Jury instructions are often voluminous and complicated. Trial attorneys only understand them because they have seen them many times. Based on the volume and complication of jury instructions attorneys should focus on simplifying them way in a way jury can understand.
The Genius is in the Simplicity
For the majority of cases the charges or cause of action is self evident. In these cases the attorney should not spend a lot of time arguing the jury instructions on the elements, and focus on the instructions related to the facts. For example in a theft case the jury will likely just wants to know if the defendant stole something. It is better to focus on the instructions about the burden of proof, out of court statements, etc. Since these instructions come from the court they will have more credibility (ethos) with the jury on how to weigh the evidence. I have long advocated for a Field Sobriety Exercise Jury Instruction in DUI cases stating law enforcement is not an expert in evaluating these exercises.
On Complex Jury Instructions Reduce Your Case to the Simplest Issues
If you are dealing with a complex area of law the jury instructions can be difficult to understand. If you can reduce your case to one or two issues to focus on these instructions will be much easier to understand. The issues to focus on will be based on your theory of the case. It helps if you can sum up your theory of the case with an overall theme in just a few words. See rule on Theory, Themes & Methods Of Proof. A good example of the difficulties in dealing with jury instructions is the Derek Chauvin trial.
The Derek Chauvin Trial
In 2020 Derek Chauvin was convicted of killing George Floyd by putting his knee on George Floyd’s neck. The whole incident was on video, and it was also stipulated that George Floyd had drugs in his system, which potentially contributed to his death. Derek Chauvin was charged with second-degree murder (intentional murder), third-degree murder (depraved heart murder), and second-degree manslaughter (engaging in culpable negligence in a way that consciously takes a chance of causing the death of a person). The defense was tasked with explaining why he is not guilty of these charges.
It would be very difficult to go over the jury instructions on these charges one by one and explain why the Defendant is not guilty of each charge. But if you could reduce your case to the overall theme that the victim's death was caused by a "fluke accident" it would be easier to argue the simple conclusion that this “fluke accident” is not a crime under any of these theories of prosecution.
People take many different approaches to advocacy, and there is no reason to believe this strategy would have been more effective than the strategy used by the defense attorney at trial.
