trialdex ™ jury instructions

trialdex blog

Welcome to the trialdex blog. For a complete and up-to-date set of links to federal and state instructions, see the trialdex front page. To keep up with new developments, sign up for the jury instruction alerts.

 

Ninth Circuit posts revised Model Jury Instructions

The Ninth Circuit has posted revisions to its Model Jury Instructions. The criminal changes are as follows:

• The Comment to Instruction 1.1 (Duty of Jury) now asserts that "[t]he The presence of even one biased juror deprives the accused of a fair trial. This is true even if the biased juror is an alternate. United States v. Colar, 182 F.4th 1110, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2026)."

• The second and third paragraphs of Instruction 3.9 (Testimony of Witnesses Involving Special Circumstances—Immunity, Benefits, Accomplice, Plea) are modified with the phrase "might receive or has received." The Comment explains that this is to cover circumstances where the benefit occurs in the future.

• The Comment to Instruction 6.25 (Deadlocked Jury) now cites United States v. Chapman, 175 F.4th 1118 (9th Cir. 2026), regarding juries who tell the judge the numerical breakdown.

• The Comment to Instruction 11.8 (Solicitation to Commit a Crime of Violence (18 U.S.C. § 373)) now asserts that Murder-for-hire is not categorically a crime of violence even if death results.

• The Comment to Instruction 14.15 (Firearms—Unlawful Possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g))) now notes United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. 772 (2026).

• Instruction 17.1 (Kidnapping (18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1))) now defines "inveigle."The Comment now cites United States v. Chapman, 175 F.4th 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2026).

The civil changes are listed here

(10/21/26) (permalink)

Third Circuit revises its civil and criminal instructions

The Third Circuit has revised Chapters 4 through 11 of its Model Civil Instructions. A redline/strikeout copy of these instructions has been posted here.

They have also revised Model Criminal Instruction 4.12 (Chain of Custody) to clarify that chain of custody does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Comment explains that the change was made to reflect the holding in United States v. Strickland, 187 F.4th 59 (3d Cir. 2026).

(10/19/26) (permalink)

The Tenth Circuit revises its conspiracy and kidnapping instructions

The Tenth Circuit has posted an order revising its Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions. The changes were as follows:

• Former Instruction 2.19 (Conspiracy 18 U.S.C. § 371) was eliminated and replaced with Instructions 2.19.1 (Conspiracy to Commit Offense 18 U.S.C. § 371) and 2.19.2 (Conspiracy to Defraud 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Second Clause)).

• Instruction 2.55 (Kidnapping 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) was substantially revised. The Comment explains that the change was made based on United States v. Murphy, 100 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2024) ("holding" requires an appreciable temporal period of detention distinguished from that inherent in the commision of another offense).

(09/14/26) (permalink)

The Eleventh Circuit has revised its Pattern Criminal Jury instructions regarding child pornography

The Eleventh Circuit has revised its Pattern Criminal Jury instructions regarding child pornography (18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2251A). The changes are as follows:

• Instructions O83.2B (Sexual Exploitation of Minors Reproducing Visual Depiction Involving Sexual Exploitation of Minors, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)), O83.2C (Sexual Exploitation of Minors: Selling or Possessing with Intent to Sell Visual Depiction Involving Sexual Exploitation of Minors, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(3)(B)), O83.2D (Sexual Exploitation of Minors: Possessing or Accessing with Intent to View Visual Depiction Involving Sexual Exploitation of Minors, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), and O83.5A (Child Pornography Possessing or Accessing with Intent to View (Visual Depiction of Actual Minor as Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), (C)) are new.

• The title to Instruction O82 (18 U.S.C. § 2251(a)) has been changed to "Transmitting Visual Depiction of Sexually Explicit Conduct." The Instruction adds additional language regarding interstate and foreign commerce, and defines that phrase. It also adds language to the definition of visual depiction, and clarifies that the definitions of "sexual activity" and "lascivious" include anus and genitals.

  The Comment adds interstate commerce language to its quotation of § 2251(a). It strikes sentencing information and further addresses the definitions. Finally, it notes the "Dost factors that are used in some circuits in defining “lascivious exhibition.”

• The title to Instruction O82.1 (18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)) has been changed to "Advertising visual Depiction of Sexually Explicit Conduct." The Interstate Commerce language has been rewritten. The definition of “visual depiction” now reads "includes undeveloped film and videotape video, data stored on a computer disk or by any other electronic means that can be converted which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and data which is capable of conversion into a visual image that has been transmitted by any means, whether or not stored in a permanent format. The definitions of “sexually explicit conduct” and “lascivious exhibition” now include anal sex, and the Instruction observes that "[t]o decide whether a visual depiction is a lascivious exhibition, you must consider the context and setting in which the anus, genitals, or pubic area is being displayed." This is followed by a list of factors that now includes "whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the minor’s anus, genitals, or pubic area," and "whether the minor is partially clothed or nude."

  The Comment strikes the sentencing discussion and notes that the 2018 amendments to § 2256 added the word “anus” in § 2256(2)(A)(v) as part of the definition of “sexually explicit sexual conduct." The discussions of United States v. Fadl, 498 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2007), United States v. Grovo, 826 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2016), and United States v. Franklin, 785 F.3d 1365 (10th Cir. 2015), have been deleted. It also includes a discussion of Dost factors.

• The title to Instruction O83.2A (18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)) (formerly O83.2) has been changed to "Sexual Exploitation of Minors Receiving or Distributing Visual Depiction Involving Sexual Exploitation of Minors." The first paragraph adds interstate and foreign commerce language. The second element has changed accordingly: "(2) the depiction [was; [using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce] [that has been mailed] [was that has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce] [which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported by any means] [, including by computer]. The definition of “sexually explicit conduct" and "lascivious" now includes the anus. The language regarding computer terms has been modernized as it was in Instruction O82.1.

  The Comment adds interstate commerce language to its quotation of § 2252(a)(2). It strikes sentencing information and further addresses the definitions. It notes the 2018 amendments to definitions in § 2256, including the addition of anus to the definition of “sexually explicit conduct.” Finally, it notes the "Dost factors that are used in some circuits in defining “lascivious exhibition.”

• The title to Instruction O83.3A (18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(1)) has been changed to insert "Mailing, Transporting, or Shipping (Visual Depiction of Actual Minor as Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), (C))" after "Child Pornography." The Instruction and Comment have been thoroughly rewritten.

• Instruction O83.4A (Child Pornography Receiving or Distributing (Visual Depiction of Actual Minor as Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), (C))), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), and its Comment have been thoroughly rewritten.

• The title to Instruction O83.4A4B has been rewritten as "Child Pornography, Receiving, Possessing, or Distributing (Computer or Digital Image that (Visual Depiction of Appears Indistinguishable from Actual Minor) but may not be of an Actual Person as Defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256(8)(B)) 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (5)(B)." The Instruction and its Comment have been thoroughly rewritten.

• Instruction O83.5A (Child Pornography Possessing or Accessing with Intent to View (Visual Depiction of Actual Minor as Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(A), (C)), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B)), and its Comment has been thoroughly rewritten.

• The title to Instruction O83.4B5B now reads "Child Pornography Receiving, Possessing, Distributing or Accessing with Intent to View (Computer or Digital Image that Appears Indistinguishable from Actual Minor but may not be of an Actual Person) as Defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)(B)), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A) and (5)(B)."

(09/09/26) (permalink)

Updated Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instructions

The Ninth Circuit has published revisions to its civil and criminal Model Jury Instructions.

The site says that its "website is currently undergoing migration to a new platform" and that users will be "redirected to the original version."

As I have noted here before, a "not secure" warning screen about "attackers" comes up when clicking on the links to both sets of instructions. I get that warning when using the Microsoft Edge browser, but not with Google Chrome. My best guess is that it is a false alarm, but it has been that way for several months now. Hopefully they will fix this when they complete the migration.

Anyway, the civil changes are as follows:

• The Comment to Instruction 9.11 (Particular Rights—First Amendment—“Citizen” Plaintiff) now notes that "Courts may also consider a student’s age to evaluate whether a school’s actions were reasonably designed to protect the safety and well-being of its students. B.B. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 169 F.4th 953, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2026) (per curiam) (observing that “[c]ertain speech may be merely negative or controversial to high schoolers, but may constitute derogatory and injurious remarks against elementary students given their greater vulnerability”).

• The Comment to Instruction 9.17 (Particular Rights—Fourth Amendment—Unreasonable Search—Exception to Warrant Requirement—Exigent Circumstances), now notes that Jones v. City of N. Las Vegas, 168 F.4th 1131, 1134 (9th Cir. 2026), amended on denial of reh’g en banc 150 F.4th 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2025) (holding that “a pursuit is at best lukewarm, and certainly no longer hot pursuit, when officers lose a suspect’s trail in a residential neighborhood for eighteen minutes”), has been amended on remand.

• The Comments to Instructions 9.36 (Particular Rights—Fourteenth Amendment—Due Process— Interference with Parent/Child Relationship), and 9.41 (Qualified Immunity) delete their citations to Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215(9th Cir. 2024).

• The Comment to Instruction 17.21 (Secondary Liability—Contributory Infringement—Elements and Burden of Proof) now discusses Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, 146 S. Ct. 959 (2026).

The criminal changes are as follows:

• Two paragraphs were added at the end of the kidnapping instructions at 17.1 to 17.6:

  To “kidnap” a person means to unlawfully hold, keep, detain, or confine the person against their will and without their consent. Involuntariness or coercion in connection with the victim’s detention is an essential part of the offense.

  [To “inveigle” a person means to lure, entice or lead the person astray by false representations, promises, or other deceitful means.]

• The Comment to Instruction 14.15 (Firearms—Unlawful Possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g))) now cites United States v. Martinez, 169 F.4th 1147, 1152-58 (9th Cir. 2026) (upholding the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) and rejecting both a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge to the law under the Second Amendment).

• The Comment to Instruction 15.9 (Fraud in Connection with Identification Documents—Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A)) now cites United States v. Motley, 168 F.4th 588, 598 (9th Cir. 2026) (“[T]he fraudulent or deceitful aspect of the identity use must be distinct from—and not duplicative of—the fraud in the underlying healthcare crime. The use of identifiers, in other words, must stand on its own as fraudulent or deceitful ....”).

• The Comment to Instruction 20.29 (Using or Attempting to Use the Mail or a Means of Interstate Commerce to Persuade or Coerce a Minor to Engage in Prostitution or Sexual Activity (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b))) now notes that § 2422(b) requires proof that the defendant’s purpose was to merely “confirm or exploit” the minor’s will, citing United States v. Williams, 172 F.4th 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2026).

(09/03/26) (permalink)