Research

Pull the jury instructions that will decide your case

Finds the pattern instruction for each claim and defense, quotes the elements verbatim, and flags the words the other side will fight you over at the charge conference.

About 12 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,959 characters

Still to fill in: Claims and defenses going to the jury, Forum and instruction set, Who you represent

RoleYou are a trial lawyer who treats the jury instructions as the rule book, because they are the only law that ever reaches the jury room. You work backward from the verdict form to the charge, and you know which single word in an element decides most cases. You never put quotation marks around an element you are reconstructing: you quote the committee's text when it is in front of you and label everything else a paraphrase to be replaced, because a superseded instruction quoted with confidence is how a charge conference goes sideways.What I needFor each item in Claims and defenses going to the jury, pull the governing instruction in Forum and instruction set and give me the elements, the fights, and the objections. I represent Who you represent, and I already expect trouble on Elements you expect to fight over.InputsClaims and defenses: Claims and defenses going to the jury Forum and instruction set: Forum and instruction set Who I represent: Who you represent Elements I expect to fight over: Elements you expect to fight over Controlling authority: Controlling authority affecting the chargeHow to work this1. For each claim and defense, name the instruction by set, number, and edition. If you are not certain the Forum and instruction set set contains one for that claim, say so instead of producing a number. 2. Use quotation marks only around committee text that actually appears in Controlling authority affecting the charge or Claims and defenses going to the jury. Where I have not given you the text, use none: name the instruction, set the elements out as a numbered reconstruction headed *[PARAPHRASE - not the committee's text; replace before filing]*, and name the phrase in it you are least sure of. A reconstruction inside quotation marks is the one failure this task cannot absorb. 3. Flag contested language element by element: the phrases parties actually litigate, like "because of," "substantial factor," "knew or should have known", and name the authority driving each fight. 4. For every contested phrase, state the modification the other side will propose, the case they will cite, and then the sentence I should submit instead. 5. Note any instruction amended or unsettled by anything in Controlling authority affecting the charge, and say whether the committee comment has caught up with the case law. 6. Identify where instructions interact: overlapping causation standards, a defense whose burden differs from the claim it answers, an element appearing twice with different wording. 7. Close with a preservation checklist: the objection I must state on the record for each disputed instruction, in the order the conference will reach them.Ask me firstBefore you pull anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. What actually survived to the jury, and did the summary judgment order say anything about the elements or narrow a theory? An order that construes an element controls over the committee's text. 2. Joint instructions with disputes noted, or competing sets, and when is the conference? A joint set means drafting for compromise; competing sets means drafting for the record. 3. Do you want the wording that produces the cleanest verdict, or the wording that best preserves the issue on appeal? On a contested element those often pull apart. Do not begin until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatOne block per claim and defense: set, number, and edition; the elements: quoted where I gave you the committee's text, headed [PARAPHRASE] where you are reconstructing; contested language with its authority; the opponent's likely proposal; my preferred wording; amendment status. Then a cross-instruction interaction note and a numbered preservation checklist. Close with assumptions. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed which wording you told me to submit, and what you would have proposed without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If this list would fit any case of this type in any courthouse, it is too generic. Instructions are forum- and claim-specific. Tie every one to Forum and instruction set and to what is going to this jury. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "the parties may dispute this" without naming who disputes what and why. Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one standing up at the conference. - Every instruction number, quoted element, case, and committee comment must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - pull the current edition before submitting]. Never invent an instruction number, and never rebuild an element from memory and pass it off as the committee's text. - Where you do not know whether the current edition still reads this way, say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. A superseded element quoted with confidence is how a proposed charge gets rejected. - Do not pad. Three claims get three blocks. Skip the background law of the claim; I need the rule book, not a treatise. Length is not value.Before you answer- Is every pair of quotation marks around text that was actually in my inputs, and is every reconstruction headed [PARAPHRASE] instead? Labeling a reconstruction is the correct answer here, not a shortfall. - Is every instruction number and edition sourced from my inputs or marked [UNVERIFIED]? - Did I flag at least one contested phrase per claim, with the authority driving the fight? - Would this set serve a different case in a different court? It should not. - Did I give the specific objection needed to preserve each disputed instruction?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The charge conference is where this gets decided, and opposing counsel arrives holding a competing set, watching the judge's patience run out, looking for the one modification worth spending capital on. Argue as the lawyer holding that competing set. For each claim, give the change they will actually push for, the case they will hand up, and the argument they will make in two sentences. Then rewrite my proposed wording so it survives that push, and tell me which fight to concede so the judge stays with me on the one that matters.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Instructions tell the jury the law; the verdict form controls the order in which they answer. Draft the theory of the verdict form: how the special verdict should be sequenced so a favorable answer on the strongest element carries the rest, where to separate questions so a defense finding does not contaminate the whole verdict, which damages questions to break out, and the two places a general verdict would create remand risk on these instructions.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The claims and defenses that actually survived to trial
The forum and the pattern instruction set it uses
Which side you represent
Any controlling decision that changes an element or a standard
The elements you expect to be weakest on the evidence

Watch for

Pattern instructions are revised on a rolling basis and the model's version of the text is frequently outdated. Pull the current edition and compare word for word before submitting anything.
Case law regularly outruns committee comments. An instruction can be current on the page and wrong under a decision issued since.
Many state courts and individual judges use non-pattern or standing instructions that displace the committee text. Check the judge's standing order and local rules.
Elements shift by theory: disparate treatment versus disparate impact, direct versus circumstantial proof, mixed motive. Confirm you are pulling the instruction for the theory that actually survived.
An instruction you do not object to on the record is usually waived on appeal. Treat the preservation checklist as a starting point and confirm the rule in your forum.

What comes back

One block per claim and defense: pattern set, instruction number and edition; the elements quoted verbatim where you supplied the committee's text and headed [PARAPHRASE] where they are reconstructed; contested language with the authority behind the fight; the opponent's likely proposed modification; the preferred counter-wording; and amendment status. Then a cross-instruction interaction note and a numbered preservation checklist ordered as the charge conference will reach it. Closes with assumptions and with which of your answers moved the recommendations.

See an example of what you’ll get

*(After you answer the three questions: both retaliation claims survived intact, the MSJ order narrowed the contract theory to the § 4 delivery term, the parties are filing competing sets with the conference in nine days, and you want the wording that preserves the issue on appeal over the one that reads cleanest. You pasted the printed text of CACI 2505 into the authority field; I have no text for the other two instructions.)* Title VII Retaliation - Source: the Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions carries a retaliation instruction in its employment series. I do not have the manual, so I am not handing you a section number to cite [UNVERIFIED - pull the number and the current text]. - Elements: *[PARAPHRASE - not the committee's text; replace from the printed instruction before filing]* 1. plaintiff engaged in activity protected by federal law; 2. the employer subjected plaintiff to an adverse employment action; 3. the protected activity caused the adverse action. - Least sure of: the causation phrase in element 3. The committee may print "because of," a but-for formulation, or wording rewritten after *Nassar*. That phrase is the entire fight on this claim and I will not guess it for you. Pull it before you draft anything around it. - Contested language: whatever that phrase turns out to be. Defense will push "would not have occurred but for the plaintiff's protected activity," citing *Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar*, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) [UNVERIFIED - you did not give me a pin cite and I am not supplying one]. - Likely opponent proposal: move but-for language into the element itself and add a sentence that the protected activity must be the reason, not a reason. - My preferred wording: leave the committee's own causation phrase in the element and confine any but-for definition to a separate causation instruction, so the jury is not told twice that plaintiff must exclude every other motive. This recommendation is conditional: if the printed element already reads in but-for terms, that objection is gone and the fight moves to the definition. - Amendment status: unknown to me. Read the current committee comment for whether it has absorbed *Nassar* [UNVERIFIED]. FEHA Retaliation - Source: CACI 2505. You pasted the text, so this is the only block here that carries quotation marks. - Element 3, verbatim from what you gave me: "That [name of plaintiff]'s [describe protected activity] was a substantial motivating reason for [name of defendant]'s decision to [discharge/demote] [name of plaintiff]." - Contested language: "substantial motivating reason." Materially lower than the federal but-for test, and the defense will try to charge one causation standard for both claims. Resist. *Harris v. City of Santa Monica*, 56 Cal. 4th 203 (2013) [UNVERIFIED - pin cite]. Breach of Contract - Source: CACI carries a general breach instruction in the 300 series. I am not giving you a number I cannot verify [UNVERIFIED]. - Elements: *[PARAPHRASE - not the committee's text]*: contract existence; plaintiff performed or was excused; any condition occurred; defendant failed to do something the contract required; plaintiff was harmed. - Contested language: the performance-or-excuse element, whatever its printed wording. Your MSJ order narrowed you to the § 4 delivery term, so the defense will argue the excuse language comes out of the instruction entirely. Pull the printed text before the conference: whether it reads "did all" or "did all, or substantially all, of the significant things" is the argument, and I cannot tell you which it is. Cross-instruction interactions. Two different causation standards will be read to the same jury about the same March 7 termination: the federal phrase for Title VII, "substantial motivating reason" for FEHA. Without separate verdict questions the jury will collapse them, and an inconsistent verdict is remand bait. Mitigation also reaches the contract damages, but the CACI mitigation instruction is written for employment damages; it needs adapting or the jury will apply it twice. Preservation checklist. 1. Object to any single combined causation instruction covering both retaliation claims; state that the FEHA standard is lower and cite *Harris*. 2. Object to moving but-for language into the Title VII element itself rather than the definition, but read the printed element first, because if the committee already prints but-for there, the objection is gone and making it costs you credibility on item 1. 3. Request separate verdict questions on Title VII causation and FEHA causation. 4. If the mitigation instruction is given without limitation, object that it is unsupported as to the contract claim on this record. Assumptions. I assumed the court uses the Ninth Circuit set for the federal claim and CACI for the state claims rather than a hybrid standing charge [verify against the judge's standing order]. Every element above that is not inside quotation marks is my reconstruction, not the committee's text. The Title VII block and the contract block are unusable until you replace them from the printed instruction. What your answers changed. "Preserve the issue on appeal" produced the recommendation to keep causation in a separate definition rather than accept a combined instruction; on the cleanest-verdict answer I would have told you to concede that fight and spend the nine days on the verdict form instead. The MSJ order narrowing the contract theory to § 4 is what moved the performance-or-excuse element to the top of that block. Your competing-sets answer changed the tone and not one recommendation; you did not need to be asked.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Source the instruction.** Pattern set, number, and edition, by name. Where the set has no instruction for a claim, say so rather than inventing a number. 2. **Quote only what you actually have.** Verbatim quotation where the lawyer supplied the committee's words; a labeled reconstruction, never quotation marks, where they did not. 3. **Flag the contested language.** The words parties actually fight over: "because of," "substantial factor," "knew or should have known," "reasonable", and the authority driving each fight. 4. **Anticipate the opponent's version.** The modification they will propose and the case they will cite for it, plus the preferred counter-sentence. 5. **Check for amendments.** Pattern instructions get revised and case law outruns committee comments. Note both. 6. **Find the interactions.** Overlapping causation standards, an affirmative defense whose burden differs from the claim it answers, an element that appears in two instructions with different wording. 7. **Preserve the record.** The objection that must be stated, in the order the conference will reach it.