Formal written jury instructions became opaque to the juries they supposedly guided.

Evidence

Instructions became formal written documents, drafted by lawyers. Each side drew up its own set of instructions. The judge picked out those that were (in his judgment) legally “correct.” These instructions tended to be technical, legalistic, utterly opaque. They were instructions that did nothing, really, to instruct a jury, that is, to explain what the law actually meant; the medium conveyed no message. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2316

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels ch51’s anti-progress effect of technical constitutional clauses: formal rules crafted by insiders that block their own stated purpose. Also resonates with record-worship theme from ch20. — connects to: Unclear capital sentencing instructions cause jurors dangerous confusion. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1999; Unintelligible sentencing instructions let jurors displace responsibility for death sentences — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1995; Legal writing can encode hidden agendas and power shifts. — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 449 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Jurors displace moral responsibility onto incomprehensible sentencing instructions. #expands (0.95) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1995
• Unintelligible sentencing instructions let jurors displace responsibility for death sentences #expands (0.92) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1995
• Unclear capital sentencing instructions cause jurors dangerous confusion. #expands (0.90) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 1999
• Jurors displace guilt onto the legal system’s decisions #complicates (0.85) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2001
• Legal writing can encode hidden agendas and power shifts. #expands (0.78) — Ivan Davidson Kalmar, Derek Penslar, Orientalism and the Jews, 449