Common Sense Justice and Jury Instructions are put together to exemplify information and response between the two; as “analytical and beneficial”. The conjunction of these two objectives gives them “instructive potential for the law”; with not guilty verdicts, hung juries and jury nullification. These two goals are “more likely to be failures of jury instructions” [slightly] than “failures of jurors”” (Norman J. Finkel, 2000). Both objectives have a teaching method that gives jurors no time management and no opportunity to understand the differences. In the judicial system they have two laws; one is the law written in black and common sense justice. The black letter law is a generally known and most common law, and is what legislators have passed, and has been woven through “common law cases and appellate decisions.” The law written in black letters removes instructions from second thoughts and disagreements and establishes a set of clear and precise rules. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000). Common sense justice represents citizens and what they think, what is right and what is wrong; fair and just. The prejudices that jurors have within themselves bring those emotions into the jury box as they are about to judge "the defendant and the law." What citizens believe the law should be is what they think. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000). The instructions for the jurors were “rewritten using psycholinguistic principles” which [showed] that their understanding improved.” “Common sense justice and jury instructions,” adjacent to an “instructive, reciprocal connection,” studies continued to demonstrate on how citizens interpreted the instructions. (Norman J. Finkel, 2000)If the instructions are not understandable...... middle of the paper......tz et. al. 1997). “The standard of proof in a trial is one of these fundamental principles of criminal law.” (Horowitz et. al. 1997). Works Cited Haney, Craig (1997). Common sense justice and capital punishment. Problematizing the "will of the people" Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3(2/3), 303-337. Horowitz, Irwin A. (1997). Reasonable doubt. Instructions for justice based on common sense and the standard of proof. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 3(2/3), 285-302Norman, Finkel J. (2000). Common sense justice and jury instructions. Educational and reciprocal connections. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6(3), 591-628Norman, Finkel J. and Groscup, Jennifer L.. (1997). When mistakes happen. Common sense guilt rules. Psychology, public policies and law, 3(1), 65-125.