a framework for interpreting the evidence, making
them more attentive to due-process issues designed to
protect the defendant such as burden of proof. However,
comprehension has not been improved on a reliable
basis when jurors are only given pretrial instructions
(that are not repeated following attorneys’ closing
statements).
Traditionally, the judge delivers instructions to
jurors orally. However, an alternative delivery approach
is to provide written instructions to the jurors that can
be brought into the deliberation room. Several studies
have shown that comprehension levels are increased
when written instructions are provided, and that jurors
are better able to apply the law. However, other studies
have produced contradictory findings and have not
found improvements for comprehension or verdict dif-
ferences when written instructions are used.
Special verdict forms may be used to ensure that
jurors attend to key elements that are conveyed in jury
instructions. A special verdict form consists of a series
of questions regarding separate issues of fact to which
jurors must respond. These forms are used in both
civil and criminal trials in the United States and in
other countries. Similarly, flow charts (also known as
decision trees) indicate the order in which decisions
regarding different legal questions should be answered
and the appropriate verdict that should be rendered as
a result of those decisions. It is possible that instruc-
tion comprehension can be improved through the
administration of these forms and charts because
jurors are required to attend to key legal questions that
must be resolved. To date, only a few studies have
examined the effectiveness of special verdict forms
and flow chart/decision-tree models, and those studies
have produced mixed results. Some research has
shown that instruction comprehension is improved by
these techniques and that jurors believe that special
verdict forms are helpful in improving their under-
standing of instructions and rendering a verdict that
they are confident in and satisfied with. However,
other research has shown that comprehension is not
increased by these techniques and that jurors do
not use flow charts when they are provided during
deliberations.
When jurors are unsure as to the meaning of
instructions, they may attempt to resolve their confu-
sion during deliberations by discussing the matter
with each other. If one or more jurors have a very
good understanding of the instructions, it may be pos-
sible for them to clarify the instructions for others,thus improving the overall comprehension level of the
jury. Research has indicated that jurors have some dis-
cussion regarding the meaning of instructions in most
trials. Unfortunately, jurors are unable to clarify mis-
understood points on a regular basis and, as a result,
deliberation does not appear to be a successful remedy
for comprehension problems. Rather, it has been
demonstrated that jurors are as likely to replace an ini-
tially correct understanding of instructions with an
incorrect one as to correct a misunderstood point of
the instructions.
Jurors may also turn to the judge to clarify instruc-
tions. Although judicial clarification may be the best
possible solution to instruction comprehension prob-
lems, judges typically either re-read the problematic
instructions or do nothing at all and simply allow
jurors to proceed relying on their best memory and
understanding of the instructions originally delivered.
The lack of judicial responsiveness to jurors’ requests
for clarification is based on concerns regarding
appeals. It is unlikely that a decision will be reversed
on the basis of the instructions provided when the
judge restricts his or her comments to the pattern
instructions. However, if he or she deviates from the
specific wording in the pattern instructions, it can be
argued that the language used to clarify the instruc-
tions was inappropriate.The “Plain English” Movement
and the Future of Jury Instructions
The primary problem associated with judicial instruc-
tions is that they have traditionally been conveyed in a
manner that emphasizes legal accuracy, with minimal
attention paid to comprehensibility among a nonlegal
professional audience. The development of pattern
instructions was seen as an improvement to the instruc-
tion process, and it did reduce the time judges spent
developing instructions for jurors as well as the number
of appeals based on instructions while increasing
instruction consistency across cases. However, pattern
instructions did not serve to remedy comprehension
problems.
Recently, states have begun to respond to the rec-
ommendations of social scientists by redrafting pattern
instructions using a “plain English” approach and
applying psycholinguistic principles. For example, in
2003, California approved approximately 800 new
civil jury instructions and special verdict forms and
revised its criminal jury instructions in 2006. Other398 ———Juries and Judges’ InstructionsJ-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 398