Editing Jury instructions (section)

== 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bornstein |first1=Brian H. |last2=Hamm |first2=Joseph A. |date=2012 |title=Jury Instructions on Witness Identification |url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1380&context=ajacourtreview |journal=Court Review |volume=48 |pages=48–53 |via=EBSCO}}</ref> Poor comprehension is noted across juror demographics, as well as across legal contexts.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=Amy E. |last2=Haney |first2=Craig |date=2011 |title=Getting to the point: Attempting to improve juror comprehension of capital penalty phase instructions |journal=Law and Human Behavior |volume=35 |issue=5 |pages=339–350 |doi=10.1007/s10979-010-9246-0 |issn=1573-661X |pmid=20936335}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":0" />

Simplifying jury instructions through the use of [[plain English]] has been shown to markedly increase juror comprehension.<ref name=":0" /> 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.<ref name=":0" />

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 [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] in civil cases read:<ref>{{citation |title=Spelling It Out in Plain English |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1099927168617}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|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:

{{Blockquote|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.<ref>{{Citation |last=Tiersma |first=Peter M. |title=The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics |pages=251–265 |year=2010 |chapter=Instructions to jurors |publisher=Routledge |doi=10.4324/9780203855607.ch17 |isbn=9780203855607}}</ref>

=== Jury nullification instructions ===
There is also debate, particularly active in the US, 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hreno |first=Travis |date=2008 |title=The Rule of Law and Jury Nullification |journal=Commonwealth Law Bulletin |volume=34 |issue=2 |pages=297–312 |doi=10.1080/03050710802038353 |issn=0305-0718}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dorfman, David N. |title=Fictions, Fault, and Forgiveness: Jury Nullification in a New Context |date=1995-01-01 |publisher=DigitalCommons@Pace |oclc=857357756}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Horowitz |first=Irwin A. |date=1988 |title=Jury nullification: The impact of judicial instructions, arguments, and challenges on jury decision making |journal=Law and Human Behavior |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=439–453 |doi=10.1007/bf01044627 |issn=1573-661X}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Horowitz |first=Irwin A. |date=1985 |title=The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials |journal=Law and Human Behavior |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=25–36 |doi=10.1007/bf01044287 |issn=1573-661X}}</ref>