Nebraska Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1, Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction The Nebraska Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 outlines the legal framework and guidance for handling cases involving the Per Se Violation Conspiracy to Fix Prices. This instruction provides jurors with detailed information pertaining to antitrust laws, specifically addressing situations where competitors collude to set prices. The instruction begins by explaining the concept of a conspiracy to fix prices, highlighting that this conduct is unlawful and violates antitrust laws. It emphasizes that price-fixing agreements between competitors harm competition, restrict consumer choice, and lead to inflated prices that can negatively impact the economy. Furthermore, the instruction differentiates between two approaches in analyzing price-fixing cases — the Per Se violation and the Rule of Reason. It specifies that this instruction encompasses both alternatives, providing jurors with a comprehensive understanding of the legal standards involved. Under the Per Se violation framework, the instruction alerts jurors that if they find a price-fixing agreement existed, they should conclude that the defendants' conduct is illegal without further analysis. This means that no justifications or reasons for the price-fixing activities are considered, as the per se violation doctrine assumes they are inherently anti-competitive. However, the instruction also introduces an alternative, the Rule of Reason approach. This alternative instructs jurors to evaluate the overall competitive impact of the alleged price-fixing scheme. It suggests that if the defendants provide evidence demonstrating pro-competitive justifications and show that the conduct promotes economic efficiency outweighing any anti-competitive effects, the jury must consider these factors in their decision-making process. The Nebraska Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 further enumerates the essential elements of a per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. These elements may include: 1) Evidence proving the existence of an agreement between competitors to fix prices; 2) Demonstrating that the defendant(s) knowingly participated in the agreement; 3) Illustrating that the agreement directly impacted prices in the relevant market; 4) Confirming that the agreement restrained trade or disrupted normal market competition. It is important to note that while Nebraska Jury Instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 outlines the general framework for analyzing per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, it does not encompass specific subcategories or variations that may exist within this context. Subsequently, there might be additional instructions referring to unique circumstances or more detailed explanations depending on the specific case being tried. Overall, this comprehensive jury instruction aims to equip jurors with the necessary knowledge and guidelines to make informed decisions when evaluating cases involving per se violation conspiracy to fix prices, while also presenting the option of using the alternative Rule of Reason approach when applicable.