Jury Instructions: A Bibliography. Part II: Criminal Jury Instructions

Pattern jury instructions are used by trial judges to explain the law to jurors in language that they can understand and that provide consistency from one trial to another. This criminal jury instructions bibliography of 169 entries is a companion to a previous bibliography on civil jury instructions. An index to acronyms for both criminal and civil jury instructions is also included

Reverse Engineering of Jury Instructions

Reverse engineering of jury instructions requires (1) creating a decision structure or decision tree for a case, based on a theory of the case, (2) identifying crucial points in the decision structure or decision tree, and (3) incorporating crucial points into the jury instructions. This paper suggests that reverse engineering of jury instructions can be used to instruct jurors about legal concepts and technical terms before they hear jury instructions or closing arguments. The goal is to improve the clarity of instructions to achieve litigation goals

Jury Instructions: A Bibliography. Part I: Civil Jury Instructions

Pattern jury instructions are used by trial judges to explain the law to jurors in language that they can understand and that provide consistency from one trial to another. This bibliography contains references to 156 recent and dated compilations of civil jury instructions. An index to acronyms for civil jury instructions is included

Maryland State Bar Association: Proposed Pattern Jury Charges: Product Liability

This is a tentative draft of proposed pattern jury instructions prepared by The Section of Judicial Administration, Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions of the Maryland State Bar Association. The Committee emphasizes that the pattern jury instructions are suggestions for the courts\u27 consideration and are not intended to be mandatory. Comments and suggestions are invited by the Committee with respect to the draft product liability instructions

The Comprehensibility of Plain Language and Non Plain Language Minnesota Civil Jury Instructions

A substantial volume of research (e.g., Charrow & Charrow, 1979; Elwork, Sales & Alfini, 1977, 1982) suggests that jurors do not understand the often-convoluted language of standard jury instructions. Some states have recently simplified their instructions, but others continue to debate whether change is beneficial. This study was designed to investigate whether plain language jury instructions lead to improved comprehension. College students listened to either new, plain language Minnesota jury instructions or older Minnesota jury instructions addressing the same topics. Participants then took a written comprehension test covering legal rules contained in the instructions. Participants also completed a Nelson-Denny vocabulary test (Brown, Bennet, & Hanna, 1981) and provided demographic information. No significant treatment group differences were found for overall comprehension scores. Vocabulary scores were significantly correlated with comprehension scores for both groups of subjects. The results suggest that a juror\u27s verbal proficiency is more important in predicting comprehension of jury instructions than the language style of the instructions. Also, response patterns for some items suggest that people often maintain preconceived notions of legal rules despite clear instruction to the contrary

Assessing the Readability of Capital Pattern Jury Instructions

Data obtained from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (2003) indicate that 29% of adults have a Basic level of prose literacy. Prose literacy refers to the knowledge and skills needed to comprehend and use information from continuous texts, such as editorials, news stories, and instructional materials. In the current study we examined each state’s capital sentencing instructions for their readability using a highly reliable word-analysis tool. We found that reading levels of sentencing instructions significantly surpassed the reading comprehension abilities of American adults. All but three states’ instructions were above the twelfth grade reading level. In addition, legal principles embedded within the weighing language instruction were more difficult to comprehend compared to the aggravating or mitigating factors components of the instructions. By measuring the readability of instruction language and comparing it national literacy levels of adults, we provide an important explanation for poor comprehension of legal principles

Precious Little Guidance: Jury Instruction on Damage Awards

Jury instructions on damage awards are notoriously vague and ambiguous. As a result, awards are sometimes unexpected and seemingly illogical. In this article, the authors argue that jury instructions regarding damages are vague because the law of damages itself is purposefully ambiguous—allowing particularized justice across a variety of different circumstances. The authors review research on comprehension and application of substantive jury instructions related to damages and on procedural variations at trial (e.g., use of preinstruction, bifurcation, blindfolding jurors to various issues, special verdict forms, caps on damages, and instruction revision) that impact the substantive instructions that jurors receive from the judge. They comment on attempts at reforming jury instructions regarding damages and conclude that jurors’ decision making on this difficult and emotional issue could be made more predictable by careful reforms at the trial level

Jury instructions on eyewitness identification evidence: a re-evaluation

The primary contribution of this paper is to challenge the accepted wisdom that jury instructions are an ineffective safeguard against wrongful conviction caused by mistaken eyewitness identification. It argues that such a conclusion is based on an erroneous interpretation of the available experimental evidence and that, in fact, there are grounds for optimism about the effectiveness of jury instructions in educating jurors about the risks posed by eyewitness identification evidence and sensitising them to the factors relevant to its evaluation. In order to play a useful role in safeguarding against wrongful conviction, however, instructions need to be easily comprehensible; to reflect the relevant scientific findings; and be provided to jurors in writing (or an alternative format for those who would find written instructions inaccessible). The paper also makes a secondary contribution, which is to warn of the dangers of accepting uncritically the findings of mock jury research as the basis for legal policy formation