me
JAMES & CARTER, PLC
is proud
to
announce
John D . Coulter has joined the fi nn . H is primary areas of practice are employment. com mercial litigation. personal injury. and fa mily law. H is new cuntact
information is:
(50 1) 372- 14 14 - telephone (50 I) 372- 1659 - facsimi le jcoulter@jam escarterlaw.com
leavened with new blood caused COUrt co place term limi ts on its standjng committees. That wo rthwhile endeavor threatened [he loss. howeve r. o f instituti onal memory. Durin g a del iberative setting such as that in which the AM I Co mminee fun cti ons, effi ciency comes when argum ents do n Ot have to be repea ted and d isagree menr resolu tion processes 3rc well unde rstood. When new mem bers are appo inted. inevitably co nve rsatio ns 3rc repeated and imcrn ai standards are rehashed to fo rge a new consensus. Some cominui ry in deliberations has been provid-
ed by rhe Court's authorization of rhe appo imment of a Reporter whose tenure o n the Co mmittee is not limited. Th at position prese ncly is fill ed by Professor Donald I~ Judges. who is o n the fac ulty of the University o f Arkansas Schoo l o f Law. Another innovat ion see ms to have served the Comm ittee wel l. Th ro ugho ut irs history, the AM I Comm ittee has sought input fro m the sitting bench and the practicing Bar. Techno logy has fac ilitated th at input with rhe posting of the instructi ons while in draft on th e Co un 's website form (hrrp:llwww.cou ns.state.a r.us). Anot her chan ge, d rive n in pan by technology, has not been unifo rm ly viewed as fel icitOus. At lhe insistence of th e publisher, Tho mso nWest. th e 2004 Ed itio n o f ARKANSAS M ODEl
General trial and appellate practi ce
Daniel R. Carter John D. Coul ter Paul J . James Robert T. James
Establishd / 986
500 Broadway. Suite 400 Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 I
16 TI1C Arkansas Lav"ycr www.arkbar.com
JURY
I NsTRUCnONs-CivIL
changed from a hard bound volume ro a pamphlet. That change was acqu iesced in by the Co mmittee because of assurances th at the ove rall cos t ro the practi tioner would no t increase, and because it provided th e: oppo rtuni ty to integrate updates as rhey are made. AM I was alread y published in el ectro nic formar, and with annuaJ pa mphlet-type voltlllles, the phys icaJ ve rsio n now co rres ponds to the electron ic ve rsion. No lo nge r does the pracritioner or the judge have to refer to a Pocket Pan fo r changes in instructions, new instructi ons, o r supplements to the comments. The achievements in pattern instruction in Arkansas co mpare favo rably with resources available to members o f th e Bar in other states. A su rvey of parrern instru ctio ns published in ocher states reveals that fou rtee n have instructio ns that pertai n to contracts. No state, with the poss ible exception of Michiga n, has ins[fuctions that are as co mprehensive as those in AMI pertaining ro actio ns under th e Unifo rm Comm ercial Cod e. Whil e States have adopted instructi ons pertainin g to business torts, antitrust, and trade secrets, no ne has add ressed the
number of statu to ry causes of actio n addressed in AMI. o nce rn about th e fun ctionali ty of th e jury decision process continues. no twithstand ing rh e d evel o pment o f pattern instructio ns in both th e state and the federal courts. A new reform m ovemelH argues that th e language used with juries remains arcane and unintelligible. T h is movement, known as the "plai n language" movement, urges [hat instructio ns be furth er revised to speak in the ve rn acular. Set Bettina E. Brown stein. It 's Time 10 M ake Jury Instructions Understandable, 37 ARKANSAS LAWYER 24 (2002). Techn ica l wri ting systems, includ ing th ose used by the military and the p riva te secto r in the preparation of ind ustri al manuals. analyze vocabulary and make predi ctions abo ut the intelligibili ty of written instructio ns. This di scipline co ul d be instructive to the bench and the bar in achiev in g furth er cl ari ty in its communic3tio ns with laymen. Leo n G reen. who received h is u ndergrad uate educa tio n in Arkansas. se rved as Dea n of Northwestern Law School fro m 1929 to 1947, and th en ta ught CO rts at th e Uni ve rsity of Texas School o f Law until shortly befo re h is death in 1979, contended thar the jury instructio n process was largely a mea ns for appellate courts to co ntrol jury oucco mes. He co nten ded the fo rm ulations we re creared for appell ate com rol of the jury d ecisio n making and no t to el icit understanding and tho ughtful judgment from laym en. Su L. G ree n, T HE LITIGATION PROCESS IN TORT LAw 37 1 ( 1965). Tho, cynicism does not, however, d o m inate the p ro fession. T he Arkansas Supreme Court a nd ItS co mmi nees o n M od el Jury Instructio ns strive to crea te instructi ons that, whi le consistenr wi th legal prin ciples, permit laym en to d ecide cases in an effort to achieve the judgment of peers, which our system recognizes CO be as close to true justice as a mere mo rtal can achieve. T hat o ngoi ng effort is the reason th at, when I expressed than ks to aJi who had served on the AMI Co mm irree during my tenure as C hairm an in [he fin al Preface to an AM I Ed iti on, I wrote in November 2004, part of m y g ratitude was bec3 use, ... .. re]ach has by exa mple reass ured me th at our profess ion seeks co achieve excellence and p ro mote the co mmo n good. " •