Jury Instructions
When a judge decides a legal issue, she determines how the law applies to the facts. But when a jury decides a case, a jury does not have the same legal expertise as the judge. To enable the jury to make its decision, a judge explains the law to the jury so it can apply the facts to the law as it has been explained to them. Since this explanation essentially becomes the law that applies to the case, these “jury instructions” are very important and multiple lawyers study and debate them carefully.
Why should you read this post about jury instructions?
You have already read my post about jury trials and you’d like to know more about the work involved in having a jury decide a case.
You come from one of the many jurisdictions that does not have juries decide commercial disputes and you want to know how lay people could apply legal concepts.
You have sat through an hour of jury instructions before and wondered what the point of them were.
Image credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecture#/media/File:Hogarth_lecture_1736.jpg
Pattern Instructions
A jury needs to be instructed on many different subjects, not just the elements of the claims at issue. For example, the law dictates what evidence is, what cannot be considered as evidence, how the jury should deliberate, what burden a plaintiff needs to carry to win, and how to calculate the amount of damages to award. In order to enable the jury to apply the law to these subjects, a judge must instruct them.
Many of these issues arise in the same way at many trials. Nearly every trial requires a judge to instruct a jury what constitutes evidence, and that it need not just be direct evidence but also can include indirect circumstantial evidence. And many trials require a judge to instruct a jury about the elements of a breach of contract claim.
Luckily, lawyers and judges do not need to “reinvent the wheel” at every trial. There are pattern jury instructions that courts use as model instructions, knowing that their wording has been drafted carefully and used safely in other cases. Different states have different versions, based on their specific laws. While many people view them online, anyone can buy a hardcopy set. Here is one for New York. I have used a hardcopy one for Massachusetts, but you can view them for free online. Here is one for a federal court.
Charging Conferences
A litigant may not be satisfied with the pattern instruction, or with changes the judge has made to the pattern. Or the litigant believes the judge should include additional parts of the pattern instructions to cover relevant subjects that the judge has overlooked, like an applicable affirmative defense or alternative theory.
A judge permits the parties to debate the instructions she will give at a “charging conference” that takes place during the trial while the jury is not present. The judge usually circulates a draft of the instructions that she intends to give, and the parties have an opportunity to present alternate drafts and debate the wording.
Ultimately, the judge makes a decision about the version that she will give. And the parties get a chance to state on an official record the specific changes they would have made but that were denied so that they can preserve those issues for an appeal.
Reading Instructions
After the judge decides what the instructions will be, and after both sides in a lawsuit have given their closing statements, the judge reads the instructions nearly verbatim to the jury. This is often a long process. It can last thirty minutes, an hour, or even more. It is possible the jury is not paying close attention or that it misses fine details that the parties had litigated vigorously. Still, it is the major opportunity for the jury to learn what the law is that they will soon be applying.
Some judges send the jury a written copy of their instructions during their deliberations so that they can consult it. Others do not, leaving the jury to rely on their recollection of a dense hourlong speech.
Appeals
A losing party in a lawsuit may use the jury instructions as a basis for appeal. The appellant may argue that, had the jury been instructed on a different legal theory or in a clearer way, they may have arrived at a different result. She may also argue that the jury instructions misstated the law and so a new jury needs to hear the case with correct instructions.