Search About Subscribe Donate
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.

Before you go...

Can you help us make a difference?

The Marshall Project produces journalism that makes an impact. Our investigation into violence using police dogs prompted departments from Indiana to Louisiana to change their policies. Thousands of cameras were installed in the infamous Attica prison after we revealed the extent of violent abuse by guards. Municipalities stopped charging parents for their kids’ incarceration because of our reporting. Supreme Court justices have cited us, along with incarcerated people acting as their own lawyers.

The type of reporting we practice takes persistence, skill and, above all, time, which is why we need your support. Donations from readers like you allow us to commit the time and attention needed to tell stories that are driving real change. We could not do it without you.

Please donate to The Marshall Project today. We’re extremely grateful to each and every donor who helps power our journalism. Your support goes a long way toward sustaining this important work.

Donate