Conn. Crim. Jury Instr. 4.5-7

The defendant is charged [in count __] with tampering with a juror. The statute defining this

offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of tampering with a juror if (he/she) influences any juror in relation

to any official proceeding to or for which such juror has been drawn, summoned or

sworn.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements

beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Communication

The first element is that the defendant communicated with <insert name of juror>.

Element 2 - With juror

The second element is that, at the time of the communication, <insert name of juror> was then a

juror. A “juror” is any person who has been drawn or summoned to serve or act as a juror in any

court.

Element 3 - Intent to influence

The third element is that the defendant’s communication influenced the juror in relation to the

proceeding

1 in which <insert name of juror> was a juror.

Element 4 - Unauthorized communication

The fourth element is that the communication by the defendant with the juror was not authorized

by law.

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) the defendant communicated

with <insert name of juror>, 2) <insert name of juror> was a juror at the time of the

communication, 3) the defendant influenced <insert name of juror> in relation to the proceeding

which (he/she) was a juror, and 4) the communication was not authorized by law.

If you unanimously find that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements

of the crime of tampering with a juror, then you shall find the defendant guilty. On the other

hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of

the elements, you shall then find the defendant not guilty.

1 General Statutes § 53a-146 (1). The statutory definition of “official proceeding” includes many

proceedings that would not be heard by a jury, so reading the entire definition is not necessary.

2 This element, while not derived from the statutory language, is inserted to distinguish criminal

conduct from conduct that might be constitutionally protected.