Legal Definitions - disparaging instruction

A disparaging instruction refers to a judge's direction to a jury that unfairly criticizes, belittles, or undermines the credibility of a party, a witness, or a piece of evidence presented in a trial. Such an instruction is problematic because it can improperly influence the jury's decision by suggesting the judge's own bias or opinion, thereby compromising the fairness and impartiality of the trial. Judges are expected to remain neutral and provide instructions that are objective and balanced, allowing the jury to make its own determinations based solely on the evidence and the law.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: Disparaging a Party's Legal Argument

  In a civil lawsuit concerning a breach of contract, the defendant's attorney presents a detailed argument that the contract was never validly formed due to a specific legal technicality. During the jury instructions, the judge states, "The defendant's argument about a minor technicality is a desperate attempt to avoid their clear obligations under the agreement."

  This is a disparaging instruction because the judge is not merely explaining the law but is openly criticizing the defendant's legal strategy as "desperate" and their argument as a "minor technicality." This language suggests the judge's personal opinion that the defense lacks merit, potentially prejudicing the jury against the defendant's case and undermining their right to a fair hearing.

• Example 2: Disparaging a Witness's Credibility

  During a criminal trial, a key eyewitness for the defense provides testimony that contradicts previous statements they made to the police. The defense attorney attempts to explain these inconsistencies. When instructing the jury, the judge says, "You have heard the testimony of Witness A. While you must consider all evidence, remember that this witness has shown a pattern of changing their story, so weigh their words with extreme caution."

  This instruction is disparaging because, while a judge can instruct the jury on how to assess witness credibility generally, directly stating that a witness has "shown a pattern of changing their story" and advising "extreme caution" goes beyond neutral guidance. It effectively tells the jury *how* to view the witness's credibility in a negative light, rather than allowing the jury to make that determination independently based on all the evidence and cross-examination.

• Example 3: Disparaging a Piece of Evidence

  In a product liability case, the plaintiff presents an expert report from an engineer who used a novel testing methodology to demonstrate a defect. The defense challenges the validity of this methodology. In the jury instructions, the judge states, "You have seen the report from Dr. Evans. While it is presented as evidence, understand that Dr. Evans's testing methodology is not widely accepted in the mainstream scientific community and has not been peer-reviewed."

  This instruction is disparaging because the judge directly casts doubt on the scientific validity and acceptance of the plaintiff's expert evidence. It is the jury's role to assess the weight and credibility of expert testimony, considering all arguments presented. By making such a statement, the judge effectively undermines the plaintiff's evidence and suggests it should be given less weight, thereby influencing the jury's decision in a way that compromises judicial neutrality.