176 jurors in 41 trials who received standard form instructions in Australia. Participants in the study were compared on their ability to perform three tasks—selecting legal concepts in a recognition task, paraphrasing concepts in a recall task, and applying legal concepts to legally unambiguous factual scenarios.ResultsAfter controlling for trial‐related factors such as length of trial, word count, and readability of instructions, as well as the self‐reported level of education of participants, the study found that jurors receiving fact‐based directions performed significantly better on application‐based tasks but not significantly different on recall or recognition tasks.ConclusionThe findings suggest that fact‐based instructions may have utility for enhancing the jury's ability to resolve questions of fact in accordance with the law.

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if a difference existed between peak speed attained when performing a sprint with maximal acceleration versus from a gradual build-up. Additionally, this investigation sought to compare the actual peak speed achieved when instructed to reach 75% and 90% of maximum speed. Field sport athletes (n = 21) performed sprints over 60 m under the experimental conditions, and the peak speed was assessed with a radar gun. The gradual build-up to maximum speed (8.30 ± 0.40 m∙s−1) produced the greater peak speed (effect size = 0.3, small) than the maximum acceleration run (8.18 ± 0.40 m∙s−1), and the majority of participants (62%) followed this pattern. For the sub-maximum runs, the actual mean percentage of maximum speed reached was 78 ± 6% for the 75% prescribed run and 89 ± 5% for the 90% prescription. The errors in attaining the prescribed peak speeds were large (~15%) for certain individuals, especially for the 75% trial. Sprint training for maximum speed should be performed with a gradual build-up of speed rather than a maximum acceleration. For sub-maximum interval training, the ability to attain the prescribed target peak speed can be challenging for field sport athletes, and therefore where possible, feedback on peak speeds reached should be provided after each repetition.