ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Plain English? Revisions plain common sense

David J. Dreyer
September 1, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-David“The Indiana Model Civil Jury Instructions, written in plain English, are now available. … The new instructions were prepared by the Civil Instructions Committee of the Indiana Judges Association.”

This hot news release from the Indiana Judicial Center is historic. First, it clearly acknowledges the old Instructions were written in some other form of English, if not some other language altogether. Second, it shows that we judges are all about helping lay people understand the law, especially since “Judge Judy” started airing. But third, it marks a significant, and badly needed, departure from tradition.

Not all such departures are bad, as new federal Judges Tanya Walton Pratt and Jane Magnus-Stinson might attest. Just as time and experience compel growing diversity in our justice system, judges are looking ahead to make law more accessible and understandable.

The committee chair, Lake Superior Judge John R. Pera, cited the committee’s “sense of purpose” to revise instructions into language more commonly used by the average juror and make the system more efficient. He explained, “We want everyone to remember who the audience is.”

The committee, with the able support of staffer Julie McDonald, also relied upon the expertise of professor Elizabeth Francis from the University of Nevada Reno. She told me if instructions are more “functionally clear, they will be better retained by jurors.” There are upcoming seminars to help explain this brave new plain English world.

If plain English is the solution, what is the problem?

Well, here’s an example: No normal person ever describes an event by using the term “proximate cause,” except lawyers who, as we all know, are recovering law students. So Judge Pera and his Civil Instructions Committee produced a new instruction – without using the words “proximate cause.”

What? How can this possibly work when we have used “proximate cause” since Alexander the Great defeated the Persians? Bryan A. Garner, the well-known editor of Black’s Law Dictionary, head of LawProse Inc., and plain English expert, finds this extraordinary.

“I have been revising jury instructions for 20 years, and I have never been able convince anyone to remove ‘proximate cause,’” said Garner.

Francis also lauded Indiana judges: “They honor their jurors as members of the court.”

Although plain English instructions are new to Indiana, Garner traces such efforts as far back as Timothy Walker’s 1850 “Introduction to American Law. Garner’s own 1987 book, “A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage,” is the manual for the contemporary plain English movement.

“When you make it easier for jurors,” said Garner, “you make it easier for lawyers as well.”

So we now have the following: “A person’s conduct is legally responsible for causing an injury if: (1) the injury would not have occurred without the conduct, and (2) the injury was a natural, probable, and foreseeable result of the conduct. This is called a “responsible cause.”

Plain and simple. No more “proximate cause” because it is not a phrase that real people really use to talk about anything anyway. In fact, it sounds more like “approximate,” or like a close cause, but not the real cause. The committee noted in its comments to the new Instructions:

Prosser and Keeton say that proximate cause is “is an unfortunate word, which places entirely the wrong emphasis on the factor of physical or mechanical closeness.” (“The word ‘proximate’ is a legacy of Lord Chancellor Bacon, who in his time committed other sins.”) The committee has determined that use of a term so likely to be misunderstood is against the policy behind clear jury instructions.

What about “preponderance of the evidence”? I once heard a juror mispronounce this term as “preposterousness of the evidence.” (In some cases, this is not a mispronunciation). The committee wisely found this archaic and uncommon. Thus, there are now new instructions about burden of proof upon the issues, for example: “Plaintiff must prove her claims by the greater weight of the evidence … Evidence is of the greater weight if it convinces you most strongly of its truthfulness. In other words, it is evidence that convinces you that a fact is more probably true than not true …

See, no more “preponderance of the evidence.” Who knows what a “preponderance” is, anyway? More importantly, lay Hoosiers can much more easily understand “greater weight,” especially around State Fair season.

Ultimately, I hope this also leads to a Plain Common Sense Movement encompassing all aspects of legal practice – like a rule prohibiting the statement “It is what it is, Judge.” (OK, but why can’t they tell me what it is?)

It may take some time for these new plain English instructions to take root. But as they grow, the public will begin to appreciate the worthy work of lawyers and judges about what is most important in our profession – bringing the law to real people, and so real justice.•

__________

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School, and a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT