Plain Language Jury Instructions by alicejenny


									                S UNDAY, A PRIL 6, 2008–
                T UESDAY, A PRIL 8, 2008
                Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center

  Plain Language Jury Instructions

Writing toWin
                      Writing to Win:

                             [T]he object of a charge to a jury is not to satisfy an appellate court that you have repeated the right
                             rigamarole of words, but to try to make jurors who are laymen understand what you are talking about.
                                                                          District Judge Charles E.Wyzanski, Jr., Cape Cod Food Products, Inc.,
                                                                             v. National Cranberry Ass'n, 119 F. Supp. 900, 907 (D. Mass. 1954).

                      Judges, lawyers, and scholars agree that the substance, form, and timing of jury instructions require ongoing reform to
                      improve jury comprehension.The first wave of reform began in the 1980s, bolstered by early empirical research that
                      convincingly demonstrated the scope of the problem: Most jurors have great difficulty understanding and applying the law to
                      the facts. During the 1980s, judges and lawyers made some progress by replacing archaic legalese in pattern jury instructions
                      with concise, plain language.

                      Twenty years later, progessive state and federal jurisdictions, recognizing that much remains to be done, have undertaken
                      comprehensive revisions to their pattern jury instructions to make them more understandable to jurors.This symposium
                      brings together judges, scholars, and lawyers who are leading the reform movement to improve jury comprehension by
                      drafting instructions in plain English, tailoring instructions to the unique facts of each case, and providing guidance for the
                      jury in approaching deliberations.

                  Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center, Washburn University                         IN KANSAS: THE TIME IS RIGHT – NOW!
                  Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence              The Honorable Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals; Chair,
                  in Advocacy                                                                  Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil
                  J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law;                         Jury Instructions
                  Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
                                                                                               Like the prairie fires of old, the shift to pattern jury instructions
                                                                                               swept across Kansas in the late 1960s. Committees, rather than judges
                                                                                               and lawyers, began drafting instructions in each case. The chaos
                                                                                               of case-by-case jury instructions gave way to more abstract
                                                                                               expressions of law. In fact, the more abstract an instruction, the
                                                                                               more utility it had for a range of cases. But with abstraction came a
                                                                                               loss of understanding. Committees wrote instructions for lawyers and
                                                                                               judges, not jurors. Today, the freshening wind of the plain language
                                                                                               movement ignites a new fire on the prairie. Effective jury instructions
                                                                                               must give understandable guidance to jurors in approaching the
                                                                                               unfamiliar job of reaching a verdict. Judge Hill will discuss why
                                                                                               format, language, and context are just as important as accuracy in
                                                                                               crafting jury instructions.

                                                                                             • 7 P.M. — DINNER – ON YOUR OWN

                       Writing to Win:
                       Most jury instructions – abstruse, arcane, and complex – are as unintelligible to lay people as they are to practicing attorneys
                       and experienced judges.The legal system places an enormous burden on jurors to apply the law to the unique facts of each
                       case and reach a just decision. It is imperative that jurors understand the law and know how to apply it, especially when a
                       defendant’s life is on the line. Several states, acknowledging decades of empirical research, have replaced their esoteric jury
                       instructions with more understandable versions.While courts traditionally have been reticent about modifying pattern jury
                       instructions, plain language instructions are gaining favor with judges, attorneys, and most importantly, the jurors.

          • 8 A.M. — REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST                                              • 11:10 A.M. — THE JUDICIAL PROCESS OF REVISING JURY
                  Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center                                                          INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPREHENSIBILITY
                                                                                                          Although instructions should be comprehensible to jurors, it is even more
                                                                                                          critical that jury instructions provide an accurate and comprehensive
                  Thomas J. Romig, Dean and Professor of Law,
                                                                                                          statement of the law. Rewriting and simplifying a pattern jury instruction that
                  Washburn University School of Law
                                                                                                          includes multifaceted—and often unclear—legal principles can be quite
                  Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director,
                                                                                                          challenging. Moreover, trial judges may resist changing established jury
                  Center for Excellence in Advocacy
                                                                                                          instructions out of fear that verdicts will be overturned on appeal. This panel
                  J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law;
                                                                         Thomas J. Romig                  brings together jurists and scholars to discuss how various jurisdictions have
                  Director, Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
                                                                                                          revised jury instructions to reconcile these competing concerns. Each panelist
                                                                                                          has first-hand experience in overcoming the obstacles to rewriting jury
                                                                                                          instructions in plain language.
                  Jamison Wilcox, Associate Professor of Law,                                             Moderator:
                  Quinnipiac University School of Law                                                      The Honorable Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals; Chair,
                  More than twenty years ago at the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut,                  Kansas Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury
                  Professor Wilcox organized and moderated an academic symposium on plain                   Instructions
                  language jury instructions. Reflecting the broad appeal of the topic, numerous          Panel Members:
                  judges, attorneys, and scholars participated. Over the years since 1985, has the          Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law;
                  plain-language movement effected significant improvements in jury                         Reporter, Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions in
                  instructions? Professor Wilcox will review the empirical research, dating to the          Civil Cases
                  late 1970s, that convincingly documents the lack of comprehensibility of                  The Honorable David D. Noce, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District
                  pattern jury instructions to most lay jurors. He will also address how lawyers’           Court, Eastern District of Missouri; Member, Eighth Circuit Civil Jury
                  typical shortcomings as legal drafters may help explain the all-too-frequent              Instructions Subcommittee
                  use of obscure legal language in jury instructions.                                       Joseph Kimble, Professor of Law, Thomas Cooley School of Law;
                                                                                                            Drafting Consultant, Sixth Circuit Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions
          • 10:10 A.M. — KEYNOTE ADDRESS: PLAIN LANGUAGE                                                    and Michigan Committee on Standard Criminal Jury Instructions
            JURY INSTRUCTIONS: THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE                                                    Wayne Schiess, Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law;
                  The Honorable Carol A. Corrigan, Keynote Speaker and Visiting Jurist                      Writing Consultant, Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain Language Project
                  Scholar; Justice, California Supreme Court; Chair, California Judicial                    James M. Concannon, Distinguished Professor of Law, Washburn
                  Council Task Force on Jury Instructions, 1997-2005                                        University School of Law; Member, Kansas Judicial Council Advisory
                                                                                                            Committee on Criminal and Civil Jury Instructions
                  In 1996, California’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Jury System Improvement
                  observed that “jury instructions as presently given in California and elsewhere        • 12 P.M. — LUNCH PROVIDED
                  are, on occasion, simply impenetrable to the ordinary juror.” In response, the
                  California Judicial Council created the Task Force on Jury Instructions and
                  appointed now-Justice Carol A. Corrigan as its Chair. The mission was to
                  draft comprehensive, legally accurate jury instructions that could be readily
                  understood by the average juror. After years of diligent committee work, the
                  Judicial Council approved a revised set of civil jury instructions and special
                  verdict forms in 2003 and a new set of criminal jury instructions in 2005.
                  Justice Corrigan will address how the Task Force successfully countered the
                  forces of inertia and fear of change by “making the case” for plain language
                  jury instructions, in part by emphasizing the need to reach an increasingly
                  heterogeneous community.

• 1:30 P.M. — TEXAS PATTERN JURY CHARGES                                                • 3:10 P.M. — INNOVATIONS IN TIMING, STRUCTURE, AND
  PLAIN LANGUAGE PROJECT: THE WRITING                                                     DELIVERY OF JURY INSTRUCTIONS
  CONSULTANT’S VIEW                                                                      Arcane language is not the only problem with jury instructions. Traditional
  Wayne Schiess, Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law;                    methods of presentation are also significant barriers to juror understanding.
  Writing Consultant, Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain Language Project                  Trial courts are increasingly exploring ways to encourage jurors to become
  Professor Schiess discusses the details of the Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain        more actively engaged in the trial process – for example, by allowing jurors to
  Language Project: the original legalese and the new plain English, the                 take notes during trial, write questions for witnesses, and discuss the case
  squabbles over "preponderance" and "circumstantial," the politics of changing          before final deliberations. Scholars and jurists have suggested other
  long-standing instructions, and the jaw-dropping insights from watching real           innovations, such as altering the timing of jury instructions, instructing the
  jurors deliberate with the old and new instructions. He presents a view from           jury how to approach deliberations, giving special interrogatories, and
  the trenches – where an idealistic legal writing consultant butts heads with           providing meaningful responses to jury questions during deliberations. Our
  judges, lawyers, and jury consultants.                                                 distinguished panelists will discuss a variety of innovative strategies for
                                                                                         improving jury decision-making.
  JURY INSTRUCTIONS                                                                      Moderator:
  Joseph Kimble, Professor of Law, Thomas Cooley Law School;                              Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence
  Drafting Consultant, Sixth Circuit Committee on Pattern Jury                             in Advocacy
  Instructions and Michigan Committee on Standard Criminal                               Panel Members:
  Jury Instructions.                                                                       Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
                                                                                           The Honorable David D. Noce, Adjunct Professor, St. Louis University
  To achieve the best results, a jury instructions committee needs to think
                                                                                           School of Law and Washington University School of Law
  carefully about the process for carrying out its work. This presentation will
                                                                                           Justice R. Eugene Pincham (retired), Appellate Court of Illinois;
  cover choosing a writer, adopting style guides, setting aside some myths about
                                                                                           former Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
  plain language, recognizing that jury instructions are a unique form of legal
                                                                                           Sarah Ubel, Associate Professor of Communications, Washburn University
  writing, getting comments from committee members, and testing the results.
                                                                                        • 4:15 P.M. — RECEPTION
                                                                                        • 6:30 P.M. — DINNER – ON YOUR OWN

                        Looking Forward:
                        Given the significance of jury instructions, judges, litigators, and educators must collaborate to enhance comprehensibility to
                        the primary audience – the jury. Rewriting jury instructions in plain language is the first step, but what other innovations are
                        underway to improve the presentation of jury instructions? Even if jurors understand the law, how can courts ensure that they
                        know how to apply the law to the facts? What do law schools need to teach future attorneys about jury instructions, jury
                        deliberations, and the dynamics of jury decision-making? How do successful litigators use jury instructions in investigating the
                        facts, drafting court documents, and planning trial strategy? The future of the jury as an American institution depends on
                        litigators who use plain language jury instructions as a component of effective trial strategy.
            • 8 A.M. — REGISTRATION AND CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST                                • 8:30 A.M. — BRINGING JURY INSTRUCTIONS
                    Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center                                            INTO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
                                                                                               Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
                                                                                               Empirical studies of jury instructions show that they are incomprehensible to
                                                                                               the layperson, poorly structured, and delivered ineffectively. Given the strong
                                                                                               evidence that jurors do not understand them, this presentation focuses on two
                                                                                               related questions: First, why have jury instructions been so resistant to reform?
                                                                                               Second, what can be done to improve the delivery and effectiveness of jury
                                                                                               instructions? How can the language be made more comprehensible? What
                                                                                               tools can jurors be given to understand the structure of jury instructions?
                                                                                               Efforts to simplify the language and to use new methods to deliver jury
                                                                                               instructions are critical if the jury is to remain a vital institution.

• 9:30 A.M. — WHAT LAW SCHOOLS CAN DO:                                                  • 11:30 A.M. — EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUES FOR USING JURY
                                                                                            Many trial judges agree that litigators can and should make more effective use
 Most trial attorneys who actively participate in legal education agree that too            of jury instructions in preparing a case for trial. For example, draft jury
 little time is devoted in law school to the study of jury instructions and jury            instructions should be prepared before discovery begins to focus the issues
 deliberations. Because jury instructions relate in some way to many aspects of             during pretrial proceedings, subject to continuing refinement as the case
 trial litigation, they should be a common component of every law school                    progresses to trial. The draft charge is useful in preparing for pretrial
 curriculum. Yet many attorneys study jury instructions in depth for the first              conferences, conducting voir dire, and presenting opening and closing
 time on appeal from their first jury trial, and law schools seldom teach about             arguments. A well-prepared jury charge effectively frames the issues for a more
 the group dynamics of jury decision-making. Our panelists teach a variety of               focused presentation to the jury. Special interrogatories and innovative verdict
 law school courses that address jury instructions as a tool for trial advocacy.            forms are increasingly used to guide jury deliberations. This panel, composed of
 The panel will discuss how law schools can more effectively use jury                       experienced trial judges and seasoned litigators, discusses how advocates can
 instructions to prepare trial attorneys for law practice.                                  effectively use jury instructions as a road map to guide litigation strategy.

 Moderator:                                                                                 Moderator:
  J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law; Director, Legal                       The Honorable J. Thomas Marten, U.S. District Court, District
   Analysis, Research, and Writing Program                                                    of Kansas
 Panel Members:                                                                             Panel Members:
   Nancy S. Marder, Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law                             The Honorable David D. Noce, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court,
   The Honorable David D. Noce, Adjunct Professor, St. Louis                                  Eastern District of Missouri
   University School of Law and Washington University School of Law                           James D. Griffin, Partner, Blackwell Sanders LLP, Kansas City, Missouri
   Mary Barnard Ray, Assistant Director, Legal Research and Writing                           J. Stan Sexton, Partner, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, Missouri
   Program; Writing Specialist, Individualized Instruction Service,                           Justice R. Eugene Pincham (retired), Appellate Court of Illinois;
   University of Wisconsin Law School                                                         former Judge, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
   Jamison Wilcox, Associate Professor of Law, Quinnipiac School of Law
                                                                                        • 12:30 P.M. — LUNCH PROVIDED
  THOUGHTFUL ADVOCATE: FROM THE CLIENT                                                  • 1:30 P.M. — CONCLUDING REMARKS
  INTERVIEW TO DELIBERATIONS AND BEYOND                                                     The Honorable Stephen D. Hill, Kansas Court of Appeals
 The Honorable David D. Noce, Adjunct Professor, St. Louis University                       Michael Kaye, Professor of Law; Director, Center for Excellence
 School of Law and Washington University School of Law                                      in Advocacy
                                                                                            J. Lyn Entrikin Goering, Associate Professor of Law; Director,
 Jury instructions can be effective tools of advocacy for the thoughtful litigator.
                                                                                            Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program
 Instructions can suggest factors for deciding whether to take on a client.
 They can guide counsel in drafting pleadings and conducting the factual
 investigation of the case. The language and terminology in proposed
 instructions can be used in pretrial discovery requests and in deposition
 questions. At trial, consideration of instruction topics can suggest trial strategy.
 Witnesses can be questioned using language the jury will hear when the court
 instructs the jury. Proposed cautionary and limiting instructions can persuade
 the court to admit contested evidence. Proper use of instructions during closing
 argument can persuade the jury of the strength of the client's case. Correct
 instructions might safeguard a favorable verdict on appeal. Judge Noce
 discusses the various ways winning litigators incorporate jury instructions from
 the very beginning of a client’s case.

                Symposium Speakers
                          JAMES M. CONCANNON – Distinguished                                                         MICHAEL KAYE – Professor of Law; Director,
                          Professor of Law, Washburn University                                                      Center for Excellence in Advocacy, Washburn
                          School of Law; Member, Kansas Judicial                                                     University School of Law
                          Council Advisory Committee on Criminal                                                      Professor Kaye received his undergraduate degree
                                                                                                                      from Case Western Reserve University, his J.D. from
                          and Civil Jury Instructions                                                                 Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and his LL.M. from
                         Professor Concannon served as Dean of Washburn                                               New York University. Professor Kaye is an experienced
                         University School of Law from 1988-2001. He is                                               public defender. He was in private practice in California
                         licensed to practice in state courts in Kansas, the U.S.          and studied at the Comparative Law Institute in Grenoble, France. He was a
District Court for Kansas, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the         visiting professor of law at Whittier College School of Law from 1990 to 1991.
Supreme Court of the United States. He served as Research Attorney for the
Kansas Supreme Court and was a Visiting Professor at Washington University                                           JOSEPH KIMBLE – Professor of Law, Thomas
School of Law in St. Louis. He was a Senior Contributing Editor of Evidence in
America: The Federal Rules in the States and serves on the National Conference of
                                                                                                                     Cooley School of Law
                                                                                                                     Joseph Kimble has taught legal writing at Thomas
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
                                                                                                                     Cooley Law School for 25 years. He is the author of
                          J. LYN ENTRIKIN GOERING – Associate                                                        Lifting the Fog of Legalese: Essays on Plain Language;
                                                                                                                     the editor in chief of The Scribes Journal of Legal Writing;
                          Professor of Law; Director, Legal Analysis,                                                the longtime editor of the “Plain Language” column
                          Research, and Writing Program, Washburn                                                    in Michigan Bar Journal; the past president of the
                          University School of Law                                                                   international organization Clarity; and the drafting
                          Professor Goering worked for the Kansas Legislature as           consultant on all federal court rules. He recently led the redrafting of the
                          a nonpartisan legislative fiscal analyst before attending        Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is now working on the Federal Rules of
                          Washburn University School of Law. She was editor in             Evidence. He also served as a consultant to the Sixth Circuit Committee on
                          chief of the Washburn Law Journal. Upon graduation,              Pattern Jury Instructions and the Michigan Committee on Standard Criminal
she worked as a research attorney for the late Justice Richard Holmes of the               Jury Instructions.
Kansas Supreme Court and as administrative assistant to the Chief Justice. She
was also a law clerk to Judge Dale Saffels, U.S. District Court, before joining the                                   NANCY S. MARDER – Professor of Law,
Topeka law firm of Wright, Henson, Somers, Sebelius, Clark & Baker. She later                                         Chicago-Kent College of Law
served in the Legal Opinions and Government Counsel Division of the Kansas                                            Nancy S. Marder is a Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent
Attorney General’s Office. In 1996, she was appointed to the Kansas Board of Tax                                      College of Law. She is a graduate of Yale College,
Appeals, the highest administrative tax tribunal in Kansas. Upon completing her                                       Cambridge University, and Yale Law School, where she
term, she established a solo law practice. Professor Goering joined the faculty of                                    was an Articles Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Professor
Washburn University School of Law in August 2003 and was appointed Director                                           Marder has clerked at every level of the United States
of the Legal Analysis, Research, and Writing Program in 2004.                                                         federal court system, including a two-year clerkship with
                                                                                                                      Justice John Paul Stevens at the U.S. Supreme Court,
                          JAMES D. GRIFFIN – Partner, Blackwell Sanders                    and one-year clerkships with Judge William A. Norris at the U.S. Court of Appeals
                          LLP, Kansas City, Missouri                                       for the Ninth Circuit and Judge Leonard B. Sand in the Southern District of New
                           Jim Griffin is a partner at Blackwell Sanders in Kansas         York. Professor Marder has written numerous articles on the jury that have
                           City, Missouri, specializing in complex civil litigation.       appeared in law reviews such as Northwestern University Law Review, Texas Law
                           He has tried in excess of 30 jury cases as a first-chair        Review, Iowa Law Review, and Southern California Law Review. She has written a
                           trial lawyer, in addition to several bench trials. Mr.          book on the jury entitled The Jury Process (Foundation Press, 2005). Her work on
                           Griffin is a fellow of the American College of Trial            the jury has covered a wide range of issues from technology and juries to the
                           Lawyers and served as its Kansas Chair from 2004 until          proper roles of peremptory challenges, jury instructions, and jury nullification.
2006. Since 1997, he has been recognized by the publication “Best Lawyers in               She has presented her work on the jury at many conferences and symposia both in
America” for civil litigation in Kansas, and in 2003 was chosen as one of eight            this country and abroad and regularly teaches a law school course on the jury
“tier-one” general commercial litigators in Missouri by Chambers & Partners.               entitled Juries, Judges & Trials.
Mr. Griffin graduated cum laude from Kansas State University in 1980 with a B.S.
in Economics and received his J.D. from the University of Virginia Law School in                                      J.THOMAS MARTEN – Judge, United States
1983. He has practiced at Blackwell Sanders for 24 years and is Vice-Chair of its                                     District Court, District of Kansas
Litigation Department.                                                                                                Judge Marten was nominated by President William J.
                                                                                                                      Clinton on October 18, 1995, to a seat vacated by Patrick
                          STEPHEN D. HILL – Judge, Kansas Court                                                       F. Kelly. He was confirmed by the Senate on January 2,
                          of Appeals; Chair, Kansas Judicial Council                                                  1996, and was commissioned on January 4, 1996.
                          Advisory Committee on Criminal and Civil                                                   He received his bachelor’s degree from Washburn
                          Jury Instructions                                                                          University in 1973 and his law degree from Washburn
                          Judge Hill received his undergraduate degree in English          University School of Law in 1976. He began his distinguished career first as a law
                          from the University of Kansas and his J.D. from                  clerk for Justice Tom Clark, Supreme Court of the United States, in 1976. In 1977,
                          Washburn University School of Law. He started his own            he went into private practice in Omaha, Nebraska. He continued working in
                          firm of Hill & Wisler in 1975 and practiced law in               private practice in Minneapolis, Minnesota from 1980 to 1981, and then moved to
Mound City, Kansas until he became the Linn County Attorney in 1976. Hill was              McPherson, Kansas in 1981, where he worked in private practice until his federal
appointed associate district judge in 1981 by Gov. John Carlin and then district           judicial appointment in 1996.
judge in 1982 in the Sixth Judicial District in Kansas. He subsequently became
administrative judge and then chief judge of the district until Gov. Kathleen
Sebelius appointed him to the Kansas Court of Appeals in 2003. Judge Hill presided
over numerous criminal and civil trials across the state by order of the Supreme
Court and was commissioner of the Kansas Judicial Initiative in 1998. He is a past
member of the Kansas District Judges Association executive committee.

                          DAVID D. NOCE – Magistrate Judge, U.S.                                                         WAYNE SCHIESS – Professor of Law and
                          District Court, Eastern District of Missouri;                                                  Director of Legal Writing, University of Texas
                          Adjunct Professor, St. Louis University School of                                              School of Law
                          Law and Washington University School of Law                                                    Wayne Schiess is the director of the legal writing program
                           Judge David Noce received his A.B. degree from St. Louis                                      at the University of Texas School of Law. He teaches legal
                           University and his J.D. from the University of Missouri                                       writing, legal drafting, and plain English. He is also a
                           School of Law in 1969. He taught business law in college                                      frequent seminar speaker on those subjects. He has
                           before serving as a legal officer on active duty in the                                       published more than a dozen articles on practical legal
United States Army from 1970 to 1972. From 1972 to 1975, he was the law clerk                                            writing skills, plus two books: Writing for the Legal
for two federal district judges in St. Louis. From 1975 to 1976, he served as an               Audience and Better Legal Writing. He is an associate editor for the Scribes Journal of
assistant United States Attorney, prosecuting federal criminal cases. In 1976, he was          Legal Writing. He graduated from Cornell Law School, practiced law for three years
appointed the second magistrate judge of the United States District Court for the              at the Texas firm of Baker Botts, and in 1992 joined the faculty at the University of
Eastern District of Missouri. From 1989 to 1996, he served as the chief magistrate             Texas School of Law. For the past two years he has served as the drafting consultant
judge of the district court. He has presided over many hearings and trials, both               for the Texas Pattern Jury Charges Plain Language Task Force.
jury and non-jury, in civil and criminal cases.                                                                          J. STAN SEXTON – Partner, Shook, Hardy
Judge Noce is a longtime member of the Eighth Circuit Subcommittee on Model                                              & Bacon, Kansas City, Missouri
Civil Jury Instructions, and he is an editor of the Federal Courts Law Review. He is                                     Mr. Sexton has been a fellow in the American College
a former member of the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference of                                              of Trial Lawyers since 1994. More recently, he was listed
the United States.                                                                                                       in The Best Lawyers in America and Missouri and Kansas
Since 1996, Judge Noce has taught his course, Jury Instructions and the Trial                                            Super Lawyers 2006. He is a frequent legal education
Process, at both St. Louis University School of Law and Washington University                                            lecturer, author of articles on trial procedure and trial
School of Law in St. Louis. His Jury Instructions Drafting Workbook was published                                        practice, and teacher of the firm’s trial advocacy
by West Group in 1999. He has participated in many continuing legal education                                            program courses in Basic Litigation Skills and Advance
programs for judges and lawyers sponsored by the United States District Court, the             Trial Workshop. As technology partner for the firm and its General Litigation
Federal Judicial Center, the Missouri Bar, the Bar Association of Metropolitan St.             Division, Mr. Sexton is responsible for effective and efficient deployment of
Louis, and other groups.                                                                       technology solutions.

                          R. EUGENE PINCHAM – Justice (retired),                                                         SARAH UBEL – Associate Professor of
                          Appellate Court of Illinois; former Judge, Circuit                                             Communications, Washburn University
                                                                                                                          Dr. Ubel graduated from Baker University with degrees in
                          Court of Cook County, Illinois                                                                  Psychology and Political Science. After graduation, she
                          R. Eugene Pincham, an untiring human rights activist,                                           attended and graduated from the University of Kansas
                          lawyer, and outspoken critic of the criminal justice                                            School of Law. She continued her education at the
                          system, is a former judge of the Circuit Court of Cook                                          University of Kansas in the field of Communication,
                          County and retired justice of the Appellate Court of                                            receiving her Ph.D. Her graduate education focused on
                          Illinois. He earned a B.S. in Political Science from                                            legal communication, gender communication, and
                          Tennessee State University in Nashville. In 1948, he                 persuasion. During her years in graduate school, she worked for communication
enrolled in Northwestern University School of Law. Despite the fact that he had to             and trial consulting firms in Chicago, Kansas City, and Lawrence. She was an
wait tables at the Palmer House Hotel and shine shoes as a full-time student,                  assistant editor of Court Call magazine, the publication of the American Society
Pincham earned a J.D. in 1951. A member of the American Civil Liberties Union                  of Trial Consultants. Dr. Ubel has regularly presented papers related to legal
and a lifetime member of the NAACP, the semi-retired Pincham lectures and                      communication at the National Communication Association annual conference
instructs in trial and appellate techniques and advocacy. He has received numerous             and the Central States Communication Association annual conference. Dr. Ubel
awards for his professional and community service and activism.                                has taught courses in the Communication department at Washburn University
                                                                                               such as Conflict and Negotiation, Communication in the Legal Process,
                          MARY BARNARD RAY – Assistant Director,                               Communication Theory, Research Methods, and Gender and Communication, in
                          Legal Research and Writing Program; Writing                          addition to Public Speaking. Her research interests are related to credibility in
                          Specialist, Individualized Instruction Service,                      court and gendered stereotypes of attorneys. She also coaches Washburn
                                                                                               University’s undergraduate Mock Trial team.
                          University of Wisconsin Law School
                            Mary Barnard Ray began her work at the University                                            JAMISON WILCOX – Associate Professor of
                            of Wisconsin Law School in 1978 by creating the                                              Law, Quinnipiac University School of Law
                            Individualized Instruction Service (IIS). Her work later                                      Professor Wilcox has long tried to convince the bench and
                            expanded to creating the first Advanced Legal Writing                                         bar to make jury instructions understandable. He is the
course in 1980, writing a column for Wisconsin Lawyer, and authoring books and                                            author of an article intended to show that using plain
articles on legal writing. In 1984, she was voted Teacher of the Year by the Legal                                        language in jury instructions is not unreasonably difficult,
Education Opportunities (LEO) Program.                                                                                    The Craft of Drafting Plain Language Jury Instructions:
She has been the primary author on two innovative legal writing books. Legal                                              A Study of a Sample Pattern Instruction on Obscenity,
Writing: Getting It Right and Getting It Written was the first reference book                                             59 Temp. L.Q. 1159 (1986). For a dozen years at
specifically for legal writing. Beyond the Basics was the first text to present advanced       Quinnipiac University School of Law, Professor Wilcox has taught a course in legal
writing techniques for legal writing, providing a resource that spurred the growth of          drafting, in which he helps law students to laugh at legalese, including typical
advanced legal writing courses nationwide. She has also produced a videotape used              pattern jury instructions, and to improve typical lawyer-drafted passages –
in many instructor training programs and has written professional articles on                  unfortunately an easier task than it should be. Before going into teaching, Professor
various legal writing topics. She has taught in five regional LEO summer programs              Wilcox served as a federal district court law clerk in New Jersey and engaged in
and has consulted for businesses, government agencies, judges, professors, and                 litigation practice with two large firms in New York, New York. He is a graduate
practicing lawyers.                                                                            of Amherst College and Columbia Law School. Besides law, he likes discussing
                                                                                               geopolitics, behavioral economics, medical physics, and other subjects, and has
                                                                                               recently been enjoying yoga.

Keynote Speaker
                            CAROL A. CORRIGAN – Associate Justice,                     In January 2007, the Task Force was once again honored for its dedicated work
                            California Supreme Court; Chair, California                in improving legal writing when the Legal Writing Institute presented Justice
                            Judicial Council Task Force on Jury                        Corrigan and her colleagues with the Golden Pen Award. The award recognizes
                                                                                       persons who have significantly advanced the cause of better legal writing.
                            Instructions, 1997-2005
                            Justice Corrigan was first appointed to the bench in       Justice Corrigan has been on the faculty of the University of California
                            1987. She has served on every level of the California      Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and Boalt Hall School of Law
                            judiciary, joining the Supreme Court in 2006. She          in Berkeley. She has also served on the law faculties of the University of San
                            was a trial lawyer in the Alameda County District          Francisco and the University of Puget Sound. In addition, she has taught
                            Attorney’s Office from 1975 to 1987.                       numerous programs for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy for over 25
                                                                                       years. In 1997, the National Institute presented her with the Distinguished
                             From 1997 to 2005, while serving on the California        Faculty Award.
                             Court of Appeals, Justice Corrigan chaired the
                             California Judicial Council Task Force on Jury            Justice Corrigan earned her B.A., magna cum laude, from Holy Names
     Instructions. In 2003, the California Judicial Council was presented with the     College in 1970, where she was President of the Student Body and the
     Burton Award for Outstanding Reform in recognition of the dedicated work          recipient of the Founder’s Medal. She did graduate work in Clinical
     of the Task Force in rewriting California’s pattern jury instructions into more   Psychology at Saint Louis University from 1970-1972. While attending the
     concise and understandable language. The Burton Awards are dedicated to           University of California Hastings College of the Law, she served as the Law
     refining and enriching legal writing by both lawyers and law school students.     Journal’s Note and Comment Editor, graduating in 1975.

REGISTRATION for the Writing to Win symposium is complimentary. Seating for the symposium is limited.
To ensure sufficient accommodations for guests, you must pre-register online at
The web site also has links to Topeka hotels, directions and maps to Washburn University, parking information, and
a restaurant guide. Please check the web site for updates.
If you have questions about the symposium, please contact Donna Vilander at or
call (785) 670-1105.
CLE accreditation is pending in Kansas and Missouri.
Writing to Win sessions are scheduled at Washburn University, Bradbury Thompson Alumni Center, 1700 SW Jewell Ave., Topeka, Kansas.


                                                                                                                                                   U.S. POSTAGE
                                                                                                                                                    TOPEKA, KS
                                                                                                                                                  PERMIT NO. 689
1700 SW College Avenue • Topeka, Kansas 66621-1140

To top