Why have courts attempted to write jury instructions in more common terms?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

One of the criticisms of jury instructions is that, because they are crafted by lawyers, they are full of
legal jargon and therefore are difficult for laypeople to understand. This issue—the degree to which
jurors are able to comprehend the instructions on the law given by the judge—has been the subject of a
considerable amount of research. Most of this research concluded that jurors do not understand the
judge’s instructions (Steele & Thornburg, 1988). There also has been research designed to determine if
juror comprehension is affected by the language used in the jury instruction. One study found higher
comprehension rates for instructions that were written in clear, nontechnical language (Elwork, Alfini, &
Sales, 1987). The results of this research prompted many jurisdictions to adopt patterned jury
instructions—that is, standard instructions that apply in most criminal cases. Typically, the judge consults
the prosecutor and the defense attorney about the instructions that will be given and allows each side to
suggest supplemental instructions. This is usually done during a charging conference. If the judge rejects
one of the defense attorney’s proffered instructions, the attorney will object to the judge’s decision, which
preserves the issue for appeal.