摘要：Profess Kalven discusesses the committee's results, including the decision to include only one version of an instruction rather than to include various alternatives. The committee wanted to keep jury instructions clear, to eliminate unecessary instructions, and to weed many of the instructions that the committee had proposed in an earlier meeting. Additionally, the committee focused on ensuring instructions that did not comment on substantive law, enschewing negatively-phrased instructions, and favoring a "good general instruction" over a "large number of specific instructions." Professor Kalven emphasizes the importance of communication throughout the process, both in drafting instructions and in communicating them to the jury. Professor Kalven then reviewed several examples of jury instructions that the Committee rejected, explaining the reasoning behind the rejections.
