scholarly journals The Simplification of Jury Instructions: Legal-Lay Interactions in Jury Trials

ESP Today ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-318
Author(s):  
Olga Boginskaya
2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrizia Anesa

Stating that 'good' communication plays a crucial role in everybody's personal and professional life would be to state the obvious. However, this well-established concept constantly seems to call for a reflection upon basic questions, such as: how can we define 'good' communication? What are the criteria that can be applied  in order to identify it and to discern it, if possible, from 'bad' communication? Is it possible to achieve it? How? Between whom? In which circumstances? What are its consequences?


1952 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 247-268
Author(s):  
Clement Franklin Robinson
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
O Shkurat ◽  
◽  
L Gartsunova ◽  

Abstract. This article is devoted to the study of legal English and its main characteristics. Legal language is the language used by legal professionals in their professional activity. That fact that historically legal English developed separately from the plain English made it difficult for understanding by laypeople. People find the traditional legal writing in such documents as jury instructions, security disclosures, credit card agreements, apartment leases, cell phone contract, promissory note etc. Even native English speakers often complain that they cannot fully understand the documents written to give them information. The understanding of legal English has been a problem for centuries. It was the cause why the plain English movement arose in the 1970s. The purpose of the movement was to simplify the legal writing, make it simple and clear for average people. This problem arises not only for those people whose native language is English. Nonnative speakers also struggle with the complexity of English legal writing. Ukrainian legal professionals that engaged in the area of international, business or corporate law, have to draft documents in English. Sometimes that could be a real problem because unlike English and American legal schools, the majority of ours don't provide the separate course of English legal writing. The purpose of this article is to give practical advice to Ukrainian lawyers and interpreters, how, taking into account the peculiarities of legal English discourse, to draft documents in clear, simple and understandable way. Results of research. A lot of English and American scientists, lawyers as well as linguists, devoted their studies to the plain English movement. Analysis of their works shows that four major factors had influenced on the development of legal English: historical, sociological, political and jurisprudential. Owing to them legal English is full of words of foreign origin, archaisms, argots and terms of art. These factors also caused the frequent usage of formal words, common usage of common words with uncommon meaning, deliberate ambiguity in legal writing. The studies of legal writing by lawyers have focused basically on vocabulary. Linguists in their researchers have identified some other features: overly complex sentences, passives, nominalizations, multiple negations, archaisms and jargon, inappropriate document design. Described ways of simplifying legal English are quite easy to use. Taking into account tips mentioned in the article, legal professionals will be able to draft documents that will be clear and understandable for general public.


2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Horan ◽  
Shelley Maine
Keyword(s):  

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 510-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
María Inés Bergoglio
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-718
Author(s):  
Emma Rowden ◽  
Anne Wallace

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document