Abstract
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt has long been the standard in US criminal cases, while preponderance of the evidence is the standard in civil cases. A large body of research documents the problems jurors face as they wrestle with the language of jury instructions that attempt to clarify such concepts as reasonable doubt, seldom defined in jury instructions (see for example Tanford, 1990; Charrow and Charrow, 1979; Steele and Thornburg, 1988; Tanford, 1991; Tiersma, 1993, 1995; Lieberman and Sales, 1997). It is clear that the instructions are usually, perhaps always, confusing to jurors and that jurors’ questions about their instructions are generally not answered. This article traces the history of a capital case in Texas in order to summarise problems with reasonable doubt and other language in the jury instructions that were identified by testifying linguists.1
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Charrow, R. P. and Charrow, V. R. (1979) ‘Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions’, Columbia Law Review, vol. 79, pp. 1306–74.
Dumas, B. K. (2000a) ‘US Pattern Jury Instructions: Problems and Proposals’, Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Language and the Law, vol. 7 (1), pp. 49–71.
Dumas, B. K. (2000b) ‘Jury Trials: Lay Jurors, Pattern Jury Instructions, and Comprehension Issues’, Tennessee Law Review, vol. 67 (3), pp. 701–42.
Lieberman, J. D. and Sales, B. D (1997) ‘What Social Science Teaches us about the Jury Instruction Process’, Psychology, Public Polity, and Law, pp. 589–644.
Simon, R. J. and Mahan, L. (1971) ‘Quantifying Burdens of Proof: A View from the Bench, the Jury, and the Classroom’, Law and Society Review, vol. 5 (3), pp. 319–30.
Simon, R. J. and Mahan, L. (1999) ‘Probability Statements of Sufficiency of Proof in Criminal and Civil Trials’, in W. F. Abbott and J. Batt (eds), A Handbook of Jury Research. Philadelphia: American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education, Section 19, pp. 1–11.
Solan, L. M. (1999) ‘Refocusing the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: Some Doubt about Reasonable Doubt’, Texas Law Review, vol. 78, pp. 105–47.
Steele, W. M. and Thornburg, E. G. (1988) ‘Jury Instructions: A Persistent Failure to Communicate’, North Carolina Law Review, vol. 67, pp. 77–119.
Tanford, J. A. (1990) ‘The Law and Psychology of Jury Instructions’, Nebraska Law Review, vol. 69, pp. 71–111.
Tanford, J. A. (1991) ‘Law Reform by Courts, Legislatures, and Commissions following Empirical Research on Jury Instructions’, Law and Society Review, vol. 25, pp. 155–75.
Tiersma, P. M. (1993) ‘Reforming the Language of Jury Instructions’, Hofstra Law Review, vol. 22, pp. 37–78.
Tiersma, P. M. (1995) ‘Dictionaries and Death: Do Capital Jurors Understand Mitigation?’, Utah Law Review, vol. 1, pp. 1–49.
Cases cited
Boyde v. California, 494 US 370, 110 S. Ct. 1190, 108 L. Ed. 2d 316 (1990).
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153, 49 L. Ed. 2d 859, 96 S. Ct. 2909 (1976).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2002 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dumas, B.K. (2002). Reasonable Doubt about Reasonable Doubt: Assessing Jury Instruction Adequacy in a Capital Case. In: Cotterill, J. (eds) Language in the Legal Process. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_15
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4039-3388-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52277-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)