Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Feasibility and Utility of Pretrial Instruction in the Substantive Law: A Survey of Judges

The Feasibility and Utility of Pretrial Instruction in the Substantive Law: A Survey of Judges 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

The Feasibility and Utility of Pretrial Instruction in the Substantive Law: A Survey of Judges

Smith, Vicki L.
Law and Human Behavior , Volume 14 (3): 14 – Jun 1, 1990
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/the-feasibility-and-utility-of-pretrial-instruction-in-the-substantive-RTdVLteH1u

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/BF01352751
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association

Published: Jun 1, 1990

There are no references for this article.