Legal Definitions - pattern jury charge

A pattern jury charge (also known as a pattern jury instruction or model jury instruction) refers to a standardized, pre-approved set of legal directions that a judge reads to a jury before they begin deliberations in a trial.

These instructions are typically developed by committees of judges and legal experts within a specific jurisdiction (like a state or federal court system). They are designed to provide clear, accurate, and consistent explanations of the law that applies to common types of cases and legal issues. By using pattern jury charges, courts aim to ensure fairness, reduce errors, and promote uniformity in how juries understand and apply the law.

Here are some examples illustrating how pattern jury charges are used:

• Criminal Trial for Theft: In a criminal case where someone is accused of theft, the judge will use a pattern jury charge to explain the specific legal elements that constitute theft in that jurisdiction. For instance, the instruction might define "taking," "property of another," and "intent to permanently deprive." This ensures that every jury hearing a theft case receives the same precise legal definition, helping them determine if the prosecution has proven each element beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Civil Lawsuit for Breach of Contract: If two businesses are in court over a broken agreement, the judge will rely on pattern jury charges to instruct the jury on the law of contracts. These instructions would define what constitutes a valid contract, what a "breach" means, and how to determine if one party failed to uphold their obligations. Using a standardized instruction helps the jury understand these complex legal concepts consistently across different contract disputes.

• General Procedural Instructions: Beyond specific legal claims, pattern jury charges are also used for general instructions that apply to almost all trials. For example, a judge will use a pattern instruction to explain the concept of "burden of proof" (e.g., that the plaintiff must prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence" in a civil trial, or the prosecution must prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal trial). This ensures juries understand their fundamental role and the standard they must apply to the evidence presented.