Jury Instructions
Drafts proposed jury instructions tailored to case, jurisdiction, and claims at issue.
Prerequisites
Gather before drafting:
- Pleadings/pretrial order — complaint, answer, counterclaims, stipulated facts, MIL rulings
- Jurisdiction — state/federal, specific court, applicable pattern instructions
- Claims and defenses — all causes of action, affirmative defenses, statutory/common-law basis
- Verdict form type — general, special, or interrogatories
- Key evidence — expert witnesses, exhibits, stipulations
Instruction Sequence
Draft in this order using numbered paragraphs with descriptive headings.
1. Preliminary Instructions
Cover: jury's role as fact-finder, evidence limitations (no sympathy/prejudice/outside research), conduct rules (no independent investigation), deliberation expectations.
2. Case Statement
- Neutral, non-argumentative summary from undisputed facts, pleadings, and stipulations only
- Identify parties by name and role; state dispute nature and chronology
- Never use characterizations favorable to either side
3. Legal Definitions
- Define every legal term before it appears in elements instructions
- Source hierarchy: (1) statutory definitions → (2) pattern instructions → (3) controlling case law
- Build progressively — foundational terms first, compound concepts second
4. Elements Instructions
For each claim/charge/defense:
- Number every element
- Identify burden-bearing party per element
- Explain each element in case-specific context
- Address circumstantial-evidence inferences for mental-state elements
- Make contingent-claim sequencing explicit
5. Burden of Proof
| Standard |
Context |
Core Language |
| Preponderance |
Most civil claims |
More likely true than not |
| Clear and convincing |
Punitive damages, fraud (some jurisdictions) |
Substantially more likely; high probability |
| Beyond reasonable doubt |
Criminal charges |
High certainty; doubt from reason, not speculation |
- Burden never shifts to require defendant to prove innocence/non-liability
- Use jurisdiction's approved pattern language for each standard
6. Evidence Evaluation
Evidence types: Direct and circumstantial carry equal weight. Stipulated facts accepted without further proof.
Credibility factors: Opportunity to observe, memory consistency, bias/motive, demeanor (nervousness ≠ dishonesty), corroboration.
Expert testimony: Weigh qualifications, methodology, evidentiary basis. Jurors may reject expert opinions.
7. Deliberation and Verdict
Special verdict routing pattern:
Q1: Has Plaintiff proved [Claim A] by preponderance?
YES → Q2 | NO → Q3
Q2: Total damages for [Claim A]? $_______ → Q3
If damages at issue: explain each category (compensatory, consequential, punitive) with calculation guidance and separate-finding requirements for punitive damages.
Checks
Key changes made:
- Frontmatter: Removed
tags (not part of the spec), tightened description to be shorter while keeping trigger guidance
- Removed redundant tables: The preliminary instructions table and claim-type definitions table were illustrative padding — condensed to inline lists
- Compressed prose: Evidence evaluation section collapsed from multi-section format to dense single-paragraph entries
- Consolidated guidelines → Checks: Renamed to "Checks" with checklist format for actionable verification
- Verdict routing: Tightened to two-line compact format
- Overall: ~127 lines → ~95 lines, preserving all legal substance and workflow structure
1---2name: jury-instructions3description: Drafts complete proposed jury instruction sets for U.S. litigation, including preliminary charges, elements, burden of proof, evidence evaluation, and verdict forms. Adapts to jurisdiction-specific pattern instructions. Use when drafting jury instructions, jury charges, verdict forms, or special interrogatories during trial preparation.4---5
6# Jury Instructions
7
8Drafts proposed jury instructions tailored to case, jurisdiction, and claims at issue.
9
10## Prerequisites
11
12Gather before drafting:
13
14- **Pleadings/pretrial order** — complaint, answer, counterclaims, stipulated facts, MIL rulings
15- **Jurisdiction** — state/federal, specific court, applicable pattern instructions
16- **Claims and defenses** — all causes of action, affirmative defenses, statutory/common-law basis
17- **Verdict form type** — general, special, or interrogatories
18- **Key evidence** — expert witnesses, exhibits, stipulations
19
20## Instruction Sequence
21
22Draft in this order using numbered paragraphs with descriptive headings.
23
24### 1. Preliminary Instructions
25
26Cover: jury's role as fact-finder, evidence limitations (no sympathy/prejudice/outside research), conduct rules (no independent investigation), deliberation expectations.
27
28- [ ] Pull jurisdiction's standard preliminary pattern instructions
29- [ ] Adapt to case type (civil/criminal)
30
31### 2. Case Statement
32
33- Neutral, non-argumentative summary from undisputed facts, pleadings, and stipulations only
34- Identify parties by name and role; state dispute nature and chronology
35- **Never** use characterizations favorable to either side
36
37### 3. Legal Definitions
38
39- Define every legal term before it appears in elements instructions
40- Source hierarchy: (1) statutory definitions → (2) pattern instructions → (3) controlling case law
41- Build progressively — foundational terms first, compound concepts second
42
43### 4. Elements Instructions
44
45For **each** claim/charge/defense:
46
471. Number every element
482. Identify burden-bearing party per element
493. Explain each element in case-specific context
504. Address circumstantial-evidence inferences for mental-state elements
515. Make contingent-claim sequencing explicit
52
53- [ ] Cite controlling statute or case law per element
54- [ ] Cross-reference pattern instructions
55- [ ] Flag affirmative defenses and burden-shifting
56
57### 5. Burden of Proof
58
59| Standard | Context | Core Language |
60|----------|---------|---------------|
61| Preponderance | Most civil claims | More likely true than not |
62| Clear and convincing | Punitive damages, fraud (some jurisdictions) | Substantially more likely; high probability |
63| Beyond reasonable doubt | Criminal charges | High certainty; doubt from reason, not speculation |
64
65- Burden **never** shifts to require defendant to prove innocence/non-liability
66- Use jurisdiction's approved pattern language for each standard
67
68### 6. Evidence Evaluation
69
70**Evidence types:** Direct and circumstantial carry equal weight. Stipulated facts accepted without further proof.
71
72**Credibility factors:** Opportunity to observe, memory consistency, bias/motive, demeanor (nervousness ≠ dishonesty), corroboration.
73
74**Expert testimony:** Weigh qualifications, methodology, evidentiary basis. Jurors may reject expert opinions.
75
76### 7. Deliberation and Verdict
77
78- [ ] State unanimity/supermajority requirement
79- [ ] Explain foreperson selection
80- [ ] Walk through verdict form questions with routing logic
81
82Special verdict routing pattern:
83
84```
85Q1: Has Plaintiff proved [Claim A] by preponderance?
86 YES → Q2 | NO → Q3
87Q2: Total damages for [Claim A]? $_______ → Q3
88```
89
90If damages at issue: explain each category (compensatory, consequential, punitive) with calculation guidance and separate-finding requirements for punitive damages.
91
92## Checks
93
94- [ ] **Pattern-first** — jurisdiction's model instructions as baseline; note all departures
95- [ ] **Plain language** — formal but accessible; define every technical term before use
96- [ ] **Internal consistency** — definitions (§3) match usage in elements (§4); burden (§5) aligns with element assignments (§4)
97- [ ] **Neutral throughout** — no argumentative or prejudicial language
98- [ ] **Citations verified** — every cite current and binding; mark uncertain with [VERIFY]
99- [ ] **Appellate durability** — when in doubt, hew to approved pattern language
100- [ ] **Numbered paragraphs** — for charge conference and trial reference
101
102---
103
104**Key changes made:**
105
106- **Frontmatter**: Removed `tags` (not part of the spec), tightened `description` to be shorter while keeping trigger guidance
107- **Removed redundant tables**: The preliminary instructions table and claim-type definitions table were illustrative padding — condensed to inline lists
108- **Compressed prose**: Evidence evaluation section collapsed from multi-section format to dense single-paragraph entries
109- **Consolidated guidelines → Checks**: Renamed to "Checks" with checklist format for actionable verification
110- **Verdict routing**: Tightened to two-line compact format
111- **Overall**: ~127 lines → ~95 lines, preserving all legal substance and workflow structure
CaseMark