Preview of Member Only Content
For full access: 
or Become a Member 
Instructing the Jury to Find Each Element or Every Element of the Charge
By Thomas Lundy
Read more
Jury Instruction columns.
Some believe that it is good enough to merely instruct jurors that they
must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. On
the other hand, a long, unbroken line of U.S. Supreme Court cases
requires proof of “each element” if not every essential fact1 of the
charge. This difference of opinion has come to a head in California
where the new pattern instruction, CALCRIM, does not include the
original “each element” language, but instead simply says the
prosecution “must prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”2
This article contends that the “each element” or “every element”
language is necessary to accurately convey the prosecution’s burden of
proof.
U.S. Constitution
The federal Constitution requires the prosecution to prove every
element. Any person accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless and
until the jury finds that every essential fact necessary to prove the
charged crime and every element of the crime have been prov
Want to read more?
The Champion archive is reserved for NACDL members.
NACDL members, please login to read the rest of this article.
Not a member? Join now.
Or click here to see an overview of NACDL Member benefits.
See what NACDL members say about us.
To read the current issue of The Champion in its entirety, click here.
- Media inquiries: Contact NACDL's Director of Public Affairs & Communications Ivan J. Dominguez at 202-465-7662 or idominguez@nacdl.org
- Academic Requests: Full articles of The Champion Magazine are available for academic and research purposes in the WestLaw and LexisNexis databases.