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

• NCJ Number: 124483
• Journal: Law and Human Behavior Volume: 14 Issue: 3 Dated: (June 1990) Pages: 235-248
• Author(s): V L Smith
• Date Published: 1990
• Length: 14 pages
• Sponsoring Agency: Soc for the Psychological Study of Social Issues; American Psychological Assoc
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Survey
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Jurors are traditionally instructed in the governing law after trial, just prior to deliberation.

Abstract

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. 5 notes, 2 tables, and 25 references. (Author abstract)