User:L&ljd/sandbox

This is the group sandbox for the jury instructions article. L&#38;ljd (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Jina's Ideas

 * Update/expand the “Incomprehensibility with jury instructions” section. I would like to go more in-depth into the linguistic factors of jury instructions to illustrate why their comprehensibility is an issue. Currently, the section states that there are low rates of understanding and touches briefly upon technical language. I would like to expand on this with more detailed explanations of legalese/technical language, the difficulties the average juror may have with understanding such language, and the debate over the use of plain English to deliver jury instructions. I would also like to add more concrete statistics/examples, as the article currently references “several studies” and “anecdotal evidence” with no sources.


 * Rewrite the "Jury nullification instructions" section. The information in this section is relevant to the topic of jury instructions, but contains text that was lifted directly from its sources. A complete rewrite discussing the argument over the inclusion of jury nullification in jury instructions is necessary.

Possible Sources
Bornstein, B. H., & Hamm, J. A. (2012). Jury Instructions on Witness Identification. Court Review, 48(1/2), 48–53. Retrieved from https://login.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login?url=https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=83095547&site=ehost-live

Hreno, T. (2008). The Jury Nullification Instruction and the De Jure / De Facto Debate: A Hohfeldian Analysis. Public Affairs Quarterly, 22(3), 231-251. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/stable/40441501

Meissner, C. A., Brigham, J. C., & Pfeifer, J. B. (2003). Jury Nullification: The Influence of Judicial Instruction on the Relationship Between Attitudes and Juridic Decision-Making. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 25(3), 243. https://doi-org.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/10.1207/S15324834BASP2503_07

Smith, A., & Haney, C. (2011). Getting to the Point: Attempting to Improve Juror Comprehension of Capital Penalty Phase Instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(5), 339-350. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.libraries.rutgers.edu/stable/41489005

Solan, L.M., & Tiersma, P.M. (2005). Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Solan, L.M. (2010). The Language of Statutes : Laws and Their Interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/rutgers-ebooks/detail.action?docID=648151.

Tiersma, P.M. (2010). Instructions to Jurors. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Routledge.

L&#38;ljd (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Week 11: Preliminary Draft
"In one study, results gathered from 144 six-person juries indicated that when juries are in receipt of jury nullification information from the judge or defense attorney they are more likely to acquit a sympathetic defendant and judge a dangerous defendant more harshly than when such information is not present or when challenges are made to nullification arguments.[6] In another study, three nullification instructions varying in explicitness as to nullification were combined with three criminal cases to yield a 3×3 factorial design. Forty-five six-person juries (270 subjects) were randomly assigned to the nine experimental groups. The results showed that juries given explicit nullification instructions were more likely to vote guilty in a drunk driving case, but less likely to do so in a euthanasia case. The third case, which dealt with murder, did not show any differences due to instructions.[7]"

The entire italicized section quoted above from the jury nullification section was taken directly from the abstracts of the sources. As the content is pertinent to the inclusion of jury nullification in jury instructions, I would like to rewrite and cite the information so that it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines. This is a draft:

Studies have indicated that being informed of jury nullification is likely to affect the judgement of juries when they decide on verdicts. One study that looked into 144 juries showed that they were less harsh on sympathetic defendants and harsher on unsympathetic defendants when they had been briefed on jury nullification.[6] Another study that looked into 45 juries showed that they were likelier to reach a guilty verdict in drunk driving cases and less likely in euthanasia cases, with no reported difference in likelihood in murder cases, with explicit jury nullification inclusion in jury instructions.[7] L&#38;ljd (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Week 12: Continued Revisions
I have started to revise the introduction to the jury instructions comprehensibility section.

The purpose of jury instructions is to inform jurors about the law and how to apply them in court. However, studies have shown that there are consistent issues with the phrasings in jury instructions leading to weak comprehension by jurors. .This leaves jurors to come to their own understandings. Technical linguistic traits, such as passive wording and technical lingo, have been pinpointed as major factors contributing to the comprehension difficulties. Simplifying jury instructions by using shorter sentences, more accessible vocabulary, active voice, and plainer language have proved to markedly raise jurors' comprehension levels. L&#38;ljd (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Jury Instructions Comprehensibility
A significant issue with standard jury instructions is the language comprehension difficulties for the average juror. The purpose of jury instructions is to inform jurors of relevant laws and their application in the process of coming to a verdict. However, studies have shown that juries have consistent problems understanding the instructions given to them. Poor comprehension is noted across juror demographics, as well as across legal contexts. Various linguistic features of legalese or legal English, such as complex sentence structures and technical jargon, have been pinpointed as major factors contributing to low comprehension.

Simplifying jury instructions through the use of plain English has been shown to markedly increase juror comprehension. In one study of California’s jury instructions in cases involving the death penalty, approximately 200 university students participated in a research experiment. Half of the participants heard the original standard instructions written in legal English, and half heard revised instructions in plain English. Instructions were read twice to each group, and the participants then answered questions for researchers to gauge their understanding. The results showed a notable disparity in comprehension between the two groups. The group that received revised instructions demonstrated stronger understanding of relevant points such as key concepts, and the ability to differentiate between legal terms.

Resistance to the movement towards the revision of standard jury instructions exists as well. This is due to the concern that moving away from legal English will result in jury instructions becoming imprecise. There is also the belief that jurors prefer judges to speak in legal language so that they come across as educated and respectable.

Jury Nullification
There is also debate over whether juries should be informed of jury nullification during jury instructions. One argument states that if juries have the power of jury nullification, then they should be informed of it and that neglecting to do so is an act of intervention. Another argument states that defendants should be judged according to the law and that jury nullification interferes with this process.

Studies have indicated that being informed of jury nullification is likely to affect the judgement of juries when they decide on verdicts. One study that looked into 144 juries showed that they were less harsh on sympathetic defendants and harsher on unsympathetic defendants when they had been briefed on jury nullification. Another study that looked into 45 juries showed that they were likelier to reach a guilty verdict in drunk driving cases and less likely in euthanasia cases, with no reported difference in likelihood in murder cases, with the inclusion of explicit jury nullification details in jury instructions. L&#38;ljd (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)