The Urgent Need for Reformed Jury Instruction

Jury box and judge's bench in the Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. Courthouse in Cleveland, Ohio. Photo by Carol Highsmith.

The right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers is an essential part of America’s democratic legal system. Unfortunately, two out of three jurors do not fully understand the legal directions given to them by judges, according to a report for the Ministry of Justice. When jurors are unable to comprehend the instructions they are given, it is difficult for them to give unbiased verdicts. Although there are many viable solutions, such as allowing juror questioning and note-taking, allowing attorneys to sum up arguments throughout the case, and providing training for juries, the most effective solution is properly instructing jurors on the relevant trial proceedings and legal issues. Proper jury instruction is one of the most necessary reforms due to its simplicity of implementation and its proven ability to improve the objectivity of trials.

The only instructions given to a chosen jury are provided right before they enter deliberation when the judge presents all relevant case law and explains by what standards the jury should decide the case. However, there are many problems with this current system. Without background knowledge of the relevant laws and standards, juries are often lost, or more easily swayed, during the proceedings of the trial. Additionally, juries are not always given a record of the instructions the judge has laid out for them, which causes jurors to forget or misremember what the judge has told them. According to lawyer and expert psychologist on jury behavior Shari Diamond, juries “get doused with a kettleful of law … that would make a third-year law student blanch” during trial. This lack of information is imperative to address, as juries must understand the basic legal matters surrounding what they are adjudicating in order to make a legally-sound decision.

In response to the issue of jury confusion, Diamond defers to the empirically-defensible solution that each juror should receive direct, plain-language jury instructions. Since jurors do genuinely attempt to understand instructions, as demonstrated by the fact that 92% of juries read at least one jury instruction out loud in deliberation, it is not their apathy to instructions that causes uninformed decisions, but a lack of understanding. Moreover, the Jury Trial Project concluded that jurors would benefit from clearer, pre-trial instructions on “the charges or claims, penal law definitions, or complex legal concepts” based on data collected from 35 trial proceedings. Attorneys and judges concluded that preliminary instructions had a positive impact on jurors’ understanding of the case and trial fairness.

Jurors are only able to fulfill their given role of exercising their  best judgment and drawing on their common experiences when instructions are intelligible to them. Unfortunately, juries were found to be inaccurate in comprehending the instructions given to them 17% of the time. It is imperative to fix this lack of understanding, as it affects the verdicts of many critical cases. For instance, one study found that in 23 of the 32 mock rape trial juries they conducted, jurors falsely believed that the forensic evidence provided by a doctor had to unequivocally indicate rape before the jury could convict. This study concluded that clear, written, and structured legal instructions are necessary to improve the fair decision-making of the jurors.

Certain people are skeptical of providing juries with too much legal background, as it might violate the Constitution’s requirement of a jury consisting of one’s peers. This idea of a jury of common people is a central feature of the U.S. legal system. Ostensibly, decisions in jury trials are more representative of the people that the legal system serves, as common citizens are able to draw on their own life experiences and perspectives that are not dependent on a legal education. Trial by jury is central to democratically representing the people of the United States regardless of esoteric technicalities in the law. While this justification may be overly idealistic, reforming jury instruction does not negate the benefits reaped from a lay jury. Jurors should not be provided with so much legal knowledge that they are no longer drawing on their life experiences or using common sense to approach the law, but it is antithetical to the idea of freedom that jurors are consistently misunderstanding instructions and consequently misjudging cases. 

There are other simple-to-implement reforms that would have a remarkable effect in improving jury objectivity. Suggestions range from eliminating legal jargon in jury instructions, to providing coherent instructions prior to the trial that jurors are able to take with them into deliberations, to giving jurors iPads with a list of terms, case witnesses, and case documents. All of these are feasible, and implementing them would not alter any equity in trial proceedings—other than increasing the fairness of the jury deliberation process. Since a simple post-trial set of jury instructions is already an existing portion of trials, reform in this arena would not be a polarizing measure that faces political backlash. Instead, it would serve as a painless improvement across jurisdictions and would lay the groundwork for further reforms across the board in jury bias and misjudgement. Additionally, while systemic jury bias is an ongoing obstacle to objective decisions, it is first necessary to rectify the legal misunderstandings of juries, so that the partiality in their verdicts can be better targeted.

It is evident that reforming jury instructions is not a silver bullet that alleviates long-standing prejudice in the jury system. Nevertheless, reform would be an unequivocal step in the right direction. Although more radical improvements must soon be considered to account for systemic biases in jury selection and other drawbacks in the legal system, educating juries on trial proceedings is an essential step to take. The data unquestionably shows that jury confusion and lack of knowledge of the legal system is a factor that affects their verdicts, and a practical and successful solution will serve both as a standalone benefit and a catalyst for further change.

Gabriella Frants (BC ‘25) is a student at Barnard College of Columbia University. She is studying political science on a pre-law track. Her passions include advocacy, criminal justice reform, and education equality.