Much fun is made of lawyers and judges for their use of "legalese," the often obscure language of the courtroom. The ordinary folk who make up juries are frequently less than fluent in this legal tongue, however, and their lack of training may have serious consequences. Mystified by the instructions given to them as they begin deliberations, jurors may rely on their impressions of the judge's opinion instead of deciding on their own.
Robert Rosenthal, Ph.D., of Harvard University, reports in the Journal of Applied Psychology that at a mock trial in which jurors were given standard jury instructions, their verdicts often mirrored the judge's belief in the defendant's guilt or innocence. They became aware of the Judge's opinion, says Rosenthal, by observing his non-verbal behavior: facial expressions, body movements, tone of voice.
Jurors who viewed the same case in plain English, on the other hand, were more likely to return verdicts at odds with the judge's expectations. Despite attorneys' arguments for the exactitude of the current wording, says Rosenthal, "it's hard to imagine that the precision of the language could justify the inability of jurors to understand it."
