| Revision as of 18:27, 15 December 2010 editZeimusu (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,448 editsm →United States: use quote for bloquuote WP:MOS← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:52, 26 March 2024 edit undoOst316 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers86,281 edits WP:AWB WP:CHECKWIKI 16/90/91 cleanup, et. al., typo(s) fixed: the USA → the USTag: AWB | ||
| (72 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Legal rules from a judge to jurors}} | |||
| {{Globalize|date=December 2010}} | |||
| '''Jury instructions''' |
'''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 ], and as such are a cornerstone of criminal process in many ]. | ||
| 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. | |||
| ⚫ | ==United States== | ||
| ⚫ | Under the American judicial system, juries are the ] 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. The jury instructions provide something of a ] on what ] 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)." | ||
| In some cases, the instructions given by a judge to the jury are incorrect, which may (depending on the issue) result in a ]. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | == Content of jury instructions == | ||
| Several studies have discovered that subjects who received no jury instructions comprehended the law better than subjects who received pattern instructions. Jurors retain low comprehension of the most fundamental aspects of their roles. For instance, scholarly studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that jurors conflate ] with the civil standard of ].<ref>{{citation|title=Is Any of This Making Sense? Reflecting on Guilty Pleas to Aid Criminal Juror Comprehension|author=John P. Cronan|publisher=American Criminal Law Review|volume=39|year=2002}}</ref> | |||
| 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. | |||
| In one study, citizens willing to impose the death penalty were presented in 2 experiments with 4 sets of instructions (i.e., baseline instructions, instructions used at trial, instructions revised according to ] holdings, and model instructions written in nontechnical language). Results demonstrated high confusion with the trial instructions, little improvement with revised instructions, significant but case-specific improvements with model instructions, and a strong relationship between miscomprehension and willingness to impose ].<ref>{{citation|title=Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases|author=Wiener, Richard L.; Pritchard, Christine C.; Weston, Minda|journal=Journal of Applied Psychology|publisher=Journal of Applied Psychology|volume=80|date=August 1995|pages=455–467|doi=10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.455 | issue=4}}</ref> | |||
| 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.<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 ], such as complex sentence structures and technical ], have been pinpointed as major factors contributing to low comprehension.<ref name=":0" /> | |||
| Simplifying jury instructions through the use of ] has been shown to markedly increase juror comprehension.<ref name=":0" /> In one study of ]’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 ] 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.}} | ||
| ⚫ | In California, jury instructions were 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 ] read:<ref>{{citation|title=Spelling It Out in Plain English|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1099927168617}}</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | {{ |
||
| The new instructions read: | 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.'}} | ||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| In one study, results gathered from 144 six-person juries indicated that when juries are in receipt of ] 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.<ref>{{citation|title=The impact of judicial instructions, arguments, and challenges on jury decision making|publisher=Law and Human Behavior|issn=0147-7307| volume=12|issue=4|date=December, 1988|author=Irwin A. Horowitz}}</ref> In another study, three nullification instructions varying in explicitness as to nullification were combined with three criminal cases to yield a 3×3 ] 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 ] case, but less likely to do so in a ] case. The third case, which dealt with murder, did not show any differences due to instructions.<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/g630542816581t97/|issn=0147-7307|volume=9|issue=1|date=March, 1985|publisher=Law and Human Behavior|author=Irwin A. Horowitz|title=The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials}}</ref> | |||
| 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> | |||
| It has been argued that by effectively and persistently offering juries instructions that cannot be understood, judges regularly nullify the law.<ref>{{citation|volume=68|publisher=Ind. L. J.|pages=1281|date=1992-1993|title=Judicial Nullification|author=Saks, Michael J.}}</ref> | |||
| === Jury nullification instructions === | |||
| Instructions permitting jury nullification has sometimes been criticized as promoting chaos, in that it "conveys an implied approval that runs the risk of degrading the legal structure requisite for true freedom, for an ordered liberty that protects against ] as well as ]." A rebuttal to this is that a jury instruction about jury nullification "would transform the judicial process by providing a more rational basis for jury deliberation and decision making. In particular, it would allow jury deliberation to be an open process in which extrajudicial biases are aired and confronted. Further, those communities whose members are increasingly estranged from the criminal justice system's decision-making process will benefit indirectly from greater participation and, in turn, from power over the kinds of cases prosecuted. In sum, contrary to the argument that a nullification charge is an invitation to anarchy, such a charge could help to control the anarchy that has already gripped much of the system."<ref>{{citation|title=Fictions, Fault, and Forgiveness: Jury Nullification in a New Context|author=David N. Dorfman|year=1995|url=http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1528&context=lawfaculty}}</ref> | |||
| 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 ] 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 ] and ].<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> | |||
| == Specific jurisdictional issues == | |||
| ⚫ | ===United States=== | ||
| ⚫ | Under the American judicial system, juries are often the ] 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.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryinstruct/ |title = How Courts Work}}</ref> The jury instructions provide something of a ] on what ] 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.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://federalevidence.com/node/893 |title=Overview - Federal Jury Instructions & Federal Evidence |access-date=2011-06-26 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111004040207/http://federalevidence.com/node/893 |archive-date=2011-10-04 |url-status=dead }}</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | 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.<ref>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 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809091013/https://dukedltr.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/stevefinal_31.pdf |date=2017-08-09 }}</ref> | ||
| === United Kingdom === | |||
| The judge presents directions to the jury court, after overlapping instructions have been provided by a DVD and a jury manager.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |date=May 2016 |title=Crown Court Compendium Part I |url=https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/crown-court-compendium-part-i-jury-and-trial-management-and-summing-up.pdf |pages=3-1–3-3}}</ref> | |||
| === 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. | |||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
| Line 27: | Line 67: | ||
| ==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| * Collecting model or pattern federal civil and criminal jury instructions for trial courts by jurisdiction (where available) and subject matter. | |||
| * |
* | ||
| * | |||
| * |
* | ||
| * , 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. | |||
| {{jury}} | {{jury}} | ||
| {{Authority control}} | |||
| {{DEFAULTSORT:Jury Instructions}} | {{DEFAULTSORT:Jury Instructions}} | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 09:52, 26 March 2024
Legal rules from a judge to jurorsJury 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.
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. 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.
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:
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
United Kingdom
The judge presents directions to the jury court, after overlapping instructions have been provided by a DVD and a jury manager.
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.
References
- Bornstein, Brian H.; Hamm, Joseph A. (2012). "Jury Instructions on Witness Identification". Court Review. 48: 48–53 – via EBSCO.
- ^ 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.
- Spelling It Out in Plain English
- Tiersma, Peter M. (2010), "Instructions to jurors", The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Routledge, pp. 251–265, doi:10.4324/9780203855607.ch17, ISBN 9780203855607
- Hreno, Travis (2008). "The Rule of Law and Jury Nullification". Commonwealth Law Bulletin. 34 (2): 297–312. doi:10.1080/03050710802038353. ISSN 0305-0718.
- Dorfman, David N. (1995-01-01). Fictions, Fault, and Forgiveness: Jury Nullification in a New Context. DigitalCommons@Pace. OCLC 857357756.
- 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.
- 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.
- "How Courts Work".
- "Overview - Federal Jury Instructions & Federal Evidence". Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2011-06-26.
- 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
- "Crown Court Compendium Part I" (PDF). May 2016. pp. 3-1–3-3.
External links
- Federal Jury Instruction Resource Page Collecting model or pattern federal civil and criminal jury instructions for trial courts by jurisdiction (where available) and subject matter.
- Jury Instructions in Insurance-Coverage and Insurance Bad-Faith Cases
- Sample Eighth Circuit Civil Jury Instructions
- Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions, 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
| Jury-related articles | |
|---|---|
| Primary articles | |
| Jury selection | |
| Specific jurisdictions | |
| Groups | |