Jury instructions

Last updated

Jury instructions, also known as charges or directions, are a set of legal guidelines given by a judge to a jury in a court of law. They are an important procedural step in a trial by jury, and as such are a cornerstone of criminal process in many common law countries.

Contents

The purpose of instructions are to inform the jury about the legal principles and standards that they must apply in order to reach a verdict. This ensures that criminal trials are fair and lawful. They are typically delivered after closing arguments, but sometimes may be delivered mid-trial if necessary.

In some cases, the instructions given by a judge to the jury are incorrect, which may (depending on the issue) result in a mistrial.

Content of jury instructions

Jury instructions often cover the following issues:

Introduction to the trial process: An overview of the trial process, the roles of the judge, jury, attorneys, and witnesses, and the importance of the jury's role in the legal system.

Explanation of the burden of proof: a legal concept crucial to the trial system. This is especially important where different legal issues have a different standard of proof to be applied. (whether due to statute, or because of the civil versus criminal standard)

Legal definitions: explanations of relevant legal terms and concepts, such as the elements of a crime or the elements of a civil claim, as well as any specific legal principles that apply to the case.

Evidence: Instructions on how the jury should evaluate evidence, including the credibility of witnesses, the admissibility of certain types of evidence, and the weight to be given to each piece of evidence.

Jury Deliberations: Guidelines for the jury's deliberation process, including instructions on reaching a unanimous verdict, the role of the foreperson, and procedures to follow in the event of a deadlock.

Use of templates

Jury instructions are typically drafted using standardized language and templates, which are formulated from various sources such as jury instruction manuals, legal treatises, and case law. However, judges often modify these standard instructions to fit the unique circumstances and legal issues present in each case. Attorneys from both sides may also request specific instructions or modifications and may object to proposed instructions, but the final decision on the content and wording of the instructions lies with the judge.

Issues

Role in appeals

Jury instructions play a significant role in the appellate process; errors or omissions in the instructions can provide grounds for an appeal. Appellate courts may review instructions given to the jury to determine if they were made in a legally permissible manner. If the appellate court finds an error in the instructions process, it may, if sufficiently problematic, reverse a decision or order a new trial.

Comprehending jury instructions

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 consistently run into problems understanding the instructions given to them. [1] Poor comprehension is noted across juror demographics, as well as across legal contexts. [2] 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. [2]

Simplifying jury instructions through the use of plain English has been shown to markedly increase juror comprehension. [2] 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. [2]

In another California study, jury instructions were again simplified to make them easier for jurors to understand. The courts moved cautiously because, although verdicts are rarely overturned due to jury instructions in civil court, this is not the case in criminal court. For example, the old instructions on burden of proof in civil cases read: [3]

Preponderance of the evidence means evidence that has more convincing force than that opposed to it. If the evidence is so evenly balanced that you are unable to say that the evidence on either side of an issue preponderates, your finding on that issue must be against the party who had the burden of proving it.

The new instructions read:

When I tell you that a party must prove something, I mean that the party must persuade you, by the evidence presented in court, that what he or she is trying to prove is more likely to be true than not true. This is sometimes referred to as 'the burden of proof.'

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. [4]

Jury nullification instructions

There is also debate, particularly active in the USA, over whether juries that are to judge a criminal case should be informed of the possibility 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. [5] It is also debated that instructions permitting jury nullification is to be criticized as promoting chaos, as it brings the decision between having a structured set of rules and having less of said rules for a more free set of choices that could also promote the likes of anarchy and tyranny. [6]

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. [7] 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. [8]

Specific jurisdictional issues

United States

Under the American judicial system, juries are often the trier of fact when they serve in a trial. In other words, it is their job to sort through disputed accounts presented in evidence. The judge decides questions of law, meaning he or she decides how the law applies to a given set of facts. Jury instructions are given to the jury by the judge, who usually reads them aloud to the jury. The judge issues a judge's charge to inform the jury how to act in deciding a case. [9] The jury instructions provide something of a flowchart on what verdict jurors should deliver based on what they determine to be true. Put another way, "If you believe A (set of facts), you must find X (verdict). If you believe B (set of facts), you must find Y (verdict)." Jury instructions can also serve an important role in guiding the jury how to consider certain evidence. [10]

All 50 states have a model set of instructions, usually called "pattern jury instructions", which provide the framework for the charge to the jury; sometimes, only names and circumstances have to be filled in for a particular case. Often they are much more complex, although certain elements frequently recur. For instance, if a criminal defendant chooses not to testify, the jury will often be instructed not to draw any negative conclusions from that decision. Many jurisdictions are now instructing jurors not to communicate about the case through social networking services like Facebook and Twitter. [11]

United Kingdom

The judge presents directions to the jury court, after overlapping instructions have been provided by a DVD and a jury manager. [12]

Australia

In Australia, as in other common law jurisdictions, jury instructions serve as essential guidelines for jurors in both criminal and civil trials, although trial by jury for civil matters is now rare. Each state and territory has its own legislation and rules governing jury instructions; although commonalities exist across the jurisdictions. These commonalities are due to harmonious legislation, and a nationally unified common law.

To promote consistency and clarity in jury instructions, Australian jurisdictions have developed standard jury directions or "Bench Books" that provide judges with templates and guidance on instructing jurors. The Bench Books are regularly updated to reflect changes in legislation and case law. Examples include the Victorian Criminal Charge Book, the New South Wales Criminal Trial Bench Book, and the Queensland Supreme and District Courts Benchbook.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

In a legal dispute, one party has the burden of proof to show that they are correct, while the other party has no such burden and is presumed to be correct. The burden of proof requires a party to produce evidence to establish the truth of facts needed to satisfy all the required legal elements of the dispute.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.

In common law, a petit jury hears the evidence in a trial as presented by both the plaintiff (petitioner) and the defendant (respondent). After hearing the evidence and often jury instructions from the judge, the group retires for deliberation, to consider a verdict. The majority required for a verdict varies. In some cases it must be unanimous, while in other jurisdictions it may be a majority or supermajority. A jury that is unable to come to a verdict is referred to as a hung jury. The size of the jury varies; in criminal cases involving serious felonies there are usually 12 jurors, although Scotland uses 15. A number of countries that are not in the English common law tradition have quasi-juries on which lay judges or jurors and professional judges deliberate together regarding criminal cases. However, the common law trial jury is the most common type of jury system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquittal</span> The legal result of a verdict of not guilty

In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal means that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charge presented. It certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as criminal law is concerned. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal prohibits the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, like Australia and the UK, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction — but usually only if new and compelling evidence comes to light or the accused has interfered with or intimidated a juror or witness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Verdict</span> Formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters submitted to it by the judge

In law, a verdict is the formal finding of fact made by a jury on matters or questions submitted to the jury by a judge. In a bench trial, the judge's decision near the end of the trial is simply referred to as a finding. In England and Wales, a coroner's findings used to be called verdicts but are, since 2009, called conclusions.

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion is the moving party or movant. The party opposing the motion is the nonmoving party or nonmovant.

A hung jury, also called a deadlocked jury, is a judicial jury that cannot agree upon a verdict after extended deliberation and is unable to reach the required unanimity or supermajority. Hung juries usually result in the case being tried again.

A bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury. The term applies most appropriately to any administrative hearing in relation to a summary offense to distinguish the type of trial. Many legal systems use bench trials for most or all cases or for certain types of cases.

Beyond (a) reasonable doubt is a legal standard of proof required to validate a criminal conviction in most adversarial legal systems. It is a higher standard of proof than the standard of balance of probabilities commonly used in civil cases because the stakes are much higher in a criminal case: a person found guilty can be deprived of liberty, or in extreme cases, life, as well as suffering the collateral consequences and social stigma attached to a conviction. The prosecution is tasked with providing evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction; albeit prosecution may fail to complete such task, the trier-of-fact's acceptance that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will in theory lead to conviction of the defendant. A failure for the trier-of-fact to accept that the standard of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt has been met thus entitles the accused to an acquittal. This standard of proof is widely accepted in many criminal justice systems, and its origin can be traced to Blackstone's ratio, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial</span> Coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal

In law, a trial is a coming together of parties to a dispute, to present information in a tribunal, a formal setting with the authority to adjudicate claims or disputes. One form of tribunal is a court. The tribunal, which may occur before a judge, jury, or other designated trier of fact, aims to achieve a resolution to their dispute.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

The Virginia Circuit Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Circuit Courts have jurisdiction to hear civil and criminal cases. For civil cases, the courts have authority to try cases with an amount in controversy of more than $4,500 and have exclusive original jurisdiction over claims for more than $25,000. In criminal matters, the Circuit Courts are the trial courts for all felony charges and for misdemeanors originally charged there. The Circuit Courts also have appellate jurisdiction for any case from the Virginia General District Courts claiming more than $50, which are tried de novo in the Circuit Courts.

A juror's oath is used to swear in jurors at the beginning of jury selection or trial.

A citizen's right to a trial by jury is a central feature of the United States Constitution. It is considered a fundamental principle of the American legal system.

United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 was a 1972 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in which the court ruled that members of the D.C. Nine, who had broken into Dow Chemical Company, vandalized office furniture and equipment, and spilled about a bloodlike substance, were not entitled to a new trial on the basis of the judge's failing to allow a jury nullification jury instruction. The Appeals Court ruled, by a 2–1 vote:

The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative, and approval of its existence as a "necessary counter to casehardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors," does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power. On the contrary, it is pragmatically useful to structure instructions in such wise that the jury must feel strongly about the values involved in the case, so strongly that it must itself identify the case as establishing a call of high conscience, and must independently initiate and undertake an act in contravention of the established instructions. This requirement of independent jury conception confines the happening of the lawless jury to the occasional instance that does not violate, and viewed as an exception may even enhance, the over-all normative effect of the rule of law. An explicit instruction to a jury conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against anarchy as well as tyranny.

References

  1. ↑ Bornstein, Brian H.; Hamm, Joseph A. (2012). "Jury Instructions on Witness Identification". Court Review. 48: 48–53 – via EBSCO.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Smith, Amy E.; Haney, Craig (2011). "Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions". Law and Human Behavior. 35 (5): 339–350. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0. ISSN   1573-661X. PMID   20936335.
  3. ↑ Spelling It Out in Plain English
  4. ↑ Tiersma, Peter M. (2010), "Instructions to jurors", The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Routledge, pp. 251–265, doi:10.4324/9780203855607.ch17, ISBN   9780203855607
  5. ↑ Hreno, Travis (2008). "The Rule of Law and Jury Nullification". Commonwealth Law Bulletin. 34 (2): 297–312. doi:10.1080/03050710802038353. ISSN   0305-0718.
  6. ↑ Dorfman, David N. (1995-01-01). Fictions, Fault, and Forgiveness: Jury Nullification in a New Context. DigitalCommons@Pace. OCLC   857357756.
  7. ↑ Horowitz, Irwin A. (1988). "Jury nullification: The impact of judicial instructions, arguments, and challenges on jury decision making". Law and Human Behavior. 12 (4): 439–453. doi:10.1007/bf01044627. ISSN   1573-661X.
  8. ↑ Horowitz, Irwin A. (1985). "The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials". Law and Human Behavior. 9 (1): 25–36. doi:10.1007/bf01044287. ISSN   1573-661X.
  9. ↑ "How Courts Work".
  10. ↑ "Overview - Federal Jury Instructions & Federal Evidence". Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2011-06-26.
  11. ↑ Ensuring An Impartial Jury In The Age Of Social Media, Duke Law and Technology Review (2012), http://dukedltr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/stevefinal_31.pdf Archived 2017-08-09 at the Wayback Machine
  12. ↑ "Crown Court Compendium Part I" (PDF). May 2016. pp. 3-1–3-3.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.