Precious little guidance

Jury Instruction on Damage Awards

Edith Greene, Brian H Bornstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Jury instructions on damage awards are notoriously vague and ambiguous. As a result, awards are sometimes unexpected and seemingly illogical. In this article, the authors argue that jury instructions regarding damages are vague because the law of damages itself is purposefully ambiguous - allowing particularized justice across a variety of different circumstances. The authors review research on comprehension and application of substantive jury instructions related to damages and on procedural variations at trial (e.g., use of preinstruction, bifurcation, blindfolding jurors to various issues, special verdict forms, caps on damages, and instruction revision) that impact the substantive instructions that jurors receive from the judge. They comment on attempts at reforming jury instructions regarding damages and conclude that jurors' decision making on this difficult and emotional issue could be made more predictable by careful reforms at the trial level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)743-768
Number of pages26
JournalPsychology, Public Policy, and Law
Volume6
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

damages
instruction
Social Justice
Decision Making
Research
comprehension
justice
decision making
reform
Law

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

Precious little guidance : Jury Instruction on Damage Awards. / Greene, Edith; Bornstein, Brian H.

In: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol. 6, No. 3, 01.01.2000, p. 743-768.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{47a053db268e4bfea7017d58b5ad2b94,
title = "Precious little guidance: Jury Instruction on Damage Awards",
abstract = "Jury instructions on damage awards are notoriously vague and ambiguous. As a result, awards are sometimes unexpected and seemingly illogical. In this article, the authors argue that jury instructions regarding damages are vague because the law of damages itself is purposefully ambiguous - allowing particularized justice across a variety of different circumstances. The authors review research on comprehension and application of substantive jury instructions related to damages and on procedural variations at trial (e.g., use of preinstruction, bifurcation, blindfolding jurors to various issues, special verdict forms, caps on damages, and instruction revision) that impact the substantive instructions that jurors receive from the judge. They comment on attempts at reforming jury instructions regarding damages and conclude that jurors' decision making on this difficult and emotional issue could be made more predictable by careful reforms at the trial level.",
author = "Edith Greene and Bornstein, {Brian H}",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.743",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "743--768",
journal = "Psychology, Public Policy, and Law",
issn = "1076-8971",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Precious little guidance

T2 - Jury Instruction on Damage Awards

AU - Greene, Edith

AU - Bornstein, Brian H

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - Jury instructions on damage awards are notoriously vague and ambiguous. As a result, awards are sometimes unexpected and seemingly illogical. In this article, the authors argue that jury instructions regarding damages are vague because the law of damages itself is purposefully ambiguous - allowing particularized justice across a variety of different circumstances. The authors review research on comprehension and application of substantive jury instructions related to damages and on procedural variations at trial (e.g., use of preinstruction, bifurcation, blindfolding jurors to various issues, special verdict forms, caps on damages, and instruction revision) that impact the substantive instructions that jurors receive from the judge. They comment on attempts at reforming jury instructions regarding damages and conclude that jurors' decision making on this difficult and emotional issue could be made more predictable by careful reforms at the trial level.

AB - Jury instructions on damage awards are notoriously vague and ambiguous. As a result, awards are sometimes unexpected and seemingly illogical. In this article, the authors argue that jury instructions regarding damages are vague because the law of damages itself is purposefully ambiguous - allowing particularized justice across a variety of different circumstances. The authors review research on comprehension and application of substantive jury instructions related to damages and on procedural variations at trial (e.g., use of preinstruction, bifurcation, blindfolding jurors to various issues, special verdict forms, caps on damages, and instruction revision) that impact the substantive instructions that jurors receive from the judge. They comment on attempts at reforming jury instructions regarding damages and conclude that jurors' decision making on this difficult and emotional issue could be made more predictable by careful reforms at the trial level.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034558659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034558659&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.743

DO - 10.1037/1076-8971.6.3.743

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 743

EP - 768

JO - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

JF - Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

SN - 1076-8971

IS - 3

ER -