Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1: Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction The Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 relates to the charge of per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, including an alternative rule of reason instruction. This instruction is crucial in cases involving anti-competitive behavior, specifically conspiracies among businesses aiming to manipulate prices. In Connecticut, engaging in a conspiracy to artificially fix prices is considered a serious offense. This instruction provides guidance to the jury regarding the legal elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the guilt of the defendants. It enables jurors to understand the intricacies involved in determining whether an agreement exists that violates antitrust laws. The instruction emphasizes that the prosecution must establish the following essential elements to prove a per se violation conspiracy to fix prices: 1. Agreement or Understanding: The prosecution must demonstrate that the defendants reached an agreement or understanding, either explicit or implied, to collectively manipulate prices. It is essential to establish that the defendants had a conscious commitment to cooperate in the conspiracy. 2. Fixing Prices: The prosecution needs to provide evidence that the defendants agreed to fix, maintain, stabilize, or manipulate prices within the market. This can include agreements to raise, lower, or maintain prices at an artificial level. 3. Applicability of Per Se Violation: This instruction clarifies to the jury that a per se violation occurs when certain pricing agreements are inherently anticompetitive and are deemed illegal without any further inquiry. The jury must determine if the alleged conduct falls under the per se violation category or requires further evaluation under the rule of reason. Additionally, the instruction includes an alternative rule of reason component, providing jurors with an alternative evaluation method. Under the rule of reason, the jury must assess whether the alleged conspiracy unreasonably restrained trade or competition. This inquiry involves a more in-depth analysis to determine if the challenged behavior had a harmful effect on competition, balancing pro-competitive justifications against anti-competitive consequences. Different types of Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 can be named based on the specific circumstances and variations of the per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. Examples of alternative instructions could include: Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1a: Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Including Jury Evaluation of Evidence for Explicit Agreements Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1b: Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Including Jury Evaluation of Evidence for Implied Agreements Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1c: Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Including Jury Evaluation of Evidence for Collusion to Manipulate Prices Connecticut Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1d: Rule of Reason Evaluation for Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Including Balance of Pro-competitive Justifications and Anti-competitive Effects Each alternative instruction would focus on specific aspects of the conspiracy, enabling the jury to assess the accused parties' guilt or innocence based on the evidence and applicable legal standards.