Legal Definitions - argumentative instruction

An argumentative instruction refers to a direction given by a judge to a jury that goes beyond merely stating the applicable law or neutrally summarizing the evidence presented. Instead, it uses language or emphasis that tends to favor one party's interpretation of the facts, draws inferences that should be left solely to the jury, or otherwise attempts to persuade the jury towards a particular outcome. Such instructions are generally considered improper because a judge's role is to be an impartial guide on the law, not an advocate for either side in a legal dispute.

Here are some examples illustrating argumentative instructions:

• Civil Case - Personal Injury: Imagine a lawsuit where a plaintiff claims they slipped and fell due to a hazardous condition on the defendant's property. An argumentative instruction might be: "You have heard testimony that the defendant failed to place a 'wet floor' sign, a clear oversight that undoubtedly led to the plaintiff's painful injury."

  This instruction is argumentative because the judge is not just stating that there was testimony about the lack of a sign, but is also drawing a definitive conclusion ("clear oversight," "undoubtedly led") about causation and fault, which are determinations the jury should make based on all the evidence presented.

• Criminal Case - Drug Possession: Consider a case where a defendant is charged with drug possession, and their defense is that they were unaware the drugs were in their car, claiming they borrowed it from a friend. An argumentative instruction could be: "While the defendant claims ignorance, you must consider whether it is truly believable that someone would not notice a large quantity of illegal substances in their own vehicle, suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead."

  This instruction is argumentative because the judge is subtly questioning the credibility of the defendant's defense and suggesting a particular interpretation of the facts ("truly believable," "suggesting a deliberate attempt to mislead"), rather than simply instructing the jury on the legal standard for knowledge and letting them apply it to the facts without judicial influence.

• Contract Dispute: In a dispute over a service contract, the plaintiff alleges the defendant's work was substandard, while the defendant claims they met all contractual obligations. An argumentative instruction might state: "The evidence clearly demonstrates that the defendant's shoddy workmanship resulted in significant damages to the plaintiff, making their claims of satisfactory performance entirely unconvincing."

  This instruction is argumentative because the judge is characterizing the evidence ("clearly demonstrates," "shoddy workmanship," "entirely unconvincing") and drawing conclusions about the quality of work and the validity of the defendant's defense, which are matters for the jury to weigh and decide based on the facts presented.