Jury Instructions: A Narrative Analysis

As we walked into the jury room, after hearing the case of Commonwealth v. Miller, I had already decided how I would vote and, honestly, I determined I was not going to be swayed. We swiftly chose a foreman by appointing the one, who had been given the jury instructions, to that position. Next, we read the jury instructions out loud, in order to remember and understand the definition of each charge. Debate over the meaning of the instructions ensued for a short amount of time before we dove into determining guilt or innocence. Everyone was given a chance to discuss the case and, personally, I felt comfortable entering the discussion and debating the case. After discussion, we voted and were evenly split among guilty or not guilty. Next, we
The first was over the meaning of specific words (and even comma placement) in the jury instructions. The second was over which witness was more trustworthy or reliable. The first debate, and the most interesting to me, centered on the wording of the jury instructions. Many of the instructions were vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations. A phrase that we focused on during our deliberations was “made known his desire for peace by word or act.” There is no set law for what defines a word or act that makes known the desire for peace. The words and acts that make known this desire are subject to the will of the jury. In this case, Miller attempted to leave the room after being shouted at and accused of cheating. I believed this to be an act that made known his desire for peace, however, not all of my fellow jurors felt the same way. After a heated debate on the sentence, we decided to grant the benefit of the doubt to Miller and say it showed his desire for peace. Another phrase that we debated was “That such stabbing was with intent to kill or permanently maim, disfigure or disable Troy Counts.” We were unsure if the word “permanently” only described maim or if it was describing the words disfigure or disable, as well. If it described all three we would rule out malicious and unlawful stabbing but if it did not we would leave unlawful stabbing as an option for his conviction. In the end, we