Indiana Jury Instruction - 3.3.1 Section 1, Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices - Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• Control #: US-11CF-3-3-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Indiana Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 provides guidance to jurors regarding the concept of per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, including the alternative rule of reason instruction. This instruction is applicable in cases involving price-fixing conspiracies and encompasses various types of violations. In price-fixing cases, jurors may be instructed on both per se violation and the rule of reason analysis as alternative approaches to assess the legality of the alleged conspiracy. Here is a detailed description of both approaches: 1. Per Se Violation: The per se violation instruction is applicable when the alleged conspiracy falls into a category of conduct recognized by law as inherently illegal. Jurors are informed that certain agreements among competitors, such as fixing prices, are deemed anti-competitive without the need to prove their actual impact on the market. In this instruction, jurors are guided to find the defendants guilty if they determine that a price-fixing agreement did exist, regardless of whether it caused harm to competition. 2. Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: The rule of reason instruction provides an alternative method of analyzing a price-fixing conspiracy. Under the rule of reason, jurors consider the facts and circumstances of the agreement, weighing its potential anti-competitive effects against any pro-competitive justifications offered by the defendants. This instruction requires jurors to evaluate the impact of the alleged conspiracy on competition and overall market welfare. Jurors must weigh the evidence to determine if the agreement unreasonably restrained trade or harmed competition. It is important to note that the availability of the alternative rule of reason instruction is subject to the court's discretion and depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The judge may decide to instruct the jury on both per se violation and rule of reason analysis, empowering them to make a well-informed decision based on the evidence presented before them. In conclusion, Indiana Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 addresses the per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, which includes the alternative rule of reason instruction. By providing jurors with the necessary legal framework, this instruction equips them to assess the alleged price-fixing conspiracy and make an informed determination regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendants.

Indiana Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 provides guidance to jurors regarding the concept of per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, including the alternative rule of reason instruction. This instruction is applicable in cases involving price-fixing conspiracies and encompasses various types of violations. In price-fixing cases, jurors may be instructed on both per se violation and the rule of reason analysis as alternative approaches to assess the legality of the alleged conspiracy. Here is a detailed description of both approaches: 1. Per Se Violation: The per se violation instruction is applicable when the alleged conspiracy falls into a category of conduct recognized by law as inherently illegal. Jurors are informed that certain agreements among competitors, such as fixing prices, are deemed anti-competitive without the need to prove their actual impact on the market. In this instruction, jurors are guided to find the defendants guilty if they determine that a price-fixing agreement did exist, regardless of whether it caused harm to competition. 2. Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: The rule of reason instruction provides an alternative method of analyzing a price-fixing conspiracy. Under the rule of reason, jurors consider the facts and circumstances of the agreement, weighing its potential anti-competitive effects against any pro-competitive justifications offered by the defendants. This instruction requires jurors to evaluate the impact of the alleged conspiracy on competition and overall market welfare. Jurors must weigh the evidence to determine if the agreement unreasonably restrained trade or harmed competition. It is important to note that the availability of the alternative rule of reason instruction is subject to the court's discretion and depends on the specific circumstances of each case. The judge may decide to instruct the jury on both per se violation and rule of reason analysis, empowering them to make a well-informed decision based on the evidence presented before them. In conclusion, Indiana Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 addresses the per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, which includes the alternative rule of reason instruction. By providing jurors with the necessary legal framework, this instruction equips them to assess the alleged price-fixing conspiracy and make an informed determination regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendants.