8^TH CIRCUIT MODEL INSTRUCTIONS 2009
Go to Federal Model Instructions Table of Contents - Go to 8th Circuit Table of Contents

These instructions have been prepared to help judges communicate more effectively with juries. The Manual is meant to provide judges and lawyers with models of clear, brief and simple instructions calculated to maximize juror comprehension. They are not intended to be treated as the only method of properly instructing a jury. See United States v. Ridinger, 805 F.2d 818, 821 (8th Cir. 1986). "The Model Instructions . . . are not binding on the district courts of this circuit, but are merely helpful suggestions to assist the district courts." United States v. Norton, 846 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Jones, 23 F.3d 1407 (8th Cir. 1994).

Every effort has been made to assure conformity with current Eighth Circuit law; however, it cannot be assumed that all of these model instructions in the form given will necessarily be appropriate under the facts of a particular case. The Manual covers issues on which instructions are most frequently given, but because each case turns on unique facts, instructions should be drafted or adapted to conform to the facts in each case.

In drafting instructions, the Committee has attempted to use simple language, short sentences and the active voice and omit unnecessary words. We have tried to use plain language because giving the jury the statutory language, or language from appellate court decisions, is often confusing.

It is our position that instructions should be as brief as possible and limited to what the jury needs to know for the case. We also recommend sending a copy of the instructions as given to the jury room.

Counsel are reminded of the dictates of Criminal Rule 30(d) which provides, "[a] party who objects to any portion of the instructions or to a failure to give a requested instruction must inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for the objection before the jury retires to deliberate." See United States v. Hecht, 705 F.2d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1983). Simply offering instructions without making specific objections does not satisfy Rule 30. Id. at 978-79. Moreover, merely offering a requested instruction to the trial judge for his or her consideration is not not sufficient to preserve an error based on a judge's failure to use the instruction. Id. at 978-79. A requested instruction must set out a correct declaration of law and be supported by the evidence. United States v. Brake, 596 F.2d 337, 339 (8th Cir. 1979).

(For 2008 version see below).

****************************************************************************************************************************

2008 Version

    These instructions have been prepared to help judges communicate more effectively with juries. The Manual is meant to provide judges and lawyers with models of clear, brief and simple instructions calculated to maximize juror comprehension. They are not intended to be treated as the only method of properly instructing a jury. See United States v. Ridinger, 805 F.2d 818, 821 (8th Cir. 1986). "The Model Instructions . . . are not binding on the district courts of this circuit, but are merely helpful suggestions to assist the district courts." United States v. Norton, 846 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir. 1988). See also United States v. Jones, 23 F.3d 1407 (8th Cir. 1994).

    Every effort has been made to assure conformity with current Eighth Circuit law, however, it cannot be assumed that all of these model instructions in the form given will necessarily be appropriate under the facts of a particular case. The Manual covers issues on which instructions are most frequently given, but because each case turns on unique facts, instructions should be drafted or adapted to conform to the facts in each case.

    In drafting instructions, the Committee has attempted to use simple language, short sentences, and the active voice and omit unnecessary words. We have tried to use plain language because giving the jury the statutory language, or language from appellate court decisions, is often confusing.

    It is our position that instructions should be as brief as possible and limited to what the jury needs to know for the case. We also recommend sending a copy of the instructions as given to the jury room.

    Counsel are reminded of the dictates of Criminal Rule 30(d) which provides, "[a] party who objects to any portion of the instructions or to a failure to give a requested instruction must inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for the objection before the jury retires to deliberate." See United States v. Hecht, 705 F.2d 976, 978 (8th Cir. 1983). Simply offering instructions without making specific objections does not satisfy Rule 30. Id. at 978-79. Moreover, merely offering a requested instruction to the trial judge for his or her consideration is not sufficient to preserve an error based on a judge's failure to use the instruction. Id. at 978-79. A requested instruction must set out a correct declaration of law and be supported by the evidence. United States v. Brake, 596 F.2d 337, 339 (8th Cir. 1979).