Jury Instructions for the Modern Age out official endorsement.11 The Illinois Supreme Court took notice of these developments, and in 1955 created a committee to formulate its own set of pattern jury instructions.12 The resulting Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions had official status, and the court in fact mandated their use.13 Other states then followed,14 in a movement that was hailed as “one of the great strides in the modernization and preservation of our judicial system.”15 But there were problems with the instructions, which were primarily crafted by attorneys and judges, and were often not intelligible to lay jurors.16 The result was another movement to redraft jury instructions in “plain English,” so that they would be comprehensible to non-lawyers.17 This article reviews available “model, “pattern,” “recommended,” “standard,” and “uniform” civil and criminal jury instructions, including both official and non-official compilations. There is no signifigance to the label (model, pattern, etc.) given to the instructions.18 Although a state may have one or more sets of standardized jury instructions for use in civil and criminal trials, these instructions are often merely suggestions, which may be modified on a case-by-case basis.19
Jury Instructions and Social Media
C
ourts have held that “it is essential” that the court admonish the jury about their duties and responsibilities, including the duty to remove themselves from outside information about a case, and that this admonition be given at the start of trial and throughout the proceeding; particularly before recesses, especially overnight ones.20 But failure to instruct a jury not to discuss the case outside the courtroom is not plain error requiring reversal, where there is no evidence that the jury was subject to outside influence.21
11. James A. Dooley, Illinois Pattern Instructions: An Appraisal by a Plaintiff ’s Attorney, 1963 U. of Ill. Law Forum 586, 589 (1963). 12. Don Musser, Instructing the Jury – Pattern Jury Instructions, 6 Am. Jur. Trials 923 (2003). 13. Id. See Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 25-1(a) (1963).The rule is now Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 239(a) (2011). 14. Philip H. Corboy, Pattern Jury Instructions-Their Function and Effectiveness, 32 Insurance Council J. 57, 65 (1965). 15. Harry I. Hannah, Jury Instructions: An Appraisal by a Trial Judge, 1963 U. of Ill. Law Forum 627, 643 (1963). 16. J. Alexander Tanford, The Law and Psychology of Jury Instructions, 69 Neb. L. Rev. 71, 79-83 (1990); Ritter, supra note 5, at 190. 17. Tanford at 91-93. 18. See, e.g., Robert C. Power, Reasonable and Other Doubts: The Problem of Jury Instructions, 67 Tenn. L. Rev. 45, 55 n.49 (1999). 19. “[T]he pattern instructions are not sacrosanct, a fact that has been borne out by the appellate rejection of pattern instructions, as well as appellate recognition of the fact that a legally ‘correct’ instruction can change its stripes when applied to a given case. Although not greeted with open arms in many courtrooms, opportunity awaits the attorney who specially crafts instructions for his case or who proposes modifications in existing instructions to tailor them and remove misleading or offending materials.” Pike & Fischer, BNA Criminal Practice Manual, §. 131.101. (2) (2009). See also People v. Mata, 133 Cal. App.2d 18, 21, 283 P2d 372 (Cal. 1955) (“Standard jury instructions “are no more sacrosanct than any others. Unless a particular instruction fits the evidentiary situation and presents a fair and impartial picture of the issues, it should not be given.”) 20. United States v. Williams, 635 F.2d 744, 745-46 (8th Cir. 1990). 21. United States v. Nelson, 102 F.3d 1344, 1348 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1203 (1997); accord Baldwin v. Blackburn, 653 F.2d 942, 948 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Arciniega, 574 F.2d 931, 93233 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 908 (1978); United States v. Hart, 729 F.2d 662, 667-68 (10th Cir. 1984). Reynolds Courts & Media Law Journal
309