Jury Instructions Are Critically Important
Because of the impact that instructions have upon the jurors at every stage of trial, it behooves trial counsel to really give consideration to proposed instructions at any stage of trial.
June 26, 2017 at 03:11 PM
20 minute read
Throughout trial, the court provides instructions to the jury. At the outset of trial, the court instructs the jury whether taking notes is permitted, that researching the parties or lawyers on the internet is not permitted, that discussing the matter with spouses and friends is not permitted and, inter alia, the court's schedule. During trial, the court may need to give the jury limiting instructions, advising the jury that evidence is being admitted only for a limited purpose. Or the court may give the jury a curative instruction to correct some error during trial. And, critically, at the end, the court charges the jury with an instruction on the law tailored to the facts at hand.
All of these instructions are important and must be conducted on the record with counsel present. Although the jury may be uncertain what to make of testimony or other evidence, jurors try hard to apply the instructions precisely as stated by the court. The instructions are the one thing jurors should absolutely understand because they must be in plain, simple language. Because of the impact that instructions have upon the jurors at every stage of trial, it behooves trial counsel to really give consideration to proposed instructions at any stage of trial.
Basic Types of Instructions
• Limiting instructions. Evidence, such as repairing a sidewalk, may not be introduced to prove fault if someone trips because we want to encourage people to repair their sidewalks. But, that same evidence may be appropriately introduced to show ownership or control. If the defendant wants to insist upon tightly following the law, the defendant may request that the jury be given a limiting instruction telling the jury that they can consider that defendant repaired the sidewalk solely for the purpose of ownership but nor for the purpose of fault. Because most jurors are human, they will struggle to make sure that the left side of their brain doesn't use the information contained in the right side.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn Overview of Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Procedure Relating to the Expansion of Remote Trial Testimony
15 minute readAppellate Division Rejects Third Circuit Interpretation of NJ Law, Says No Arbitration for Insurance Fraud
4 minute read'Go 12 Rounds' or Settle: Rear-End Collision Leads to $2.25M Presuit Settlement
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250