About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


65 Neb. L. Rev. 520 (1986)
Pattern Jury Instructions: The Application of Social Science Research

handle is hein.journals/nebklr65 and id is 530 raw text is: Harvey S. Perlman* Pattern Jury Instructions: The Application of Social Science Research TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ............................................... 520 II. Social Sciences and Jury Instructions ..................... 524 A. Kalven and Zeisel-The American Jury .............. 525 B. History of Jury Instructions .......................... 526 C. Social Science Investigations .......................... 528 III. Alaska Civil and Federal Criminal Jury Instructions ..... 531 IV. Implementing Social Science Into the Real World ........ 534 A. Balancing the Need for Specialized Language against the Goal of Juror Comprehension .................... 535 B. Practical Limitations on Simplifying Instructions ..... 538 C. Inherent Limitations on Instruction Reform .......... 539 V. Conclusion ................................................. 541 Appendices ................................................ 542 I. INTRODUCTION In the earliest common law cases, there was little question of the competence or ability of jurors. Each juror had personal knowledge of the events that formed the basis of the trial. Further, medieval society was technologically simple; few trials presented subject matter beyond the jurors' own level of knowledge. Dean, University of Nebraska College of Law. This paper was originally pre- pared for and delivered at a Wingspread Conference, The American Jury and the Law on November 18-20, 1985, sponsored by the American Judicature Soci- ety and the Johnson Foundation. David G. Newkirk, Class of 1987, made a signif- icant contribution, both in substance and documentation, in adapting the paper for publication. Keith Miles, Class of 1987, assisted in the research for the origi- nal presentation. I also benefited from comments received when an early draft of the paper was presented to the Law-Psychology workshop at the University of Nebraska. Any errors or misstatements that survived in spite of this assistance are mine.