NCJ Number
103898
Date Published
1986
Length
9 pages
Annotation
This assessment of the implications of U.S. uniform jury instructions for Australia considers the strengths and weaknesses of such instructions, procedures for their creation and use, and examples from California jury instructions.
Abstract
The strengths of uniform jury instructions are the uniformity of instructions for similar cases and for similar issues in otherwise differing cases, reduction in the number of case reversals for jury misdirection, and the construction of better instructions than could be devised by judges acting alone. Weaknesses of U.S. uniform jury instructions are legal language unsuitable for lay jurors and inflexibility which prevents the tailoring of instructions to specific cases. Australia could remedy these weaknesses by using lay language in jury instructions and providing for the trial judge to inject comments in the instructions appropriate to a given case. Uniform instructions are generally produced by a committee of trial judges across all jurisdictional levels, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and sometimes appellate judges. The committee reviews all relevant authority, any existing instructions in the State, comparable instructions from other States, and any standards underlying existing instructions. Draft instructions are prepared, revised, adopted, and circulated. Instructions are continually refined. In applying the instructions, judges hold conferences with counsel to discuss the proposed instructions to be used in a given case. At the conference, prosecutors and defense counsel present requests for jury instructions included in the uniform book, and the judge decides which instructions to give. 3 references and appended California jury instructions.