The feasibility and utility of pretrial instruction in the substantive law

Jurors are traditionally instructed in the governing law after trial, just prior to deliberation. Several legal scholars have proposed that instructing jurorsprior to trial would better equip them to evaluate the evidence and integrate it with the law. The most controversial aspect of this position is preinstruction in thesubstantive law. Critics warn that substantive preinstruction may impair jurors' performance and that it poses unreasonable administrative problems. This research surveys the opinions of California Superior Court judges on the advantages and disadvantages of substantive preinstruction to understand the reasons that judges either do or do not preinstruct on substantive issues. The most important advantage to emerge was the potential for a substantive precharge to improve jurors' integration of facts and law. The most critical disadvantages were administrative ones: The judge does not know before trial what substantive instructions are appropriate, and the procedure may cause burdensome delays.