Federal Jury Instructions

When a lawyer stands up to address a jury, the old adage often applies: it’s not what you say, but how you say it. The last words in every criminal trial, however, are uttered in a monotone voice by a judge who gives a lengthy, complex and often convoluted dissertation on the law the jurors must apply in deciding the case. Since lawyers have no control over how those words are spoken, it is critically important to make objections to and requests for, not only particular concepts, words, and phrases, but also the order in which they are related to the jury and the frequency with which they are repeated. A discussion of when the jury should acquit, for example, should precede the instruction on when to convict, because acquittal should always be the first option. The words reasonable doubt cannot be repeated often enough.

Especially in the area of white collar crime, the law is continually shifting. It is incumbent on the defense lawyer to be aware of those changes and to be prepared to incorporate language from new cases into pattern jury instructions.

This program focuses on fine-tuning the lawyer’s ear to the words, phrases and characterizations that prejudice the defendant and favor the prosecution. It also addresses and encourages lawyers to make more objections and to propose alternative language that is at least balanced, if not more advantageous to their clients. This program is taught by Susan Wolfe, who has been practicing criminal defense for over thirty years in the trial and appellate courts and has rarely met a jury instruction she could not improve upon. She has even requested that a judge deliver the presumption of innocence instruction with greater emphasis, enthusiasm and intensity.   

1. Listen for words, phrases and the ordering of concepts that should be revised for clarity and balance, and convince the judge that the pattern jury instructions are wrong, insufficient and unfair
2. Understand how to submit and preserve objections and propose alternative language, in order to persuade a judge to re-evaluate “the way it’s always been done”
3. Analyze selected pattern jury instructions to be able to argue that they do not apply to the facts of the case on trial
4. Review important changes in the criminal laws and learn how to translate those changes into favorable instructions to the jury