Sample jury instructions for civil and criminal cases share the same backbone — rules on evidence, definitions of the legal claims or charges, and directions for deliberation — but split sharply on the standard of proof the jury must apply. In a civil case, the plaintiff usually has to prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything else in the charge is built around that difference.
Most instructions are drawn from “pattern jury instructions,” model charges approved by judicial committees, state courts, or bar associations for use across a jurisdiction. Lawyers propose instructions, the judge decides which to give, and the final charge is read to the jury before deliberations begin.1Legal Information Institute. Jury Instructions Federal circuit courts publish their own sets of patterns for both civil and criminal trials.2United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pattern Jury Instructions
What a Jury Charge Covers
A full charge moves through three blocks in order. First come the general rules: what counts as evidence, how jurors must conduct themselves, and what to do if the judge strikes something from the record. Then the judge defines the specific claims or charges at issue and breaks them into elements the jury must evaluate. Finally, the charge explains the standard of proof and the mechanics of deliberation, including selecting a foreperson and submitting written questions to the court.
The opening block tells jurors that evidence consists only of sworn testimony, exhibits formally admitted by the court, and stipulations between the parties. Opening statements and closing arguments are advocacy, not evidence, and jurors are told so explicitly because the line gets blurred easily. Jurors are also instructed to decide the case free from bias or sympathy, to avoid discussing it with anyone outside the deliberation room, and to do no independent research of any kind, including internet searches. Those restrictions exist because the adversarial system assumes both sides can respond to every piece of information the jury considers.
A Sample Civil Instruction: Negligence
In a negligence case, the judge tells the jury that the plaintiff must prove four elements:
- Duty: the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty of care.
- Breach: the defendant failed to meet that duty.
- Causation: the defendant’s failure was a direct cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
- Damages: the plaintiff suffered actual harm.
If the plaintiff fails to prove even one element, the jury must find for the defendant.3Legal Information Institute. Negligence Causation tends to trip jurors up, because the instructions typically require proof that the defendant’s conduct was both the actual cause and the foreseeable cause of the harm — two related but distinct concepts.4FindLaw. What Are the Elements of Negligence
The jury then applies the preponderance of the evidence standard to each element. That standard means the evidence makes the claim more likely true than not. If the evidence is in equipoise, the plaintiff loses.5Legal Information Institute. Preponderance of the Evidence
A Sample Criminal Instruction: Simple Assault
A criminal charge like simple assault is broken into two parts. First, the defendant committed a physical act. Second, the defendant acted with the required mental state — for example, intentionally or knowingly causing another person to fear imminent bodily harm. The jury has to be satisfied on both the act and the mental state. If reasonable doubt exists as to any single element, the verdict must be not guilty.
The judge instructs the jury that the prosecution must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the highest standard in the legal system. The evidence must leave jurors firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt — not free of all doubt, but free of any doubt based on reason and common sense.6Legal Information Institute. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt If that level of certainty is not reached, the jury must acquit.
Standards of Proof Side by Side
Judges spend real time on the standard of proof because every other instruction depends on jurors understanding what “proven” means in their case.
Preponderance of the Evidence
The default standard in civil cases. The scales must tip past the midpoint in the plaintiff’s favor. Equal evidence means the plaintiff has not met the burden.5Legal Information Institute. Preponderance of the Evidence
Clear and Convincing Evidence
A middle standard used for certain civil claims, including fraud, disputes over the validity of a will, and decisions about withdrawing life support. The jury is told the evidence must produce a firm belief that the claim is highly probable, which is more than merely likely.7Legal Information Institute. Clear and Convincing Evidence
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Reserved for criminal cases. The judge tells jurors to apply it to every element of the offense.6Legal Information Institute. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Unanimity and Deliberation
Once the substantive charge is done, the judge turns to how the jury should reach its decision. Jurors retire to the deliberation room and select a foreperson, who leads discussion and signs the verdict form. If jurors need clarification on a legal point, they submit a written question through the bailiff, signed by the foreperson. The judge then consults with both attorneys before responding, often by rereading part of the original instructions. That exchange happens on the record so any errors can be reviewed later.
Criminal unanimity is now settled nationwide. The Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Ramos v. Louisiana held that the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious criminal offense, in both federal and state court.8Supreme Court of the United States. Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 Before Ramos, Louisiana and Oregon had permitted non-unanimous criminal convictions. The judge’s instructions now make unanimity explicit.
Civil cases are different. Federal civil trials generally require unanimity unless the parties agree otherwise, while many states permit verdicts by a supermajority, such as five of six jurors or ten of twelve. The instructions tell jurors exactly how many must agree.
Special Instructions That Often Appear
Curative Instructions
When a witness blurts out something inadmissible or an attorney makes an improper remark, the judge may issue a curative instruction telling the jury to disregard what they heard. The aim is to neutralize the prejudicial impact so the verdict rests only on properly admitted evidence. Whether jurors can truly un-hear something is debated in trial practice, but the alternative of declaring a mistrial every time something slips out would make complex trials nearly impossible to complete.
Affirmative Defenses
When a defendant raises an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, the jury gets additional instructions on who bears the burden and how heavy it is. The answer varies by jurisdiction and defense. In most states, once the defendant introduces enough evidence to support a self-defense claim, the burden shifts back to the prosecution to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil affirmative defense, the defendant typically has to prove the defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The instructions make the allocation explicit so the jury knows whose job it is to prove what.
The Allen Charge for Deadlocked Juries
If a jury reports that it is deadlocked, the judge may deliver a supplemental instruction urging continued deliberation. This is the “Allen charge,” named after the 1896 Supreme Court case Allen v. United States that first approved the practice.9Legal Information Institute. Allen Charge A mild Allen charge reminds jurors of the importance of reaching a verdict and asks those in the minority to reconsider whether their position holds up against the evidence. Stronger versions, sometimes called “dynamite charges,” push harder, and appellate courts scrutinize them for coerciveness. If the judge asks the jury how it is numerically split before delivering the charge, appellate courts treat the instruction as inherently coercive, which means automatic reversal.10Ninth Circuit District & Bankruptcy Courts. 7.7 Deadlocked Jury If the charge still fails, the judge declares a mistrial and the case may be retried.
What the Instructions Will Not Say
One topic never appears in a standard jury charge: jury nullification, the idea that jurors have the power to acquit even when the evidence clearly proves guilt because they view the law itself as unjust. Judges do not instruct jurors on this power. Standard instructions say the opposite — jurors must accept and apply the law as the judge explains it, regardless of personal opinions about that law. Courts have consistently drawn a line between the jury’s acknowledged power to nullify and any right to be told about it.
Why the Exact Wording Matters
Jury instruction errors are one of the most common grounds for overturning a verdict on appeal, which is why both sides fight over wording before the charge is read. To challenge an instruction later, an attorney generally has to object on the record before the jury retires, stating what they object to and why. Federal civil and criminal rules both require it.11Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 51 – Instructions to the Jury; Objections; Preserving a Claim of Error12Justia Law. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 30 – Jury Instructions A lawyer who sits silently through an instruction they believe is wrong has usually waived the argument.
A narrow safety valve exists for unobjected-to mistakes under the plain error doctrine, but the bar is high and courts discourage its use. Even a preserved and genuine error does not automatically mean a new trial — the appellate court still asks whether the mistake had a substantial influence on the verdict. For constitutional errors in criminal cases, the prosecution must show the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. For non-constitutional errors, the test is whether there is a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different without the flawed instruction. That is why the pattern instructions, the charging conference, and the specific words the judge reads to the jury all carry so much weight: once the jury hears them, they are the law of the case.