Translate

Translate a statute into words a juror can repeat

Rewrites a statute or rule so a juror understands it on one hearing, with every element preserved, every term of art flagged for the court to define, and a log of places opposing counsel could call it a misstatement.

About 10 minintermediateLitigation

Your prompt5,142 characters

Still to fill in: Statute or rule, Court and governing law

RoleYou are a trial lawyer who has watched jurors go blank at the word "proximate" and learned to hear the law the way twelve strangers hear it on day four of trial. You keep every element intact and in order, you never smuggle in an element the statute does not contain, and you refuse to define a term of art that belongs to the judge.What I needTranslate the provision below for a juror in Court and governing law who will hear it once. I need it for Opening statement, and the example should come from Facts from your case.InputsStatute or rule: Statute or rule Court and governing law: Court and governing law Where I'll use it: Opening statement Pattern instruction, if supplied: Pattern instruction (if you have it) Facts from my case: Facts from your caseHow to work this1. Before translating, break the provision into a numbered element list and quote the operative statutory words for each. If it cross-references a definition I did not paste, name what you are missing rather than assuming it. 2. Translate element by element, in the same order, keeping the count. Three plain elements against four statutory elements means you merged two. Go back and separate them. 3. Average 12–18 words per sentence, active voice. Kill nominalizations: "the defendant must have known," not "knowledge on the part of the defendant." Put burden and standard of proof on their own line. 4. Mark every term of art the court will define (willful, reckless, material, reasonable, substantial factor) and never define it yourself. Quote the pattern language if I gave it to you. 5. Treat Pattern instruction (if you have it) as the ceiling where I supplied it: simplify its vocabulary, never its legal content. Note any place the two could be read differently. 6. Tune to Opening statement. Opening is a promise you must keep; closing ties each element to evidence already heard; witness prep is the question the witness will face; a proposed instruction tracks pattern language closely enough to survive a charge conference. 7. End with a drift log: every place your wording could be argued to add, drop, soften, or broaden an element.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every assumption about which jurisdiction's elements apply, which definition governs an undefined term, whether a pattern instruction exists, and whether an element is contested. Mark each [verify] or [safe]. Where this is weakest. The two or three sentences most exposed at a charge conference or to an objection during argument. Name the sentence and the word inside it, not "the translation generally." What only you can decide. The judgment calls I left to you, each as options with tradeoffs. At minimum: whether to argue the element in the statute's own words or in the plain version: statutory words are objection-proof and slide past the jury, while the plain version lands and invites a misstatement-of-law objection you answer at sidebar. Also yours: whether to walk through an element the other side has effectively conceded, which reminds the jury it exists at the cost of thirty seconds of their attention. What would make this materially better. The input that would sharpen the next pass: the pattern instruction verbatim, the court's ruling on any element already decided, exhibit numbers for the facts in the example, or the opposing party's proposed charge. Rank by impact.Output formatThe plain-English version as a block I could read aloud. Then an element table: Element | Statutory words | Plain version | Term of art the court defines. Then burden and standard on one line, a one-line example from my facts, the drift log, and the four closing sections.Never do this- If the translation would work for this statute in any case in any state, it is too generic. Rebuild it around this forum's elements and my facts. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "essentially," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney or confirm with trial counsel. I am trial counsel. - Never add an element the statute does not contain, and never drop one because it is awkward to say. - Every pattern instruction, case, or definition you name must come from my inputs or carry [UNVERIFIED - check before the charge conference]. Never invent an instruction number or a quotation. - Where you do not know how Court and governing law defines a term or orders the elements, say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - Do not pad. A two-element statute gets a short translation. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does my element count match the statute's exactly? - Did I quote real statutory words, or invent a quotation? Is every pattern instruction I named marked verified or [UNVERIFIED]? - Is every term of art flagged as the judge's to define rather than defined by me? - Could a tired juror repeat this back after one hearing, and is the example about this case rather than any case?

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 under way, and opposing counsel is holding the pattern instruction in one hand and my plain-English version in the other, hunting for a misstatement of law to put on the record and preserve as the predicate for appeal. Take that chair. Draft the objection you would make to each sentence you can reach, in the words you would say to the judge. Then tell me which objections would be sustained, which are noise, and what single wording change would take the strongest objection away from you.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

At the charge conference the court wants redlines, not prose. Convert this into a filing-ready proposed instruction: the pattern language as the base, my requested modifications shown as insertions and deletions, and a two-sentence authority note under each change explaining why the modification states the law correctly, the form the court expects with charge conference submissions.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The statutory or regulatory text in full, including any definitions section it cross-references
The pattern or model jury instruction for this claim, if your jurisdiction has one
Two or three facts from your case so the example is about this trial
Whether you are using this in opening, closing, witness prep, or a proposed instruction
Any element the other side has conceded or the court has already ruled on

Watch for

A plain-English version is argument, not law. The jury is charged from the court's instruction, and a version that departs from it draws an objection and can put a verdict at risk.
The model merges elements that sound alike but are legally distinct: knowledge and intent, materiality and reliance, causation and but-for causation. Count the elements yourself against the statute.
Terms of art carry defined meanings that plain synonyms destroy. "Willful," "reckless," "reasonable," and "substantial factor" are the court's to define, not yours.
Pattern instructions differ by circuit and by state, and some jurisdictions have none for the claim you are trying. Confirm which set governs before relying on any of this.
Statutes that cross-reference a definitions section you did not paste will be translated on guesswork. Paste the definitions too.

What comes back

A read-aloud plain-English version, an element table (element / quoted statutory words / plain version / term of art the court defines), the burden and standard on one line, a one-line example built from your facts, a drift log of wording that could be attacked as misstating the law, and the four closing sections.

See an example of what you’ll get

Plain-English version - FLSA retaliation, 29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3), for closing: "The law says an employer cannot punish an employee for speaking up about wages. To decide for Ms. Calloway, you must find three things. First, she complained about not being paid for her overtime. Second, her employer did something to her that would discourage a reasonable worker from complaining. Here, they fired her. Third, the complaint is the reason they fired her. Ms. Calloway has to prove each of those three things, and she has to prove them more likely true than not." Element table | Element | Statutory words | Plain version | Term of art the court defines | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Protected activity | "filed any complaint or instituted... any proceeding under or related to this chapter" | She complained about unpaid overtime | "Filed any complaint"; oral complaints count in the Seventh Circuit; the court will instruct | | 2. Adverse action | "discharge or in any other manner discriminate against" | They fired her | "Materially adverse"; the court defines this by the reasonable-worker standard | | 3. Causation | "because such employee has filed" | The complaint is the reason they fired her | "Because"; the court will instruct whether this is but-for or motivating-factor | Burden and standard. Plaintiff bears the burden on all three elements, by a preponderance of the evidence, more likely true than not. One-line example for the jury. "On Monday, March 3, Ms. Calloway emailed HR that she was working past six and not being paid for it. On Friday, March 7, she was fired. Those four days are what this case is about." Drift log. 1. "Punish" in the opening sentence is broader than "discharge or in any other manner discriminate." Fine as framing, but do not let it become the standard you argue. 2. "The complaint is the reason" states but-for causation. If the court gives a motivating-factor charge instead, this sentence understates your own case and helps the defense. Do not say it until the charge is settled. 3. "Would discourage a reasonable worker" imports the Burlington Northern materially-adverse standard [UNVERIFIED - confirm the Seventh Circuit pattern language before using this phrasing in argument]. Assumptions I made. Seventh Circuit substantive law governs and its pattern civil instructions apply [verify - you did not paste the pattern instruction]. I assumed causation will be charged as but-for under Nassar's logic rather than motivating-factor [verify - this is the single assumption that most changes the version above]. I assumed the only adverse action in play is the termination [safe, based on the facts you gave]. Where this is weakest. The sentence "the complaint is the reason they fired her." It is clean for a juror and it is also the most contestable legal statement in the block: it locks you to a causation standard the court has not set. Second weakest: "would discourage a reasonable worker," which is a quotation from case law dressed as plain English. What only you can decide. Whether to say "the reason" or "a reason" in element three. "The reason" is what a juror can hold onto and it matches a but-for charge, but if the court charges motivating-factor you have argued a harder standard than the law requires and the defense will quote you. "A reason" is safer under either charge and is measurably weaker as advocacy. Also yours: whether to walk the jury through element one at all: the defense has not contested that she complained, and spending forty seconds on an uncontested element buys you nothing except the risk of reminding them it exists. What would make this materially better. (1) The pattern instruction verbatim, which would resolve both causation questions above. (2) The court's ruling on the parties' proposed charges, if it has issued one. (3) Exhibit numbers for the March 3 email and the termination letter, so the example cites evidence instead of describing it.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **Parse before you translate.** Break the provision into a numbered element list, quoting the operative statutory words for each. Chase definitional cross-references or flag that you could not. 2. **One element in, one element out.** Translate in the same order and keep the count. Three plain elements against four statutory elements means two were merged. Go back. 3. **Sentence discipline.** Average 12–18 words. Active voice. A concrete subject doing a concrete thing. "The defendant must have known" beats "knowledge on the part of the defendant." 4. **Terms of art belong to the judge.** Mark every word the court will define (willful, reckless, material, reasonable, proximate) and do not define it yourself. 5. **The pattern instruction is the ceiling.** Where one exists, the plain version may simplify but may not depart from its legal content. 6. **Burden and standard get their own line.** Who must prove it, and to what level of confidence. 7. **Build the example from this case.** A generic hypothetical teaches nothing a juror will carry into deliberations. 8. **Log the drift.** Name every place a plain-English choice could be argued to change the law.