The Problematic Nature of Jury Instructions in Death Penalty Cases
Date
1994
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Producer
Director
Performer
Choreographer
Costume Designer
Music
Videographer
Lighting Designer
Set Designer
Crew Member
Funder
Rehearsal Director
Concert Coordinator
Advisor
Moderator
Panelist
Alternative Title
Department
Swarthmore College. Dept. of Linguistics
Type
Thesis (B.A.)
Original Format
Running Time
File Format
Place of Publication
Date Span
Copyright Date
Award
Language
en_US
Note
Table of Contents
Terms of Use
Full copyright to this work is retained by the student author. It may only be used for non-commercial, research, and educational purposes. All other uses are restricted.
Rights Holder
Access Restrictions
Terms of Use
Tripod URL
Identifier
Abstract
In this paper I examine the problematic nature of jury instructions from
several methodological angles. I intend to address the reaction of three
communities to the problem of jury instructions: the legal community, the
academic community and the lay community. A look at the history of legal
language and it's defining features comprises the first part of the paper. The
second part is devoted to understanding the origin of the problem by examining
how the legal community and lay community interact, using an ethnomethodological
perspective. In the third part of the paper, the psycho linguist's
reaction to inadequate jury instructions is demonstrated by applying the research
to an actual set of instructions and evaluating the insight that this sort of an analysis can provide. The fourth part of the paper is a review of an appeal by a
man condemned to death by Illinois jurors, who is basing his case on the fact
that jury instructions used in sentencing were both confusing and presumed a
verdict of death. Finally, the fifth part of the paper details the response of jurors
themselves to both the instructions and the attempts to improve them by lawyers
and linguists. This is accomplished by examining both the types of questions
which jurors have actually asked while deliberating, and judicial responses to
these questions. By working within the framework of three different
communities, with three different approaches, it will be easier to see the
directions that future work on jury instrutions might take. WIthout this threepronged
approach, it is easy to remain closed-minded as to the direction from
which change and improvement should come.