Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The attorneys should have made some pitch at closing for what they contend it means if it were an issue, or clarified with a follow up question. Witnesses don't get called back. Absent the above the jury is on its own. a term used by a witnessis different than the instructions. they are told that they should ignore anything they hear about what the law might be except for what the judge instructs. The judge likely won't instruct on what most terms used by a witness might mean.
there are times when a definition of a term could be stipulated and then the judge would instruct the jury, but i doubt that happens much in criminal cases. My practice is limited to pawn shop law, so we might stipulate as to "redemption" forfeiture" etc. in our lititgation, but I don't know about criminal law.
|
Hank's right -- this is the lawyers' job, in any trial.
In criminal law, there is a whole body of law and approved instructions about the meanings of particular words and phrases. In civil law too, but especially in criminal law because the right to a jury trial is so critical. A few years ago, the validity of the standard instruction defining of the term "reasonable doubt" was in question in California; had the Supreme Court rejected that definition, it would have been chaos -- literally thousands of cases needing to be retried.
I was in a trial a few years ago where we argued the definition of "but for" for God knows how many hours and pages over the course of several weeks.
