Search About Newsletters Donate
Donate today. Your gift will be matched.

For a limited time, your donation to The Marshall Project will be matched dollar for dollar by the Chris Wilson Foundation. Show your support for independent, nonprofit journalism this holiday season.

The definition of "malice" in the Webster's New World dictionary.
The Rules

Why You Can’t Use Dictionaries in Court

The many shifting definitions of “malice” and “rape.”

The Place: All federal and state courts

The Rule: Jury members cannot consult outside texts or resources – even dictionaries – during deliberation.

The Reason: Even if they don’t know the meaning of a word, juries must confine their knowledge of a case to what’s presented in court. While dictionaries might seem like a harmless text, most courts have ruled that consulting one is in fact misconduct because it could color a jury’s decision. Take the word “malice.” Merriam-Webster defines it as “a desire to cause harm to another person,” while jury instructions have defined it as “that condition of mind that prompts a person to intentionally inflict damage without just cause, excuse, or justification.”

The Repercussions: If a jury member does use a dictionary, it doesn’t necessarily mean the case will be retried; attorneys have to prove that the definition inappropriately swayed the decision. There have been several cases in which looking up everything from “assault” to “intent” to “wanton” wasn’t enough to warrant overturning a jury’s ruling. But judges in other cases have found that a jury’s use of a dictionary or encyclopedia was enough reason to do it all over again. In 2007, courts overturned a Kentucky man’s rape conviction when it was discovered his jury had looked up the definition of “rape” in the dictionary. Webster and Oxford don’t require “penetration” for something to be considered rape. Kentucky law does.

This is not a paywall.

We’ll never put our work behind a paywall, and we’ll never put a limit on the number of articles you can read. No matter what, you can always turn to The Marshall Project as a source of trustworthy journalism about the criminal justice system.

Donations from readers like you are essential to sustaining this work. Knowing that you’re behind us means so much. Can we count on your support today?

Donate