Preliminary jury instructing: a dilemmatic communication practice
-
Karen Tracy
Karen Tracy is Emeritus Professor of Communication at the University of Colorado. She analyzes discourse to identify interactional challenges faced by participants in institutional practices, focusing particularly on justice and governance institutions. She is author of several books including most recently
Discourse, Identity, and Social Change in the Marriage Equality Debates (2016) and, with Robert Craig,Grounded Practical Theory: Investigating Communication Problems (2021). She is a Fellow in the International Communication Association and a Distinguished Scholar in the National Communication Association. Address for correspondence: Communication Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
This study analyzes judges’ preliminary jury instruction in nine US federal civil trials. Following an overview of past and current jury instructing practices, including the role of pattern instructions, I describe the trial materials and introduce genre analysis and grounded practical theory, the two theoretical-methodological frames I use to analyze judges’ instructing. Judges’ preliminary instructions are shown to include the basic units identified in written pattern instructions. How they are performed reveals significant judge variation, and the variations make apparent difficulties built into the law that are backgrounded when solely written texts are studied. Some of these difficulties surface in judges’ description of the case and law, in orientation to note-taking, and in discussion of what is evidence and how to assess it. In concluding I argue that conceiving of high-quality jury deliberation as centrally dependent on getting instructions more comprehensible fails to recognize the fundamental judgment task that juries have. Being a good juror involves navigating communication dilemmas. Attending to the judge’s preliminary jury instructing, the paper argues, requires jurors honoring multiple principles that may be in tension.
About the author
Karen Tracy is Emeritus Professor of Communication at the University of Colorado. She analyzes discourse to identify interactional challenges faced by participants in institutional practices, focusing particularly on justice and governance institutions. She is author of several books including most recently Discourse, Identity, and Social Change in the Marriage Equality Debates (2016) and, with Robert Craig, Grounded Practical Theory: Investigating Communication Problems (2021). She is a Fellow in the International Communication Association and a Distinguished Scholar in the National Communication Association. Address for correspondence: Communication Department, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
References
Anesa, Patrizia. 2012. Jury trials and the popularization of legal language: A discourse analytical approach. Bern: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0457-8Suche in Google Scholar
Anesa, Patrizia. 2014. The realization of interpersonality in jury instructions. In Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti & Carmen Soncho Guinda (eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres, 329–354. Bern: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar
Anesa, Patrizia & Peter Kastberg. 2012. On some communicatively salient complexities of knowledge asymmetries in a jury trial. Text & Talk 32(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0001.Suche in Google Scholar
Askehave, Inger & John M. Swales. 2001. Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied Linguistics 22(2). 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.195.Suche in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Michael. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays by Michael Bakhtin. Austin: University of Texas Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Barge, Kevin & Robert T. Craig. 2009. Practical theory. In Lawrence Frey & Ken Cissna (eds.), Handbook of applied communication research, 55–88. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard & Charles L. Briggs. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspective on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19(1). 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423.Suche in Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 2012. Genre as social action. In James Paul Gee & Michael Handford (eds.), The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis, 226–238. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2010. Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse & Communication 4(1). 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481309351208.Suche in Google Scholar
Burnett, D. Graham. 2001. A trial by jury. New York: Alfred A Knof.Suche in Google Scholar
Charrow, Robert & Velda Charrow. 1979. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review 79(7). 1306–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842.Suche in Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T. & Karen Tracy. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory 5(3). 248–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00108.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Craig, Robert T. & Karen Tracy. 2021. Grounded practical theory: Investigating communication problems. San Diego & CA: Cognella.Suche in Google Scholar
Dai, Xin. 2020. Legal constraints and judicial discretion in sentencing practice: Appraisal analysis of the sentencing remarks for Terri Palmer. Text & Talk 40(3). 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-2061.Suche in Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman, Beth Murphy & Mary R. Rose. 2012. The “kettleful of law” in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures, and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review 106(4). 1537–1608.Suche in Google Scholar
Diamond, Shari Seidman & Mary R. Rose. 2005. Real juries. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1. 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.120002.Suche in Google Scholar
Dumas, Bethany K. 2000. US pattern jury pattern instructions: Problems and proposals. Forensic Linguistics 7(1). 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.49.Suche in Google Scholar
Finkel, Norman J. 2000. Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 6(3). 591–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.591.Suche in Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana E. 2015. Genre analysis. In Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie & Todd L. Sandel (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction, 677–693. Boston: Wiley-Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Gastil, John, E. Pierre Deess, Philip Weiser & Cindy Simmons. 2010. The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. New York: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Gibbons, John. 2017. Towards clearer jury instructions. Language and Law 4(1). 142–160.Suche in Google Scholar
Glaser, Barry & Anslem Strauss. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.Suche in Google Scholar
Hale, Dennis. 2016. The jury in America: Triumph and decline. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas.10.1353/book44731Suche in Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, Steven D. Penrod & Nancy Pennington. 1983. Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674865945Suche in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Bakingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230502888Suche in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2008. The language and communication of jury instruction. In John Gibbons & M. Teresa Turell (eds.), Dimensions of forensic linguistics, 47–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aals.5.05hefSuche in Google Scholar
Howard, Phillips K. 1996. Commonsense and the law. Imprimis 25(9). https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/common-sense-and-the-law/.Suche in Google Scholar
Lillis, Theresa & Janet Maybin. 2017. Introduction: The dynamics of textual trajectories in professional and workplace practices. Text & Talk 37(4). 409–414.10.1515/text-2017-0017Suche in Google Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F. & John C. Palmer. 1974. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(5). 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(74)80011-3.Suche in Google Scholar
Lu, Nan & Chuanyou Yuan. 2021. Legal reasoning: A textual perspective on common law judicial opinions and Chinese judgments. Text & Talk 41(1). 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-2084.Suche in Google Scholar
Marder, Nancy S. 2003. Introduction to the jury at a crossroad: The American experience. Chicago Kent Law Review 78(3). 909–939.Suche in Google Scholar
Marder, Nancy S. 2006. Bringing jury instructions into the twenty-first century. The Notre Dame Law Review 81(2). 451–511.Suche in Google Scholar
Marten, J. Thomas & Stephen R. Bough. 2020. To innovate or not to innovate: Two judges’ thoughts on traditional versus modified civil jury trial procedures. Drake Law Review 68. 765–787.Suche in Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70. 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686.Suche in Google Scholar
Model Civil Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Third Circuit. 2017. Available at: https://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/sites/ca3/files/1_Chaps_1_2_3_2017_Oct.pdf.Suche in Google Scholar
Pennington, Lisa & Matthew J. Dolliver. 2021. The effect of deliberation on jurors’ attitudes toward jury service in criminal cases. Law & Social Inquiry 46(2). 391–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2020.29.Suche in Google Scholar
Perkel, Steven E. & Benjamin Perkel. 2015. Jury instructions: Work in progress. Thejuryexpert.com 27(2). 20–25.Suche in Google Scholar
Philips, Susan. 1983. The invisible culture: Communication in classroom and community on the warm springs Indian reservation. New York: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Philips, Susan. 1998. Ideology in the language of judges: How judges practice law, politics, and courtroom control. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195113402.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Reed, Krystia. 2019. Calls for speculation: An experimental examination of juror perceptions of attorney objections. Buffalo Law Review 67(1). 53–87.Suche in Google Scholar
Rogers, Max. 2020. Lay persons as learners: Applying educational principles to improve juror comprehension of instructions. Northwestern University Law Review 115(4). 1185–1225.Suche in Google Scholar
Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51. 1895.Suche in Google Scholar
Stygall, Gail. 2014. Death penalty instructions: Still not comprehensible after all these years. Language and Law 1(1). 95–108.Suche in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 2004. Research genres: Exploration and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524827Suche in Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2003/1835. Democracy in America. London: Penguin.Suche in Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2020. Building arguments and attending to face in small claims court: Distinctive features of the genre. In Carol Winkler (ed.), Networking argument, 466–471. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780429327261-70Suche in Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen & Jessica S. Robles. 2009. Questions, questioning, and institutional practices. Discourse Studies 11(2). 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608100941.Suche in Google Scholar
Vidmar, Neil & Valerie P. Hans. 2007. American juries: The verdict. Amherst & NY: Prometheus books.Suche in Google Scholar
Walbolt, Sylvia H. & Mariko Shitama Outman. 2020. Jurors are only human: Proper instructions can aid their good faith deliberation. Litigation 46(2). 44–50.Suche in Google Scholar
Zouhary, Jack. 2021. Jury duty: A founding principle of American democracy. NYU School of Law: Civil Jury Project. Available at: https://civiljuryproject.law.nyu.edu/jury-duty-a-founding-principal-of-american-democracy/.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The creative minds of Arab cartoonists: metaphor, culture and context
- Formulaic language in L1 and advanced L2 English speech: multiword structures in the speech of two Swedish groups compared to a group of L1 English speakers
- Developing an annotation protocol for evaluative stance and metaphor in discourse: theoretical and methodological considerations
- The use of material resources in vocabulary explanations: a conversation analytic inquiry
- Self-categorization: a resource for the management of experiential entitlement in talk about child death
- Preliminary jury instructing: a dilemmatic communication practice
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- The creative minds of Arab cartoonists: metaphor, culture and context
- Formulaic language in L1 and advanced L2 English speech: multiword structures in the speech of two Swedish groups compared to a group of L1 English speakers
- Developing an annotation protocol for evaluative stance and metaphor in discourse: theoretical and methodological considerations
- The use of material resources in vocabulary explanations: a conversation analytic inquiry
- Self-categorization: a resource for the management of experiential entitlement in talk about child death
- Preliminary jury instructing: a dilemmatic communication practice
