Dumb Juries

Everyone knows the legal system is overloaded. The courts are tied up with appeals, and judges' instructions to jurors have long been indicted as part of the problem. Juries just don't seem to understand them.

Lack of progress in changing things frustrated Phoebe Ellsworth, Ph.D. Perhaps, she felt, legal policymakers need evidence of a more convincing order. So instead of simulating courtroom conditions to find out what jurors understand, she decided to put actual jurors to the test,

Ellsworth and two colleagues surveyed 224 men and women who had recently served on juries. All had listened to actual judges give them actual instructions on substantive and procedural law--and all were responsible for the fates of people on trial. The jurors absorbed not only the formal instructions given them by the judge, but the informal instructions attorneys typically give in the course of their arguments.

How did they do? No better than chance, report Ellsworth and colleagues in a recent issue of Law and Human Behavior. Exposure to judges' instructions didn't help them understand a thing.

Real jurors understand that fewer than half of the instructions they receive at a trial, concludes Ellsworth. Those who receive judges' instructions on questions about procedural law (for example, what may or may not be considered during deliberation) do better than those who do not receive such instruction. But those who are instructed in criminal law (such as the definition of assault, in an assault case) do no better than those who are not given instructions.

The problem is twofold. The jury isn't told its task until all the information is in, so they don't know what to look for as the trial unfolds. Then they are given difficult instructions in what amounts to a foreign language.

What's needed is court reform, insists Ellsworth. She'd make it the law: judges and attorneys should use less legalese and present instructions in clear, concise English before as well as after the evidence is presented. Case closed.