I (a)     About The National Criminal Jury Instruction Compendium
    I (b)     NCJIC As A Medium For Exchange Among Criminal Defense Practitioners
    I (c)     What NCJIC Doesn't Do
    I (d)     We Welcome Your Input
    I (e)     This Is Just The Start
    I (f)     Acknowledgments
    I (g)     Dedication
    I (h)     Contributor Acknowledgments

    I(a)    About The National Criminal Jury Instruction Compendium

    NCJIC is a tool for criminal defense practitioners that focuses exclusively on jury instructions and related issues.

    The premise of NCJIC is that all standard pattern instruction publications are deficient from the criminal defense perspective for many reasons, including the following:

1.    Because pattern instructions are usually drafted by committees which include judges and prosecutors, they do not address many important defense theories and perspectives.

2.    Pattern instructions normally react to new legal developments after they occur and do not address cutting edge issues.

3.    Typically, pattern instructions are not updated often enough to stay abreast of breaking new issues.

4.  Pattern instructions rarely address the federal constitutional implications of jury instructions.

5.    Pattern instructions normally do not provide briefing, analysis and bibliographical materials which defense practitioners can use for the purpose of jury instruction advocacy.

    Due to these deficiencies, effective defense practitioners should look beyond the pattern instructions when considering jury instructions and related issues at trial and on appeal.

    The purpose of NCJIC is to assist criminal defense practitioners in this endeavor by providing issues, ideas, analysis, briefing and sample instructions as to matters which often are omitted from standard pattern instructions.

    I(b)    NCJIC As A Medium For Exchange Among Criminal Defense Practitioners

    In California, FORECITE^® California has become a "clearinghouse" for the exchange of ideas and materials among criminal defense practitioners. For example, the FORECITE^® Brief Bank allows a practitioner to pass on new issues and analysis to fellow appellate practitioners as well as trial attorneys who can be alerted to raise an issue at the trial level. FORECITE^® California has also effectively facilitated the promulgation of new ideas and strategies among trial attorneys.

    It is anticipated that NCJIC will become a similar medium for communication in the national arena. Through subscriber input, we hope to be in a position to consistently alert our subscribers as to the latest developments in criminal jury instructions.

    I(c)    What NCJIC Doesn't Do

    NCJIC is not a standard pattern jury instruction publication such as O’Malley Grenig, & Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions or Sand, et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions. The goal of NCJIC is to provide an adversarial tool for criminal defense attorneys, not just another set of standard instructions.

    NCJIC is not a treatise or hornbook. Although NCJIC necessarily addresses multi-jurisdictional authorities, the goal of NCJIC is to identify issues and arguments. No attempt is made to address the law of every jurisdiction on a particular issue.

    CAVEAT: For this reason, the practitioner will need to independently research the status of the issue in his or her jurisdiction.

    I(d)    We Welcome Your Input

    NCJIC provides you with an opportunity to further the interests of criminal defense beyond your own practice by providing a medium for dissemination of new ideas and issues. (See NCJIC I(b) [NCJIC As A Medium For Exchange Among Criminal Defense Practitioners].)

    Therefore, we encourage you to contribute your ideas, briefing, motions and instructions.

    We also welcome feedback about NCJIC and any thoughts you have as to how NCJIC can be improved.

    I(e)    This Is Just The Start

    Developing NCJIC has been a very ambitious project. Among the processes that have gone into its development are the following:

    1. Adapting many of the 3000 plus FORECITE^® California issues and instructions.

    2. Reviewing the standard pattern instructions from all state and federal jurisdictions, where available, for useful issues and instructions.

    3. Reviewing countless texts, hornbooks and criminal defense practice manuals for more issues and instructions.

    4.Adding the full text of the model instructions from many circuits and four Federal Judicial Center manuals with cross references to relevant NCJIC materials.

    5. Adding electronic versions of the relevant briefs, articles, motions and unpublished opinions from the FORECITE^® banks.

    6. Compiling a comprehensive list of research notes and hyperlink them to the NCJIC material.

    The result is a single CD-ROM with over 7000 documents including sample jury instructions, points and authorities, practice notes, briefs, articles, motions and more.

    But in many ways this is just the start. We intend to continue improving NCJIC with every quarterly update. We will track new cases as they come out and develop new material in areas that are not yet addressed in NCJIC.

    We also hope to add briefing, ideas and instructions from around the nation from our subscribers whose input we encourage. (See We Welcome Your Input.)

    I(f)    Acknowledgments

    As with any large and ambitious undertaking a team of supporting people is required. I would like to acknowledge the following people who have contributed to NCJIC:

    Production Editor and Legal Research Supervisor Jan Starr. She has worked tirelessly on this project. Her level of efficiency and the meticulous quality of her work is incomparable.

    Sales Manager John Duby provided needed encouragement, strategic insights and moral support.

    Angela Allard provided many hours of valuable clerical and data entry support throughout nearly the entire building of NCJIC. Jean Trowbridge provided clerical support on selected assignments.

    Robin Thaanum, Fortuna Tesfai and Nebiat Berhane provided many valuable hours of support during the "final push."

    David Leonard and Bill Donahue, students at Empire Law School, conducted extensive and comprehensive legal research for the project. Kenton Edwards, Derek Lundy, Steve Shaw and Roger Jackson also completed selected legal research assignments.

    Office manager Gay Farrer helped to hold everything together during the chaotic 3 years while the project was being developed.

Others who contributed include the following:

    Jeffrey Ballance
    Sean Blair
    James Christy Jr.
    Cora Dennis
    Tina Duncan
    Hana Gebresslasie
    Justin Hippler
    Jerrad M. Hortum
    Jaques Law
    Stephanie Lopez
    Justin Sowash
    Angela Stevenson
    Gloria Gail Sthymmel
    Brooke Suro
    Mike Thaanum-Dean
    Eryn White
    Matthew Winthal
    April Wolfe

    Last but not least, I would like to thank my wife Nola Lundy and my children Derek, Dane and Leah for their love and for persevering during the sometimes difficult stages of this project. Nola’s love, support and sacrifice, as well as her diligent management of the day to day operations of the business, were essential to making NCJIC a reality.

Thomas Lundy 

February 14, 2001

Santa Rosa, California

  THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 USER INFORMATION

   I(g)    Dedication

    This project is dedicated to my mother Ruthe Angela Lundy. Among her many qualities is the ability to be supportive and accepting of others without imposing her judgement on them. Without her NCJIC never would have been attempted, much less accomplished.

Thomas Lundy

February, 2001 at Santa Rosa, California

    I(h)    Contributor Acknowledgments

    We wish to acknowledge the following practitioners who have made useful contributions to the materials currently available in the NCJIC:

Michael N. Burt, San Francisco, California, A-97; M-3007, M-3008, M-3015, M-3018

The Honorable Dennis C. Kolenda, Grand Rapids, Michigan: A-81

Barry J. Baker Sipe, Tucson, Arizona: 25.5.5 [Immunity Agreement: Jurors May Not Consider Prosecutor’s Belief As To Truthfulness Of Witness]; 25.9.6.5 [Computer Generated Video: "Simulation" vs. "Animation" -- Limiting Instruction: SAMPLE INSTRUCTION 2]; 26.2.3 [Witness Who Has Entered Guilty Plea: Limited Purpose Instruction, Instruction # 4]; 28.3.1 [Voluntariness Of Statement: Denial Of Right To "Consul" Under Vienna Convention]; 303.3.7 [Death Penalty: Jury May Return Verdict Of Life Even If Aggravation Outweighs Mitigation, Instruction # 3]; 303.3.16 [Death Penalty: Jurors Must Disregard Unproven Aggravator]; 303.4.7 [Death Penalty: Unanimity Not A Requirement For Consideration Of Mitigating Evidence]; 304.8 [Federal Death Penalty: Clarifying Distinction In Burdens As To Aggravation And Mitigation]; 304.9 [Federal Death Penalty: Unanimity – Sole Jurors Has Power To Prevent Death Sentence]; 303.5.2 [Jury Must Be Permitted To Consider Nonstatutory Mitigation, Instruction # 2].