New Ohio Jury Instructions

Sometimes announcements get overlooked or are not widely spread around, even though of importance to many people. In case you missed it…..


Ohio Jury Instructions (OJI) were reorganized by the Ohio Judicial Conference back in November to simplify their use by judges and practitioners. LexisNexis was required to provide a complete OJI database with updated numbering of all instructions to WestLaw and Casemaker for their online versions. (See Notice)

In the new revision, Volume 1 ''General Instructions'' has been eliminated, and the applicable general instructions included in the civil and criminal volumes. There is one civil volume, now organized by general subject matter areas, and one criminal volume. There are, however, still three binders. The criminal volume will now be comprised of two binders with a separate tab for ''Traffic'' offenses.

The numbering of all instructions has also been revised and simplified. Instructions will now be identified as ''CV''(Civil) and ''CR''(Criminal). For example, current 4 OJI 503.01, dealing with Aggravated Murder, becomes CR 503.01. A ''Correlation Table'' will be included in each volume containing previous and new section numbers. Both volumes have newly designed, slightly larger loose-leaf binders. The format of individual instructions has not changed.

Jury instructions, while perhaps being one of the jurisprudence’s lesser celebrated entities-- behind all of the rules, statutes, and case law—none the less can serve lawyers and judges by providing insight into matters now before them, especially when current conditions or circumstances are more novel or usual.

Black’s Law Dictionary describes model jury instructions as “directions or guidelines a judge gives a jury concerning the legal aspects of a case, usually approved by the state’s bar or similar group.” Put another way, Indiana’s Third District Court of Appeals in 2005 said “the purpose of an instruction is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts of a case without misleading it and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly so it can arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict.” ( Case )

“Standardized” or “model” instructions to a jury were first attempted in Ohio in 1922, but it wasn’t until 1958 that Ohio Jury Instructions were published and privately circulated by the Ohio Common Pleas Judges Association. In 1960, a “Standard Civil Outline—Negligence” was released, followed by a companion criminal outline in 1962. Ohio Jury Instructions have been since been revised four times.


Jury instructions in Ohio are codified in ORC 2945.10 and 2945.11. Civil Rule 51, Criminal Rule 30, and Jury Standard 16 also pertain to jury instructions. [“Ohio Trial Court Jury Use & Management Standards” in “Appendix B” of Ohio Rules of
Superintendence” @ http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Rules/superintendence/Superintendence.pdf ]

White-collar crime influxes

Top white-collar criminal defense attorneys are beginning to receive steady flows of inquiries from clients embroiled in the ongoing credit crisis, the National Law Journal reported in its November 10th. issue. (Subscription)

“700 billion dollars can’t go out the door without someone going to jail,” Abbe Lowell, head of the white-collar crime defense practice section of McDermott, Will & Emery’s Washington office told the Journal, referring to the massive buyouts the federal government has already spent in the banking and mortgage industries. “There are gouing to be criminal cases made as a result of this crsis,” Lowell said. “Somewhere buried in the complexities of these transactions you’ll find people who took advantage.”

Assurances from the prosecutors’ side was also foretold. Steve Huggard, one of the partners in the white-collar crime practice area at Boston’s Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, and former chief of the public corruption & special prosecutions unit of the U.S. attorney’s office for 17 years until 2005, was quoted as having commented that “The [DOJ’s] focus will be the harm to the economy and to investors… Prosecutions often follow public sentiment and there’s a lot of anger in the country….”


Similar scenarios are occurring more locally as evidenced over the weekend by Cleveland’s Plain Dealer. A county-wide corruption probe that came to light back in July when nearly 200 federal agents raided homes and offices of several prominent politicians and businesses – depending on how the probe plays out with grand juries, indictments, and trials in the forecast -- could generate more than $10 million in legal fees by the time the case is closed.

Ohio Supreme Court documenting state's Pro Se work

The prodigy of Henry Campbell Black describe pro bono activities as “being or involving uncompensated legal services performed, especially for the public good,” and former American Bar Association President Jerome Shestack, ten years ago back in August 1998, included them among his six determinant components of legal professionalism along with “ethics and integrity, competence combined with independence of judgment, and meaningful continuing learning, civility, and obligations to the justice system.”

Our principle interests here are with Ohio and that story starts in August 1989 with Ohio Supreme Court’s formation of a committee to examine creeds of professionalism adopted by other states and charging it with the task of assembling information “that would raise the consciousness of attorneys regarding their individual & collective responsibilities to maintain a high level of professionalism.” The work of that committee led, in 1992, to the formation of the Supreme Court of Ohio Commission on Professionalism, which – in 1997—adopted a Statement of Professionalism, Lawyer’s Creed, and A Lawyer’s Aspirational Ideals, also amending continuing education requirements to include at least an hour of instruction biennially relating to professionalism and including the topics just mentioned. Pro bono activities were part of that package.

In September 2007, underscoring “the important obligation attorneys have in facilitating public access to justice, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a statement encouraging attorneys to regularly provide pro bono legal services and report those activities. That statement was published in booklet form along with the Statement of Professionalism.

This morning the Supreme Court announced a new program designed to gather “meaningful information about the extent & nature of pro bono work in Ohio and encourage activity to aid those in need of free legal services. (Here)

Under a joint project of the Supreme Court and Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation (OLAF), which the Court has regularly allocated funds to to aid in the development & coordination of pro bono activities in Ohio since 2003, Ohio attorneys will be being asked in January to voluntarily and anonymously report pro bono activities and financial support for legal aid programs this past year. The information will be used to identify gaps in the delivery of legal services in order to strengthen the network of services available to Ohioans in need.


Ohio Supreme Court’s Pro Bono statement