Rhode Island Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1: Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction In Rhode Island, the jury instruction 3.3.1 Section 1 defines the concept and elements of a per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. This instruction is necessary to educate the jury on the specific legal framework and criteria that must be met for a defendant to be found guilty under this charge. In some cases, alternative instructions may also be provided, such as the Rule of Reason Instruction, which allows the jury to consider the defendant's intent and the potential anti-competitive effects of the alleged price-fixing conduct. The Rhode Island Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 concerning per se violation conspiracy to fix prices provides clarity on how the law in the jurisdiction views and treats such offenses. It establishes that a per se violation refers to a type of antitrust violation where the conduct in question is deemed inherently illegal regardless of its intent or actual impact on the market. It is important for the jury to understand that this type of violation carries a presumption of illegality and requires no further analysis beyond determining whether the alleged conduct occurred as stated. The instruction further outlines the essential elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the defendant to be found guilty of a per se violation conspiracy to fix prices. These elements may include: 1. Agreement: The prosecution must demonstrate that there was an agreement or understanding between two or more individuals, organizations, or entities to engage in price-fixing. 2. Intent: The jury must find that there was a specific intent to fix, control, or manipulate prices and restrain competition in the relevant market. 3. Pricing Element: The prosecution must show evidence of actual price-fixing or an attempt to fix prices directly or indirectly. 4. Market Impact: The defendant's actions must have a potentially or demonstrably anti-competitive effect in the relevant market. It is important to note that while the per se violation instruction sets a high threshold for proving guilt, alternative instructions may be given to the jury providing more leeway for defendants. For example, the Rule of Reason Instruction allows the jury to consider broader factors such as the intent behind the alleged price-fixing and its potential effects on competition. Under this alternative approach, the jury must weigh the pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects of the conduct, considering factors such as market conditions, consumer welfare, and economic justifications. In summary, the Rhode Island Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 addresses the per se violation conspiracy to fix prices and provides guidance to the jury regarding the essential elements that must be established for a guilty verdict. However, alternative instructions, such as the Rule of Reason Instruction, may also be presented, allowing the jury to consider additional factors when evaluating the defendant's conduct.