Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Jurors are traditionally instructed in the governing law after trial, just prior to deliberation. Several legal scholars have proposed that instructing jurors prior to trial would better equip them to evaluate the evidence and integrate it with the law. The most controversial aspect of this position is preinstruction in the substantive law. Critics warn that substantive preinstruction may impair jurors’ performance and that it poses unreasonable administrative problems. This research surveys the opinions of California Superior Court judges on the advantages and disadvantages of substantive preinstruction to understand the reasons that judges either do or do not preinstruct on substantive issues. The most important advantage to emerge was the potential for a substantive precharge to improve jurors’ integration of facts and law. The most critical disadvantages were administrative ones: The judge does not know before trial what substantive instructions are appropriate, and the procedure may cause burdensome delays.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Jun 1, 1990
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.