Jury Instructions Are the Guidelines

Jury instructions are the guidelines given by the judge to the jury to assist them in rendering a decision (Tiersma, 2001). The judge has the responsibility of advising the jury as to the relevant law that the jury must apply to the facts that they have been presented at trial. The judge is provided some discretion in determining what instructions to provide the jury but generally the judge will provide instructions that explain the legal issues pertaining to the case, point out what each side of the litigation must prove, and summarizes the evidence that is relevant and how it applies to the case/

The instructions that are provided the jury are usually drawn from a set of standardized jury instructions but the judge is permitted wide latitude in choosing which specific instructions must be provided. Judges, however, are cognizant of the possibility of having their decisions overturned on appeal and are, therefore, careful to include the instructions necessary for the jury to render a fair and impartial verdict. Depending on the jurisdiction, opposing sides of the litigation are offered an opportunity to provide the Court with their own set of jury instructions and offered an opportunity to present the Court with arguments in support of the their set of instructions. The Court is not bound to accept either party's proposed instructions and possesses absolute discretion as to what instructions to present to the jury.

Once the instructions are read to the jury by the trial judge the jury is bound to follow the instructions. One of the standard instructions given to every jury advises them that they are to apply the law as it is given to them to the facts in the case. Jurors are not free to apply either their own judgment as to the law or apply some other law to the facts. As best as can be done, the judge should explain the law in language which is understandable by all members of the jury.

All criminal trials involve proofing the elements of the crime, establishing the burden of proof, and reasonable doubt. In rendering jury instructions, it is essential that said instructions clearly address each of these issues. Any instructions failing to include language as to any of these critical issues would result in a possible reversal on appeal.

Less than Unanimous Verdicts

A less than unanimous jury verdict is where less than all members can agree on a verdict. Such juries result in a situation that is called a hung jury defined as one that is so irreconcilably divided in opinion that it cannot agree upon any verdict by the required unanimity. The constitutionality of the need for a unanimous jury verdict has been determined by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court has ruled that, in state cases, such verdicts are constitutionally acceptable (Coughlan, 2000). The Court ruled that justice could still be served with less than a unanimous jury verdict as long as the jury was composed of a group of individuals representative of a cross section of the community who have been free to deliberate and to do so free from outside intimidation.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision in Apodaca v. Oregon (Apodaca v. Oregon, 1972) was decided with an eye toward expediency than justice. The logic behind the unanimous verdict is based on the sanctity of reasonable doubt and protecting the innocent and should be a sacred element of our judicial system. The decision in Apodaca was a compromise that violates our system's principles.

Mistrial/New Trial

A trial judge, either by common law or court rule, depending on the jurisdiction, has the discretionary power to grant a mistrial, thereby terminating an on-going proceeding or to order a new trial based on significant procedural or evidentiary error, serious misconduct of a party or counsel, or by the occurrence of an event that materially impairs a party the right to a fair trial. The declaring of a mistrial or the granting of a new trial is an extreme remedy that should be granted in only limited conditions.