Jury duty. Every American’s least favorite civic obligation. After sitting through an inevitably long and exhausting trial, the judge starts reading you and your fellow jurors the “jury instructions,” a procedure that can take hours. Here is a (relatively!) short sample from Standard of Proof:
A preponderance of the evidence is such evidence which, when considered and compared with any opposed to it, has more convincing force and produces in your minds a belief that what is sought to be proved is more probably true than not true…
The law asks jurors to play a part in justice, yet the language of the law is nearly incomprehensible to anyone without extensive higher education, and even for many with it. It especially challenges jurors whose native language is not English and those who speak any dialect that differs from “Standard American” English. And when jurors are confused by unclear jury instructions, they not only disengage from court proceedings but return misinformed verdicts. Our research has begun to identify the linguistic factors that make jury instructions difficult to understand, findings that will help us redraft instructions and, eventually, have a significant impact on courtroom decisions.
The team is studying how well listeners understand our updated "Plain English" jury instructions as compared to their traditional counterparts. Our jury instructions are based upon minimizing linguistically complex constructions, like passive verbs and legal jargon. Furthermore, we are studying whether jurors would benefit from reading the instructions as they listen.
Currently, Massachusetts is a state with no mandatory "pattern" jury instructions; judges can make up their own instructions or use instructions passed down to them. Based on the success of the sample of instructions in our studies, our long-term goal is to create a full set of standard Plain English instructions that can be adopted by the Massachusetts judiciary.
We are beginning to have an impact in this essential area. We were invited to give a continuing education workshop for judges at the Flaschner Judicial Institute (where judges take continuing education classes) and the response was uniformly enthusiastic. Several judges even told us that they went home to rewrite their instructions according to what they had learned. In 2017, we shared our research at a collaborative conference with the Northeastern Law School (The Syntax of Justice: Law, Language, Access, and Exclusion). Eleven Massachusetts judges attended, and we have even been contacted about working with judges at the federal level. This enthusiastic reception by the people who create and use jury instructions demonstrates that our research could lead to great change.
We are excited to continue moving forward with advocating Plain English Jury Instructions, and to further investigate a plentitude of issues lying at the intersection of linguistics and law.