PastPaperHero | Jury trials - Requests for and objections to jury instructions

Learning Outcomes

This article explains how Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 governs requests for and objections to jury instructions in federal civil trials, including:

identifying when and how parties may request specific jury instructions, including supplemental requests for genuinely late-arising issues and unforeseeable developments;
determining whether a proposed instruction or omission has been challenged with a timely, specific, on-the-record objection that satisfies Rule 51(c);
distinguishing between properly requesting an instruction and objecting to the court’s proposed charge, drafts, or last-minute modifications;
analyzing whether instructional error has been preserved for appellate review or instead waived by silence, general objections, or failure to comply with court-imposed deadlines;
applying the narrow “plain error” standard on appeal when no proper objection was made at trial, with attention to substantial-rights and fairness requirements;
explaining how definitive rulings on the record can substitute for later objections and still preserve issues involving given or omitted instructions;
recognizing invited error scenarios in which a party has induced the challenged instruction and therefore cannot obtain reversal on that basis;
connecting Rule 51’s preservation requirements with post-trial motions, standards of review, and common MBE-style fact patterns on federal jury instructions.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand federal jury trial procedure, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

The mechanics and timing of requesting jury instructions in federal civil trials.
How the court handles proposed instructions and conducts the “charge conference.”
How and when to object to proposed instructions and to omissions from the charge.
What must be stated to make an objection “on the record” and sufficiently specific.
The consequences of failing to object under Rule 51, including waiver of appellate review.
The “plain error” exception that sometimes permits review despite a failure to object.
The difference between errors in instructions that were given and in instructions that were omitted.
The relationship between Rule 51 and general preservation-of-error principles (no need for formal “exceptions”).

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

In a federal civil jury trial, when must a party ordinarily object to a proposed jury instruction to preserve that issue for appeal?
1. Any time before the jury returns its verdict
2. After the verdict, in a motion for a new trial
3. After learning what the court will say, and before the jury is instructed and final argument
4. Only after the court actually reads the instructions to the jury
A plaintiff submits a written, correct proposed instruction at the close of evidence. The court’s proposed charge omits that instruction, and the plaintiff says nothing. On appeal, the plaintiff wants to argue that the omission was error. Which is most accurate under Rule 51?
1. The issue is preserved because the plaintiff submitted the instruction in writing
2. The issue is preserved only if the plaintiff also objected to the omission or the court definitively rejected the request on the record
3. The issue is preserved if the omitted instruction concerned a central issue in the case
4. The issue is not preserved because parties may never appeal omitted instructions
Under Rule 51(d)(2), which best describes “plain error” in jury instructions?
1. Any error in instructions that the losing party claims affected the verdict
2. An obvious and serious instructional error that affects substantial rights and seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of the proceedings
3. Any misstatement of substantive law, regardless of its impact on the verdict
4. An error that could have been corrected by further deliberations
A defendant specifically objects at the charge conference to a proposed instruction; the court overrules the objection and gives the instruction as proposed. The defendant does not object again after the instructions are read. Has the defendant preserved the issue?
1. Yes, the objection at the charge conference based on a definitive ruling is enough
2. No, the defendant had to object again immediately after the jury was instructed
3. No, preservation requires a post-verdict objection in a motion for new trial
4. Yes, but only if the defendant also objected in writing before trial

Introduction

Jury instructions are the bridge between law and facts. In a federal civil jury trial, the judge tells the jury what legal rules apply, and the jury applies those rules to the evidence. Because the instructions frame the jury’s legal task, even small errors can change the outcome. For that reason, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain detailed rules about:

When parties must ask for particular instructions.
How and when they must object to the court’s proposed instructions.
What happens on appeal if a party failed to follow those rules.

On the MBE, questions on this topic almost always turn on timing and preservation of error. You must know exactly when Rule 51 requires a request or objection, and what happens if counsel does nothing.

Key Term: Jury Instruction Request
A formal, usually written, proposal by a party asking the court to give a specific instruction or set of instructions to the jury.

Key Term: Objection to Jury Instruction
A statement made on the record, outside the jury’s hearing, that identifies a problem with a proposed instruction or an omission, and clearly states the legal grounds for the objection.

Key Term: Waiver of Instructional Error
The loss of the right to complain about a jury instruction or omission on appeal because the party failed to comply with Rule 51’s request or objection requirements.

Key Term: Plain Error (Jury Instructions)
An obvious and serious instructional mistake that affects substantial rights and may be corrected on appeal even though no proper objection was made in the trial court.

Key Term: Charge Conference
The discussion, usually held after the close of evidence and outside the jury’s presence, at which the court and counsel review proposed jury instructions and rulings on requested instructions.

At common law, parties had to take formal “exceptions” to the judge’s charge to preserve errors for appeal. The modern rules abolish formal exceptions and replace them with simple but strict requirements: make a timely, specific objection on the record (or obtain a definitive ruling on your request), or the issue is lost except for rare plain error review.

Overview of Rule 51

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 governs civil jury instructions. In outline form:

Rule 51(a): Requests for instructions.
Rule 51(b): When and how the court must inform parties of its proposed instructions.
Rule 51(c): Objections to instructions or omissions.
Rule 51(d): Assigning error on appeal and the “plain error” exception.

The MBE expects you to apply these subsections to fact patterns that ask whether a party has preserved an issue for appeal or has waived it.

Although Rule 51 is a civil rule, the basic ideas about preserving objections and plain error parallel those used in evidence law and in criminal procedure: trial judges must be given a clear, timely opportunity to correct the problem before the case goes to the jury.

Requesting Jury Instructions (Rule 51(a), (b))

Any party may ask the court to include specific content in the jury charge. Requests matter for two reasons:

They guide the judge in drafting accurate instructions.
They are part of preserving error when the court refuses to give a proper instruction.

Think of requests as the “front end” of preservation. If you later want to complain that the court failed to instruct the jury on a particular issue, you must normally have asked for that instruction in the first place.

Timing of Requests

Under Rule 51(a)(1), the default timing is:

At the close of the evidence, or
Earlier, if the court reasonably sets an earlier deadline.

Courts often require parties to submit written proposed instructions before trial or before closings, but the rule’s minimum requirement is that parties must have an opportunity by the close of evidence.

Rule 51(a)(2) addresses late-arising issues:

If an instruction concerns an issue that could not reasonably have been anticipated earlier (for example, evidence that came in differently than expected, or a legal issue that first became relevant during trial), a party may submit a new request:
- Any time before the jury is instructed.

This “unforeseeable issue” safety valve is very testable. If the issue should have been anticipated, a late request may be denied and will not cure earlier inaction. The exam might tell you that the issue was discussed in pretrial motions or in the pretrial order—that is almost always a sign it was foreseeable.

Exam focus: A party is not excused from an earlier deadline simply because it did anticipate the issue but chose not to request an instruction. The late request rule is for issues that genuinely could not have been anticipated.

The court has discretion to accept or reject untimely requests even if the issue is new; timeliness still matters.

Form and Content of Requests

Rule 51 expects:

Written requests, unless the court allows oral requests on the record.
Each requested instruction should:
- State the proposed language.
- Identify the legal authority (case law, statute, rule).
- Indicate which party bears the burden and what standard applies.

In practice, parties often use pattern or “model” instructions issued by the circuit, but the court is not required to follow them. On the MBE, the exact wording of the request is less important than whether the party made a timely request at all.

Key Term: Preservation of Error (Jury Instructions)
Compliance with Rule 51’s request and objection requirements so that alleged instructional errors may be raised and reviewed on appeal.

Requests can be broad (“give the standard negligence instruction”) or very targeted (“add a sentence placing the burden of proving contributory negligence on the defendant”). Targeted requests are more likely to preserve a specific complaint about an omission.

The Court’s Proposed Instructions and the Charge Conference (Rule 51(b))

Before the court charges the jury, Rule 51(b)(1) requires the judge to:

Inform the parties of:
- The instructions the court proposes to give, and
- The court’s rulings on any requested instructions.

The court usually does this at a charge conference.

Key Term: Definitive Ruling on the Record
A clear statement by the judge, recorded in the transcript, rejecting or accepting a requested instruction, such that counsel need not repeat an objection to preserve the issue.

Key points:

The conference is held outside the jury’s hearing.
The court may provide written drafts or summarize instructions orally.
Once the court has announced a definitive ruling on a requested instruction on the record, the party need not object again to preserve that issue, as long as the earlier request was proper.
The court may modify its proposed instructions after the conference; if it does so without prior notice, parties must object as soon as practicable once they learn of the change.

On the exam, look carefully at whether the judge’s statement was truly “definitive.” Saying “I’ll think about that” is not definitive; saying “I am denying that requested instruction and will not be including it” is.

Objecting to Jury Instructions and Omissions (Rule 51(c))

Requests alone are not enough. To preserve most instructional errors, a party must also object.

When to Object

Rule 51(c)(2) states that a party must object:

On the record,
After learning what the court will say, and
Before the jury is instructed and before final argument, unless:
- The party did not learn of the instruction or omission until later.

In that situation, the party must object as soon as practicable, typically immediately after the jury leaves the courtroom.

Chronology matters. In exam fact patterns, pay close attention to when counsel objected relative to:

The charge conference.
Closing arguments.
The moment the court read the instructions.

Common MBE traps:

A party that waits until after the verdict to complain has almost always waived the issue.
Raising the problem only in a Rule 59 motion for a new trial is too late to satisfy Rule 51(c), though the court could still grant relief under the plain error rule.

Note that there is no requirement that an objection be repeated after the judge actually reads the instructions if the judge has already made a definitive ruling on the record. The key is that the court had a fair opportunity, before the jury retired, to correct the problem.

How to Object: Specificity and the Record

Rule 51(c)(1) requires that an objection:

Be made on the record (so it appears in the transcript), and
“State distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection.”

It is not enough to say “we object to the instructions” or “we renew all prior objections.” The objecting party must:

Identify the particular instruction (by number, heading, or content) or the precise omission, and
State why it is wrong, such as:
- Incorrect statement of law.
- Misallocation of the burden of proof.
- Lack of evidentiary support.
- Instruction on an issue that is not in the case.

Vague or general objections do not preserve the issue. Appellate courts consistently treat “we except to the entire charge” as preserving nothing.

The specificity requirement also forces parties to stake out a clear position at trial—important for fairness to the trial judge and the opposing party.

Exam Warning

Objections that are untimely or too general almost always lead to waiver. On MBE fact patterns, the party who merely “noted its exception” or “objected to the charge as a whole” has almost certainly not preserved a specific instructional error.

Assigning Error on Appeal (Rule 51(d))

Rule 51(d)(1) distinguishes between:

Errors in instructions that were given, and
Errors in instructions that were omitted.

A party may assign as error:

A given instruction, if:
- The party properly objected under Rule 51(c), and
- The objection identified the specific problem and grounds.
A failure to give an instruction, if:
- The party properly requested that instruction, and
- Either:
  - The court rejected the request in a definitive ruling on the record, or
  - The party also properly objected after the court announced its proposed instructions.

Submitting a requested instruction without a proper objection is generally not enough, unless the judge has clearly and definitively rejected the request on the record.

Exam Tip
For an omitted instruction, think “request plus objection,” unless the judge has already made a clear on-the-record ruling rejecting the request. In that case, the request plus the definitive ruling suffices.

Two recurring exam patterns:

Counsel submits a correct, written instruction but never objects when it is omitted and the court never mentions it. That issue is not preserved.
Counsel argues vigorously at the charge conference and the judge unambiguously rejects the request on the record. No further objection is needed.

Invited Error

Key Term: Invited Error (Jury Instructions)
A doctrine that prevents a party from complaining on appeal about an instruction that the party itself requested or induced the court to give.

A party who asked for an instruction ordinarily cannot complain on appeal that the instruction was erroneous. This doctrine is sometimes called “invited error” and reflects the idea that a party cannot profit from its own trial strategy. On the MBE, if the instruction challenged on appeal is identical or substantially identical to one requested by that party, assume invited error bars relief.

Waiver and Preservation of Error

Failure to comply with Rule 51’s timing and specificity requirements usually results in waiver:

If no proper objection was made, appellate review is limited to plain error.
If a party requested an instruction but did not object to its omission and there was no definitive ruling on the record, the omission is usually not preserved.
If a party actually agreed to the language used or expressly told the judge that an instruction was “acceptable,” that party has typically waived the issue as to that instruction.

From an MBE standpoint, you must be able to look at a timeline and answer:

Did the party:
- Request the instruction at the right time (if it was an omission claim)?
- Object specifically and on the record at the right time?
- Obtain a definitive ruling on the record?

If yes, the issue is preserved. If no, the issue is waived unless the court chooses to apply plain error review.

Revision Tip

Always track three questions in jury instruction fact patterns:

Was there a timely request?
Was there a timely, specific objection on the record?
Did the court make a definitive ruling on the record?

Your answer on preservation will usually follow directly from those three.

The Plain Error Exception (Rule 51(d)(2))

Even when a party has not preserved an issue, Rule 51(d)(2) allows a court to consider:

A plain error in instructions that:
- Affects substantial rights.

This is a narrow, discretionary exception. An appellate court will generally require:

An obvious legal error in the instruction or omission (clear under current law).
A showing that the error likely affected the outcome (prejudice).
A conclusion that leaving the error uncorrected would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Plain error is rarely found in civil cases. It is a safety valve reserved for egregious mistakes, such as:

Misstating the burden of proof in a way that reverses who must prove what.
Failing to instruct on an essential element of a claim or defense where the jury verdict clearly turned on that point.
Giving an instruction that directly contradicts a controlling statute on a central issue.

The concept parallels the evidentiary “plain error” rule: appellate courts may correct unpreserved errors to prevent a miscarriage of justice, but they do not do so routinely. On the MBE, if you see that no objection was made, but the instruction obviously misstates a basic rule and the case outcome likely depended on it, the correct answer often invokes plain error as a slim possibility for relief.

The Process in Practice

Putting the rules together, a typical sequence is:

Parties submit proposed instructions (often in writing) by the court’s deadline or at the close of evidence.
The court holds a charge conference, announces its proposed instructions, and rules on requests.
Parties make specific, on-the-record objections to:
- Particular instructions the court plans to give, and
- Omissions where requested instructions have been refused.
The court instructs the jury.
After a verdict, any preserved instructional issues can be raised in post-trial motions and on appeal.

Objections made after the jury is charged but without a prior opportunity to object (for example, when an unexpected instruction is added while the judge reads the charge) must be made at the earliest practicable opportunity—typically immediately after the jury retires.

Note that Rule 51 interacts with other rules:

Under Rule 46, formal “exceptions” are unnecessary, but parties must still make their position clear to the court.
Under Rule 59, a motion for a new trial can be based on erroneous instructions, but the movant must ordinarily have preserved the issue under Rule 51.

Worked Example 1.1

A plaintiff in a federal civil trial submits a proposed damages instruction. The court does not include the instruction in its proposed charge and never mentions it at the charge conference. The plaintiff does not object or raise the issue again. After the verdict, the plaintiff appeals, arguing that the court erred in omitting the damages instruction.

Answer:
The plaintiff cannot raise the issue on appeal. Although the plaintiff submitted a requested instruction, that alone does not preserve the error. Under Rule 51(d)(1)(B), the plaintiff needed both a proper request and either a definitive on-the-record rejection by the court or a timely, specific objection to the omission. Because there was no objection and no recorded definitive ruling, the omission is waived, subject only to plain error review, which is unlikely to apply on these facts.

Worked Example 1.2

A defendant timely objects at the charge conference to a proposed causation instruction, arguing that it misstates the law. The court overrules the objection and gives the instruction to the jury. The defendant does not object again after the judge instructs the jury. May the defendant challenge the instruction on appeal?

Answer:
Yes. Rule 51(c)(2) requires a timely objection after learning what the court will say, but it does not require a party to renew the objection after the instruction is actually read, so long as the court has already made a definitive ruling on the record. The defendant objected specifically and on the record at the proper time, so the issue is preserved for appeal.

Worked Example 1.3

A party fails to object to an erroneous instruction at trial. On appeal, the party argues that the instruction was plainly wrong and affected the outcome. What must the appellate court find to review and correct the error?

Answer:
The appellate court may review the instruction only if it finds plain error under Rule 51(d)(2). That requires an obvious legal error in the instruction, an impact on the party’s substantial rights (typically a likely effect on the verdict), and a determination that leaving the error uncorrected would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the proceedings. This is a demanding standard and is rarely satisfied in civil cases.

Worked Example 1.4

In a federal negligence case, neither party requests an instruction about comparative fault. At the charge conference, the judge does not mention comparative fault. While reading the instructions, the judge unexpectedly adds a comparative fault instruction taken from an outdated statute that no longer applies. Counsel does not interrupt, but when the jury retires, defense counsel immediately objects on the record, stating the correct law. Is the objection timely?

Answer:
Yes. Defense counsel did not have a prior opportunity to object because the judge first disclosed the comparative fault instruction while charging the jury. Under Rule 51(c)(2)(B), when a party did not learn of the instruction until after the usual time for objections, an objection is timely if made at the earliest practicable opportunity. Objecting immediately after the jury retires satisfies this requirement and preserves the issue for appeal.

Worked Example 1.5

In a federal contract case, the plaintiff asks the court to instruct that the plaintiff need only prove liability by a “preponderance of the evidence.” The judge states on the record: “I will not give that instruction; I believe the plaintiff must prove this claim by clear and convincing evidence.” Plaintiff’s counsel does not object further. The court instructs the jury using a clear-and-convincing standard. Has the plaintiff preserved the issue?

Answer:
Yes. The plaintiff properly requested the correct preponderance instruction. The judge expressly rejected that request in a definitive ruling on the record. Under Rule 51(d)(1)(B), the plaintiff may assign the failure to give the requested instruction as error on appeal without a separate objection, because the court’s definitive ruling functions as a preserved objection.

Worked Example 1.6

At trial, the defendant requests an instruction limiting the jury’s use of certain evidence to impeachment only. The judge responds, off the record in chambers, “I’m not going to give that limiting instruction,” and later instructs the jury without it. Defense counsel does not object on the record before or after the charge. On appeal, the defendant argues that the omission was error. Is the issue preserved?

Answer:
No. Even though the judge rejected the request, the rejection was not a definitive ruling on the record. Rule 51 requires the ruling to appear in the transcript. An unrecorded conference in chambers does not satisfy that requirement. Because counsel did not object on the record to the omission, the issue is waived, subject only to plain error review.

Worked Example 1.7

In a federal diversity case, the court’s instruction on negligence says, “The plaintiff must prove negligence by clear and convincing evidence,” even though state law and federal law both require only a preponderance of the evidence. Neither party objects. The case turns on a close factual dispute. On appeal, the plaintiff raises the burden-of-proof error. How will the appellate court analyze this?

Answer:
Because there was no proper objection, the court reviews only for plain error. The instruction’s burden-of-proof misstatement is an obvious legal error and likely affected the plaintiff’s substantial rights by making recovery harder. If the case was close, the court may conclude the error probably changed the outcome and that allowing a verdict based on that error would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of the proceedings. This is the kind of exceptional situation in which a court might grant relief under Rule 51(d)(2).

Exam-Focused Pitfalls

Submitting a requested instruction but staying silent when the court omits it is not enough, absent a clear on-the-record rejection.
A general “we object to the charge” does not preserve specific issues.
Raising an instructional issue for the first time in a post-trial motion is too late, unless plain error applies.
A party cannot complain about an instruction that it requested; such “invited error” is not a basis for reversal.
For omitted instructions, always ask: was the issue unforeseen? If yes, a late request may still be timely under Rule 51(a)(2).
Remember that an objection need not be repeated after the jury is instructed if a definitive ruling on the record has already been made.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

Rule 51 governs civil jury instructions in federal court, including requests, objections, and appellate review.
Parties normally must request desired instructions at the close of evidence or earlier if the court sets an earlier deadline.
Supplemental requests are allowed for issues that could not reasonably have been anticipated earlier, as long as they are made before the jury is instructed.
The court must inform parties of its proposed instructions and rulings on their requests, typically at a charge conference outside the jury’s presence.
To preserve an objection to a given instruction, a party must object on the record, before the jury is charged (or at the earliest practicable time), and must state distinctly both the matter objected to and the grounds.
To challenge an omitted instruction, a party must have properly requested the instruction and, unless the court definitively rejected it on the record, also properly objected to the omission.
Submitting a proposed instruction without a proper objection or definitive ruling usually does not preserve error.
Failure to comply with Rule 51’s timing and specificity requirements generally waives the issue on appeal.
The plain error exception allows appellate review of unpreserved jury instruction errors only when the error is obvious, affects substantial rights, and seriously undermines the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
A party ordinarily cannot complain about an instruction that it requested; such “invited error” bars relief.
Definitive rulings on the record can substitute for a later objection, but only if they are clearly recorded in the transcript.

Key Terms and Concepts

Jury Instruction Request
Objection to Jury Instruction
Waiver of Instructional Error
Plain Error (Jury Instructions)
Charge Conference
Preservation of Error (Jury Instructions)
Definitive Ruling on the Record
Invited Error (Jury Instructions)

Jury trials - Requests for and objections to jury instructio...