Why don't NY criminal juries get a written copy of their instructions? NY law doesn't forbid it, but the NY high court has found that it requires the consent of parties. In 2005, the NY court system's Jury Trial Project endorsed changing the law. ww2.nycourts.gov/sites/defaul...
Interestingly, New York judges and juries were much more enthusiastic about the prospect of giving jurors written copies of jury instructions than New York attorneys
"Attorneys' most common concern about allowing jurors to have the instructions in writing is that jurors will pay more attention to the written instructions than to the evidence or that jurors who have better reading skills will play a more influential role in the decision-making process."
Here's the relevant statute that NY's high court has interpreted as requiring consent from parties, though is that the best reading? Draw your own opinion.
People v. Johnson (1993): casetext.com/case/people-...
Aww, thank you so much, MHM! I try to tell myself that the tendency to peel off on tangential research binges is more professional asset than professional liability—though better not to look too closely at the tradeoffs on any given day
From the state that brought you only the first six cars or every second door will open on LIRR regardless of whether the car has met the platform an absolutely on brand nonsense graf
seems to me that if this is read to require parties' consent for written instruction, it must also require that the jury first request it. is that the practice?
the last piece is just silly! people differ in all kinds of arbitrary ways that will impact their influence in that room. who is the most persuasive speaker? who exudes confidence? who most embodies the identities the other jurors have biases about being most authoritative? etc etc
Hmm, so all those sickos who suggest people watch a YouTube video about something instead of reading a written article may actually be New York attorneys?
The NY practice seems crazy to me, too. Not letting jurors have written instructions is just inviting a vibe-based verdict. I can see why prosecutors might want that, but no one else.
The instructions also seem a lot more specific that a lot of jurisdictions, although that may be a feature of the criminal aspect as opposed to civil, since I’ve never done the former. Altho I did practice in NY for 7 years
I thought it was so interesting that they didn't get them and it's something that in my teenie tiny trial experience in Minnesota I just assumed was universal! Thanks for covering!
No question that the far better practice is oral instruction + giving each juror a written set to follow during instructions and to keep during deliberations. Old practices die hard.
I was on a jury for a civil trial like a decade ago and we did not have written jury instructions. It would have been super helpful man there was so much stuff to keep straight
It’s just bonkers. When I was on a jury, they said we could take notes, and since tracking complex info is part of my job, I did. That meant in the jury room, I was the “keeper of the rules” just by default. It’s a good thing I’m honest, but our legal system should not rely on the honor system.
My jury experience in NY: listened to days of information, with note-taking forbidden by the judge, then we were read the law at the conclusion and expected to apply it to what we'd heard. I found it crazymaking and can't believe it moved us toward accuracy.
