By

Dr. Richard Waites

Chief Trial Psychologist

 

The Advocates

 

Jury Trial Innovations

Perceptions and Reality

“ Innovations in jury trial procedures are both necessary and long overdue.  The institution of trial by jury is not fatally flawed, as some critics have suggested.  Rather, the problem lies with rigid trial procedures and evidentiary rules that reflect false assumptions about jury comprehension and decision making.” (From G. Thomas Munsterman, Paula L. Hannaford & G. Marc Whitehead, Jury Trial Innovations, (1997) (contained in the Introduction to a manual which was a joint effort of the Jury Initiatives Task force of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the National Center for State Courts.)

 

Jury trial innovations and jury reform issues may seem like new topics, the administration of jury trials in the United States has been the recipient, and sometimes the victim, of reform-minded people almost since its inception.  For example, a search of appellate records indicates that state and federal courts have been examining and making decisions about juror questioning of witnesses date back to as early as 1825 and decisions about juror note-taking date to at least 1900.

Legal scholars, courts, and bar associations that have studied and experimented with various types of jury trial innovations have not arrived at a consensus regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different proposals.  Oftentimes, the pace of progress in instituting jury trial innovations has been painfully slow due to an excess of individual opinions by legal scholars and a deficiency in their consultation of objective research which has studied the effects of proposed changes that have been utilized in courtrooms in America.  The sweeping jury trial reforms proposed by the American Bar Association seem to challenge procedural barriers that had been put into place because of a long held belief that neutral decision makers (other than judges and arbitrators) must remain completely passive in the trial process, as if they were simply bystanders..

While most of the focus on civil jury trial innovations appears to be linked to various “reform movements,” our country’s military has been in the forefront of jury trial innovations for the last twenty-five years.  Specifically designed to improve juror comprehension, military jurors, known as “members,” have long been afforded the rights to call or recall witnesses, interrogate witnesses, take notes during trial and use them in deliberations, request that the proceedings be re-opened.

As we have noted earlier, some legal scholars have argued that judges should assume more decision-making responsibility where there are questions about juror or competence.  However, others have advocated reforming the trial process to make the jury’s task more manageable.

Most of the published research indicates that juries perform their duties quite competently.  When questions arise as to jury comprehension, the quality of the trial attorneys’ presentation is often implicated, rather than any deficiencies with jurors’ abilities to understand the facts and comprehend the situation.  Therefore, it makes sense that improvements in jury performance may be achieved by improving the quality of the communications with the jury.  Such improved communications will involve enhancements on the part of trial advocates, as well as enhancements in the tools that jurors have to learn and recall information about the case.

The advantages and disadvantages of several of the jury trial innovations are discussed in Courtroom Psychology and Trial Advocacy. These trial procedures include: Jury tutorials in complex cases Juror notebooks Jurors note taking Jurors submitting questions to witnesses Pre-instructing the jury Mini-opening/interim commentary Jury instructions before closing arguments, rather than afterward only Plain English at trial

 

Pre-instructions

In pre-instructing the jury, the judge states the basic principles of law that will govern the trial as well as more traditional topics concerning the role and responsibilities of the jury in order to improve the jury’s comprehension of both the evidence and the issues that will be presented during the course of the trial.

The literature in this area demonstrates that several devices have been proposed to enhance juror competency.  Heuer and Penrod also examined the effect of providing jurors with written instructions. Initial exploration of the impact of presenting jurors with a set of instructions before the evidence has been conducted by several investigators.

The effects of pretrial instructions on juror’s recall, interpretation of the evidence presented at trial, comprehension of the law, verdict choice and verdict latency have been closely examined.  The two principle findings from this study were that (1) jurors instructed both before and after the presentation of evidence were better able to integrate facts and law; and (2) pre-instructed jurors more often deferred their verdict decisions until after the trial.  Pre-instructions did not impair the jurors’ information processing or decision making processes.  Conversely, pre-instructions helped jurors to focus on the issues at the heart of the case and assisted them in classifying evidence according to the legal issues.

In a similar study, researchers found that pre-instructions enabled jurors to devise a causal model that contained more probative evidence, as measured by various recognition tests, than jurors who had only received post-evidence instructions. They found that pre-instructed jurors were better able to distinguish critical elements and evidence presented during the trial.  Their results also suggest that pre-instructed jurors were better able to differentiate between the plaintiffs in awarding damages than post-instructed.  Their article describes two studies designed to assess the effects of pre-instructions on decision making in simulated civil trials.  They also concluded that sustentative pre-instructions engaged a pro-plaintiff bias when evidence was technically difficult, but enhanced systematic processing when the evidence was presented in less complex language.  They speculated that the successful use of substantive pre-instructions hinges on the effects of instructions at different levels and types of complexity.

Juror Note Taking

The common law rule prohibiting jurors from taking notes during trial evolved as a consequence of the high illiteracy rate during the earliest days of our republic.  Judges did not allow note taking because of the perceived danger that jurors capable of taking notes would dominate deliberations. To guard against this risk and to ensure a fair trial, early common law judges prohibited juror note taking.

The American Bar Association and the National Center for State Courts summarized some of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of juror note taking:

Advantages

q  Empirical research demonstrates that note taking aids memory for both factual and conceptual items;

q  Note taking encourages more active participation in jury deliberations, leading to a more thorough discussion by the jurors of the issues confronting them;

q  Juror notes help the jury reconstruct the presented evidence more efficiently during deliberations, which decreases deliberation time;

q  The process of note taking keeps jurors alert and interested in the trial, increasing juror satisfaction with jury service;

q  Note taking increases jurors’ confidence that their deliberations correctly apply the jury instructions.

Disadvantages

q  Jurors may become distracted from testimony in their efforts to take complete notes;

q  Jurors who take notes may participate more effectively in jury deliberations than those who do not.

 

Of all the jury trial innovations that have been proposed, allowing the jury to take notes during the trial appears to be the most common-sense and least controversial.  Juror note taking has received considerable attention in recent years from courts, jury reform advocates, and legal scholars. The American Bar Association has also endorsed juror note taking, indicating that note taking results in greater juror attention during the trial itself along with other benefits.

The vast majority of jurisdictions that have considered this issue have held that the decision to permit jurors to take notes should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court.  Indeed, many state and federal appellate courts have supported juror note taking.

Note taking can serve as an important aid in absorbing and synthesizing information, as well as refreshing memory.  Jurors today are often involved in longer trials, dealing with difficult and generally more complex issues.  One researcher argues that courts should have the option to allow jurors to take notes to aid their memories and to enable them to consider the evidence in a more informed fashion.

In a published study of jury-eligible participants regarding the effects of providing substantive judicial instructions before presentation of evidence and permitting jurors to take notes, FosterLee and Horowitz reported that jurors who took notes were more able to recall probative evidence and generally exhibited improved decision making.

In another series of mock trial experiments, researchers found that note taking increased recall of trial information.  Note takers also rated themselves as being more attentive, more involved, and better able to keep up with the proceedings.

Perhaps the most often cited danger of note taking is that the juror with the best notes will unduly influence and possibly mislead other jurors.  McHagy also suggests that jurors may become distracted from the proceedings when taking notes. His concerns center on the issue that instead of focusing on evidence and witnesses, jurors may be jotting down notes on an irrelevant point. 

The consensus of the research, however, affirms that note taking does not distract jurors, nor does it adversely impact the surrounding jurors.  Allowing jurors to use note taking practices to keep track of parties, witnesses, testimony and evidence seems to improve jurors’ recall and understanding of complex cases.

Juror Questions to Witnesses

It seems intuitively obvious that our legal system would extend to the ultimate fact finders the same privileges and resources that have been granted to lawyers and litigants.  However, only recently have trial judges been permitting jurors the opportunity to submit questions.  Despite the intuitive appeal of allowing jurors to submit questions, a surprising high percentage of courts still don’t allow the practice. 

The practice of allowing jurors to submit questions generally involves jurors submitting written questions to a judge, who then approves or disapproves it.  If approved, the question is generally posed to the witness by the judge.  Questions that are allowed are usually purely for the purpose of clarification.

Some perceived advantages and disadvantages of permitting jurors to submit questions for witnesses, as noted by the American Bar Association and the National Center of State Courts, include:

Advantages

q  The nature of juror questions often alerts the trial judge and the attorneys when the jurors have misunderstood an important point of the evidence or testimony, thus giving them the opportunity to correct the misunderstanding with new witness testimony, closing arguments, or jury instructions on the issue;

q  Permitting jurors to ask questions increases the likelihood that the jury will understand the witness testimony and give it appropriate weight during deliberations; and

q  Permitting jurors to ask questions helps keep them alert and engaged in the trial proceedings, thus increasing satisfaction with jury service.  

 

Disadvantages

q  Permitting jurors to ask questions may confuse their role as neutral fact finders, assuming instead the role of advocates;

q  Jurors may interpret the trial judge’s failure to ask a question as an indication that the witness’s testimony should be discounted;

q  Jurors may be offended or angry if all of their questions are not answered; and

q  Permitting jurors to ask questions of witnesses adds to the length of trial proceedings.

Judges and attorneys who have used this technique report that the vast majority of juror questions are serious, concise, and relevant to the trial proceedings.  There is little or no evidence that permitting jurors to pose questions to the witnesses has any significant effect on the deliberative role of the jury. 

Penrod & Heuer noted early on that jurors reported greater satisfaction and confidence that they had sufficient information to support their verdict decision(s) when they were allowed to submit questions to witnesses. They also noted that the practice of allowing juror questions did not unduly prolong the trial, burden the judge’s staff, or interfere with the demeanor of the proceedings.

In Courtroom Psychology and Trial Advocacy, the author summarizes the perceived advantages and disadvantages of allowing jurors to ask questions. Attorneys who have participated in trials where juror questions were asked reported that jurors’ questions not only did not adversely impact their strategy, but they had found that the jurors’ questions alerted them to present information on aspects of the case that they had overlooked. 

Jurors have reported increased satisfaction with being able to ask questions.[ Interestingly, judges indicated more satisfaction with allowing jurors to ask witness questions than did lawyers.  This may be due to their ambivalence about allowing supposedly disinterested parties, who are tasked with making judgments, to ask probative questions. 

Directly confronting several of the irrational fears that lawyers have regarding the practice of allowing jurors to ask questions, the author notes that the current research found that lawyers have little reason to fear offending a juror by objecting, especially when a curing instruction is offered from the bench. 

Empirical data from a Wisconsin study clearly demonstrates that jurors are neither embarrassed nor angry about the attorney’s objections.  These data suggest that another unwarranted fear of counsel is that jurors might draw an inappropriate inference when objections are sustained.  Moreover, data from these studies also demonstrate that jurors do not place undue emphasis on their own questions.  Finally, these studies affirm that jurors’ questions have little to no prejudicial effect.

Structured Juror Discussions of the Evidence During Trial

The earliest English jurors could investigate facts independently, talk with the parties themselves, and question witnesses without court permission.  By the 16th Century, however, many of these abilities had been stripped from jurors.  By the time that the jury system had been exported to the United States, jurors had been relegated to role of almost complete passivity.  The rule to prohibit jurors from discussing the case prior to the deliberations was designed to prevent jurors from making premature decisions after discussing the case with other jurors.

Oftentimes regarded as one of the most radical and controversial reforms is the practice of allowing civil juries to discuss evidence prior to the final deliberations.  The issue has become a lightening rod for researchers, judges, and trial lawyers.  Typically, jurors are instructed prior to the beginning of a civil trial that they may discuss the evidence during the trial, but only among other jurors, in the privacy of the jury room and with all the jurors in attendance.  The jurors are typically reminded, however, that they must reserve their judgments about the ultimate issues of the case until the all the evidence has been heard.

The American Bar Association and the National Center for State Courts also points out several perceived advantages and disadvantages of permitting structure discussions of the evidence before deliberations include:

 

Advantages

q  Juror discussions about the evidence can improve juror comprehension by permitting jurors to sift through and mentally organize the evidence into a coherent picture over the course of the trial;

q  Juror discussions about the evidence may improve juror recollection of evidence and testimony by emphasizing and clarifying important points during the course of the trial;

q  Juror discussions about the evidence may increase juror satisfaction by permitting an outlet for jurors to express their impressions of the case before retiring for deliberations;

q  Juror discussions about the evidence may promote greater cohesion among the jurors, reducing the amount of time needed for deliberations; and

q  Jurors find it difficult to adhere to admonitions about not discussing evidence.  Permission to engage in such discussions bridges the gap between the court’s admonitions and jurors’ activities.

Disadvantages q  Juror discussions of the evidence facilitate or encourage the formation or expression of premature judgments about an evidentiary issue or the result of the case; q  An aggressive, overpowering juror might dominate discussions and have undue influence on the views of others, which can unduly sway or deliberations; q  The quality of deliberations may decline as jurors become more familiar with each other’s views; q  Sanctioned and structured discussions might produce a narrower and more confined set of final deliberations; and q  Juror stress might increase because of the conflicts produced by prior discussions.  

Various researchers suggest that allowing jurors to discuss the evidence does not lead them to make-up their minds before hearing from both sides.    In fact, allowing jurors the opportunity to discuss the evidence that they have heard seems to improve their comprehension, memory recall, and removes the tension created by imposing an artificial barrier upon the jurors.  Their studies demonstrate that one juror’s expressed opinion or belief is often tested by the entire group.  Moreover, jurors themselves report that they welcome this type of reform.  They found that only a low percentage of participants in the study said that trial discussions encouraged jurors to make up the minds early on. 

More recent studies from Diamond & Vidmar also offer additional support for these findings. 

Juror Notebooks

Judges and attorneys have recently begun providing jurors with individual notebooks containing items such as simplified jury instructions, layouts of the courtroom with names and locations of lawyers and parties, and glossaries of scientific terms, helpful diagrams and graphic illustrations (demographics, charts, etc), and background data of all types to use during trial.  In a survey of jurors who had used notebooks, Mott noted that some jurors were concerned that the notebooks might contain too much information making them impractical.  Another group of investigators examined the effect of juror notebooks in 20 of 60 mock trials of a complex DNA matter.  Jurors who were provided notebooks scored significantly higher on scales of juror comprehension and reported finding the notebooks extremely helpful.   

 

Instructions Before and After Closing Arguments

Hearing the applicable case law from the judge before counsel argues the case offers several distinct advantages.  First, jurors have a better gauge to evaluate the merits of counsels’ closing argument(s).  Second, the practice of allowing instructions to be read before the closing argument allows counsel the opportunity to preview the final instructions more accurately. 

The practice has received endorsement from several states and has been well received by judges, jurors and lawyers.

Mini Openings

Parties introduce evidence based on the sequence of witnesses, not necessarily in a chronological or subject matter sequence. Presentation of evidence that jumps back and forth in time or subject matter is difficult to understand and retain. Mini-openings allow the parties to explain to the jury the significance of testimony or evidence about to be presented in relation to the theories of the case. Opposing counsel is typically allowed an opportunity to respond.

   Mini opening statements are intended to increase juror comprehension and retention of information by allowing them to place evidence in context of the theories of the case. Greater comprehension and retention results in greater juror confidence in the jury’s decision and may well shorten the jury’s deliberation process.

Using Plain English in Court Instructions

“Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon.”

California Civil Jury Instructions

   Overcoming a language barrier composed of double negatives and “legal-ese” is one of the most difficult hurdles that jurors must overcome in fulfilling their duties during their jury service.  In attempting to render just and fair verdicts, jurors must not only understand the factual evidence, but must fully comprehend the legal rules that they must use in deciding the case.  Brownstein points out that jurors’ failure to understand the instructions casts doubt upon the entire jury system process.

One legal scholar has offered two explanations for the inertia underlying the court system’s failure to move toward a more “plain-English” set of instructions.   First, he points to lawyers’ lack of awareness and sensitivity to the issue of complicated language.  Second, he describes judges’ reluctance to deviate from the text of the “standard” or “pattern” jury instructions.      

While the issues surrounding jury instruction language have spawned numerous debates and discussions, social science researchers have attempted to isolate and understand the issues.  One research team has suggested that there are two main reasons that jurors have difficulty comprehending jury instructions.  First, jurors are simply unfamiliar with the legal idioms and related terminology contained in most jury instructions.  Second, the repetitive nature of model jury instructions compromised jurors’ ability to appreciate the subtle nuances and arcane distinctions commonly found in most jury instructions. 

Support for these conclusions regarding jurors’ unfamiliarity with legal terminology can also be found in other research.  Jurors in capital murder cases have requested from the court in defining and clarifying the terms found in the instructions.  In one study, thirteen of thirty capital case jurors interviewed after their trials showed an inadequate understanding of the terms aggravating and mitigating.

Another legal scholar has taken somewhat different slant, concluding that courts need to consider the “readability” of the instructions, especially from within the context of jurors’ average literacy level.  In arriving at the conclusion, the author relies extensively on how other institutions have approached making their documents more readable.  Most notably, the author points to revisions enacted by the Centers for Disease Control and technical instruction manuals from the United States Air Force.  Brownstein concludes with the recommendation that “pattern” jury instructions should be “re-written” to focus more on a reading level appropriate for that region. 

One noted social psychologist, Norman Finkel, theorizes that jurors may unintentionally “nullify the law” when they are required to render a verdict when they do not understand the instructions presented to them. In coining the term, “commonsense justice,” he refers to the pattern of juror behavior characterized by their relying upon their own internal standard of what is fair and just when confronted with incomprehensible jury instructions.  Finkel elaborated on the differences between “fairness” and “justice,” and developed a typology of basic unfairness categories aimed at understanding how age, sex, race and culture relate to an individual’s sense of fairness.

One of the most critical examinations of social science variables impacting judicial instructions was undertaken in 1997. In their review of the relevant literature, Lieberman and Sales examined the impact of various jury instructions in different situations, including pattern instructions, question bias, jurors failure to follow instructions, reasonable doubt instructions, presumption and burden instructions, prior conviction and acquittal information, backfire effect, hindsight bias, eyewitness testimony, entrapment instructions, dynamite charge, damage award instructions, and death penalty instructions.

Among the many recommendations made by the authors, the first proposed solutions dealt with the need to re-write jury instructions.  In arriving at their conclusions, Lieberman and Sales relied upon the work of Elwork, Sales, & Alfini,who studied the psycho-liguistic deficiencies in traditional court instructions and recommended eliminating unfamiliar words and replacing uncommon words with more familiar ones.

Elwork, Sales & Alfini’s concluded that a substantial number of jurors simply do not understand the law as presented to them.  They assert that this is due in part measure to the judiciary’s concern that the jury instructions be written “to precisely state the law, rather than with the aim of clarity and comprehension.”

In addition to identifying some of the existing difficulties with jury instructions, Tiersma also offered suggestions on how to avoid pitfalls. He suggested that reform measures could be implemented by limiting technical vocabulary and legal terms of art, avoiding formal language, endorsing direct instructional language, and to keep the instructions short and simple.

In more recent years, attempts to clarify and simplify jury instructions have spread across a vast majority of states. Supreme courts, bar associations, legal scholars, and social scientists are collaborating in efforts to help make court instructions more understandable and less of an obstacle in jury decision making. 

Brownstein argues that the remedy for improving juror comprehension does not lie in the traditional efforts of judiciary, but more non-traditional efforts.  Specifically the study recommends increased use of lay persons in developing more understandable court instructions to ensure that non-lawyers can understand jury instructions.  The researchers also recommended collaboration with reading specialists, who can assist in crafting jury instructions that are accurate, yet readable for as many jurors as possible.

Summary of the Findings of Research on Juror Innovations

The consensus of most legal scholars and social scientists who have studied juror decision making in the courtroom is that jury trial innovations make jurors’ work less burdensome and arduous.  Scientific and anecdotal evidence reveals that jurors generally welcome these innovations.  Trial judges who have incorporated these tools into their courts have consistently indicated that, with moderate controls, the use of these innovations improve juror comprehension and the quality of their decision making process, while not compromising a fair and impartial trial. 

We now turn to an examination of some tools that trial attorneys can use to better educate and persuade jurors in trials with complex issues and complicated subject matter.

 

References:

Munsterman, Hannaford & Whitehead, supra note 11, at 1. (contained in the Introduction to a manual which was a joint effort of the Jury Initiatives Task force of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation and the National Center for State Courts.)

Steven D. Penrod and Larry Heuer, Tweaking Common Sense: Assessing Aids to Jury Decision Making, 3 Pub. Pol. & L. 259-284 (1997).

Richard C. Waites, Courtroom Psychology and Trial Advocacy, (American Lawyer Media) (2004).

David Anderson, Let Jurors Talk: Authorizing Pre-Deliberation Discussion of the Evidence During Trial,  174 Military L. Rev. 92-124 (2002).

Vicki L. Smith, How Jurors Make Decisions: The Value of Trial Innovations, in Munsterman, Hannaford & Whitehead, supra note 11 at 7-21 (1997).

Joe S. Cecil, Valerie P. Hans & Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Citizen Comprehension of Difficult Issues: Lessons from Civil Jury Trials, 40 Am. U. L. Rev. 727 (1991).

Larry Heuer & Steven D. Penrod,  Instructing Jurors: A Field Experiment With Written and Preliminary Instructions,  13 L. & Hum. Behavior 409-430 (1989).

Vicki L. Smith, The Feasibility and Utility of Pretrial Instruction in the Substantive Law, 14 L. & Hum. Behavior 235-248 (1990).

Vicki L. Smith, Impact of Pretrial Instruction on Jurors’ Information Processing and Decision Making 61 J. Applied Psych. 857-872 (1991).

Vicki L. Smith. Prototypes in the Courtroom: Lay Representations of Legal Concepts 61 J.Person. & Soc. Psych 857-872 (1991).

Lynne FosterLee, Irwin.A.Horowitz & M. Bourgeois.  Juror competence in civil trial: Effects of preinstruction and evidence technicality.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 1421 (1993).

American Bar Association Standards for Criminal Justice, Standard 15 3.5: Note Taking by Jurors (1996).

William W. Schwarzer, Communicating with Juries: Problems and Remedies, 69 Cal. L. Rev. 731, 758 (1981).

Lynne FosterLee & Irwin A. Horowitz, The Effects of Jury-Aid Innovations on Juror Performance in a Complex Civil Trial, 86 Judicature 184 (2003).

David L. Rosenhan, Sara L. Eisner & Robert J. Robinson. Notetaking Can Aid Juror Recall, 18 L. 7 Hum. Behavior 53 (1994).

McNagy, Jurors Should Not Be Allowed to Take Notes , 32 J. of Amer. Judicature Soc. 58, 59.

Ellen Chilton & Patricia Henley, Improving the Jury System: Jury Instructions: Helping Jurors Understand the Evidence and the Law,  PLRI Reports (Spring 1996).

Shari Seidman Diamond & Neil Vidmar.  Jurors Discussions During Civil Trials: A Study of Arizona’s Rule 39(f) Innovation (State Justice Institute/National Science Foundation (2002); also reported at Shari Seidman Diamond, Neil Vidmar, Mary Rose, Leslie Ellis & Beth Murphy. Juror Discussions During Civil Trials: Studying an Arizona Innovation, 45 Ariz. L. Rev. 1 (2003).

Nicole L. Mott, The Current Debate on Juror Questions: “To Ask or Not to Ask, That is the Question, 78 Chi. Kent L. Rev. 1099 (2003).

B. Michael Dann, Valerie P. Hans & David H. Kaye, Testing the Effects of Selected Jury Trial Innovations on Juror Comprehension of Contested DNA Evidence (Technical Report to National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. (2004).

Bettina E. Brownstein, It’s Time to Make Jury Instructions Understandable, 37 Ark. L. Rev. 24 (2002).

Peter Tiersma, The Rocky Road to Legal Reform: Improving the Language of Jury Instructions, 66 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1081 (2001).

Michael Higgins, Not So Plain English: In Many States, Jury Instructions Are Confusing. 84, ABA Journal 41 (1998).

Peter Tiersma, Jury Instructions in the New Millennium, Court Review28-36 (1999).

Lorelei Sonntag. Deciding Death: A Legal and Emperical Analysis of Penalty Phase Jury Instructions and Capital Decision-Making 76 Available from University Microfilms International in Ann Arbor Michigan; order number 9033148 (1990) at page 115.

Norman J. Finkel, Commonsense Justice and Jury Instructions: Instructive and Reciprocating Connections, 6 Psych. Pub. Policy & L. 591-628 (2000).

Joel D. Lieberman & Bruce D. Sales, What Social Science TeachesUs About theJury Instruction Process. 3 Psych. Pub. Pol. & L.  589-644 (1997).

Elwork, A. Sales & Alfini, Making Jury Instructions Understandable 602 (1982).

Leonard Post, Spelling It Out in Plain English, The National Law Journal 11-10-2004.

 

For more information, please contact the author at The Advocates.