neither the legal system nor psychology focus a lot on "truth" (that's philosophy). The law talks about "proof" and "facts" but psychology doesn't. Both fields want to use valid and reliable procedures (for trial or research). The biggest conflict comes because the legal system seeks a final resolution for every case, but the scientific method used by psychologists reaches conclusions that can be changed in the future.

How does the concern about evolving science vs. resolving conflicts/final decisions apply to the issue of incomprehensible jury instructions? In your answer, also explain whether appellate judges making a legal decision might think about the choice and goals differently than a psychologist conducting research on the issue would.