casemark/jury-instructions

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.

• [ ] Pull jurisdiction's standard preliminary pattern instructions
• [ ] Adapt to case type (civil/criminal)

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:

1. Number every element
2. Identify burden-bearing party per element
3. Explain each element in case-specific context
4. Address circumstantial-evidence inferences for mental-state elements
5. Make contingent-claim sequencing explicit

• [ ] Cite controlling statute or case law per element
• [ ] Cross-reference pattern instructions
• [ ] Flag affirmative defenses and burden-shifting

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

• [ ] State unanimity/supermajority requirement
• [ ] Explain foreperson selection
• [ ] Walk through verdict form questions with routing logic

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

• [ ] Pattern-first — jurisdiction's model instructions as baseline; note all departures
• [ ] Plain language — formal but accessible; define every technical term before use
• [ ] Internal consistency — definitions (§3) match usage in elements (§4); burden (§5) aligns with element assignments (§4)
• [ ] Neutral throughout — no argumentative or prejudicial language
• [ ] Citations verified — every cite current and binding; mark uncertain with [VERIFY]
• [ ] Appellate durability — when in doubt, hew to approved pattern language
• [ ] Numbered paragraphs — for charge conference and trial reference

---

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