As a law student, one of the first horrors that dawned on me was not that I was overwhelmed with thousands of pages of reading or surrounded by a bunch of crazy stress-warped individuals, but that I began to speak differently from all my non-lawyer friends. I not only began to use terms like "motor vehicle" instead of "car," but I also peppered my everyday conversations with things like "reasonable prudent person in the same or similar circumstances" and "arguendo."

As I worked for a public defender's office and observed jury trials for the first time, I marveled at how I could struggle for hours of class and studying time trying to interpret and apply a single rape statute, yet juries of non-lawyers were expected to do the same thing in situations where it actually mattered, based solely on a cursory rote of instructions from a judge. Apparently a non-lawyer (or a very smart lawyer) in California realized the same thing eight years ago, prompting the Judicial Council of California to revamp jury instructions to actually make sense to people who haven't suffered through law school, yet are charged with the vital task of determining the fate of trials.

The changes not only wipe out many Middle English words and obscure legal phrases, but also usher the instructions into the 21st century by way of present-day cultural sensibilities, albeit with a California twist.

An admonition not to discuss a trial with "spiritual advisers or therapists" may puzzle jurors in other states but is considered long overdue here. The change was prompted by a case in which jurors said they did not understand that keeping quiet applied to "confidential relationships."

"Well, this is California," said Ronald M. George, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of California and the main instigator behind the exhaustive revisions approved at a meeting here on Friday. "I suppose you could add gurus and others, too."

An instruction on setting aside "any bias or prejudice" lists the familiar - gender, race, religion - but also provides a fill-in-the-blank option for customized bigotries. "Insert any other impermissible bias as appropriate," it says.

Ostensibly, the changes are to improve the experience of being on a jury (translation: try to get smart and capable people to use their skills to serve on juries rather than skirt jury duty). Chief Justice George added that it would also improve efficiency because jurors will not have to ask as many questions of the trial judge trying to interpret legalese. But, as someone who can navigate the language but also understands how literally vital these issues can be for both defendants and victims, I think the outcome of simple language revision could be much more fundamental: the simple administration of justice.

Telltale

USA

May 2004

AUG 28, 2005 09:14 AM

Anything that makes our legal system less shitty is good news to me.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

AUG 28, 2005 09:16 AM

California? It probably ought to read "therapist, spiritual advisor, or healing crystal".

Helter

Chester, PA

OLD SKOOL

AUG 28, 2005 09:22 AM

while I like this step, I really see this as a two part problem.
part 1 is that the law is written to be difficult to understand. This needs to change, and it looks like it's beginning to.
part 2 is that the vast majority of people have no fucking clue what the laws they are supposed to live by say or mean. This part really boggles my mind. We're charged with not violating these laws, on penalty of fine or jailtime (or in extreme circumstances, death), yet the majority of people just don't know what they are, aside from a few choice examples, and even for those don't know the details.
I think that from grade 9 on, kids should be taught preliminary law in high school. Not prepping them to be lawyers, just classes that'll give them a solid basis in how our legal system actually works, and some of the basics of law.

Ideally we simply woudn't have so damned many laws, but since I don't see that happening anytime soon...

tellyfone

Ithaca, NY

December 2004

AUG 28, 2005 10:41 AM

Making the law easier for non-attorneys rto understand is IMO the first giant step toward fixing a dysfunctional jury system. The next step is puttin laws in palce which assure that jurors will not lose their homes/jobs/etc. for being away from jobs, businesses, etc. The next step is to reimburse jurors at a living wage. The current juror reimbursements in most states are only slightly above or well below the minimum wage.

Vestril

Coronado, CA

February 2003

AUG 28, 2005 11:42 AM

Unfortunately if people actually understood what laws meant we might start having something to say about them. I get the impression a lot of the people involved in the legal system think it should be left up to them, and not the ignorant masses. It's always nice to see that there are opposing forces out there who can speak the laguage

Oz_the_Vamp

Lorain, OH

June 2005

AUG 28, 2005 01:08 PM

tellyfone said:
The current juror reimbursements in most states are only slightly above or well below the minimum wage.

There's nothing better than making $15/day on jury duty when you typically make $15/hour at work. It's a fair trade, right?

SomeOneUK

United Kingdom

June 2004

AUG 28, 2005 02:48 PM

This is good. Maybe next in the pipeline there's even something for unlucky jurors who become attached to cases that role on and on and on for a few years.