As a young attorney, I treated jury instructions like boilerplate—something you filed at the last minute, standard language the judge would read before deliberations. I was wrong. Dead wrong.
It took years of practice, and cases like Wesley's murder trial, to understand that jury instructions are often the most critical and overlooked part of a self-defense case. They are the lens through which twelve strangers will judge whether your client goes home or goes to prison for life.
Let me show you why they matter so much.
The Case: A Deadly Encounter
The courtroom was a powder keg. On one side sat Tom's grieving family, their eyes burning with the need for justice. On the other hand, Wesley's supporters clung to hope that the truth would prevail. Between them, two fundamentally different versions of the same deadly encounter would battle for the jury's belief. Keep in mind the facts were essentially the same for each side. What the case depended upon was “What conclusion would the jury draw from the facts.”
It began with alcohol and heated words. Wesley and Tom, both armed with Ruger pistols—Wesley with a .45 caliber, Tom with a 9mm—found themselves in an argument that spiraled beyond control.
Wesley's Account: Tom pressed his 9mm pistol against Wesley's head, cursing him out in a fit of rage. Only after Tom lowered the weapon did Wesley dare to speak: "Take your son and get out of my house." But as Tom began to leave with his ten-year-old boy, the situation took a deadly turn. Tom suddenly wheeled around at the stairs, gun in hand, and charged back into Wesley's home. Cornered in his own kitchen, Wesley watched in terror as Tom raised his pistol and fumbled with the safety. In that split second, fearing for his life, Wesley fired five rapid shots. One struck Tom in the back.
The Prosecution's Version: There was no threatening return, no raised weapon, no life-or-death struggle. Wesley was a cold-blooded killer who shot Tom in the back as he peacefully left with his son. They dismissed every word of Wesley's testimony as fabrication, arguing that he had planted Tom's gun to manufacture a self-defense claim. "The back, the back, the back," they repeated like a song from a LP record stuck on one spot.
The prosecution came at Wesley with everything they had. Two prosecutors and their entire team attacked his credibility with the ferocity of angry killer bees. Their case was powerful, their presentation polished and passionate, complete with compelling PowerPoint presentations during closing arguments.
But the medical evidence told a more complex story. The pathologist testified that the bullet entered Tom's flank area and traveled upward through his body. Crucially, the pathologist confirmed that both Wesley and Tom could have been facing each other with guns, and when Wesley fired, Tom was moving and was hit in the flank—not squarely in the back as the prosecution claimed.
The Power of Proper Jury Instructions
Here's what many people don't understand: the jury doesn't get to make up their own rules. They must follow the law as the judge explains it to them. And in a self-defense case, how the judge explains that law can determine the verdict.
In Wesley's case, we fought hard and received jury instructions that are critical to every self-defense case in Mississippi. Let me break down why these instructions were so important. Before I mention these instructions let me say this: I started keeping a “Jury Instruction” workbook back around 1990. I was in trial often. I needed to stop the constant search for instructions. There are always going to be the cases where you have to “go to the books” to find the best jury instructions. But since I kept up with cases In Mississippi I was familiar with good instruction and bad instruction. With this in mind, I start a Jury Instruction Workbook which I eventually shared with criminal defense attorneys throughout Mississippi. The instructions I have listed below are by no means all the self-defense instructions. I grabbed a few that I thought might illustrate the point.
Instruction #1: Self-Defense as a Law of Necessity
The instruction reads:
"The Court instructs the jury that self-defense is a law of necessity. Every human being has a right to defend himself against death or serious bodily harm. But to justify the use of deadly force in defense, it must appear that the person attacked was so situated and endangered that he honestly believed, and that he had reasonable grounds for believing, that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. The circumstances under which he acted must have been such as to produce in the mind of a reasonably prudent person, similarly situated, the belief that the other person was then about to kill him, or to do him serious bodily harm." The State of Mississippi has to disprove the accused was not acting in self-defense. The accused does not have to prove he/she acted in self-defense.
Why this matters: This instruction establishes that self-defense isn't some technical legal loophole—it's a fundamental human right. It tells the jury that Wesley didn't need to wait until Tom pulled the trigger. He needed only to have an honest belief, based on reasonable grounds, that he was in imminent danger.
Think about Wesley's situation: Tom had already pressed a gun to his head. Tom had left, then suddenly wheeled around and charged back in with his weapon. Tom was raising his pistol and fumbling with the safety. Does a "reasonably prudent person" in that situation believe they're about to be killed? The instruction gave the jury the legal framework to say yes.
Instruction #2: Not Judged by "After-Developed Facts"
The instruction reads:
"The Court instructs the jury that the defendant is not to be judged by the cool light of after-developed facts, but that they are to put themselves in his place and find their verdict according to the existing circumstances at the time of the alleged killing and render their verdict accordingly."
Why this instruction was absolutely critical: The prosecution hammered on one fact over and over: Tom was shot in the back. "The back, the back, the back." They wanted the jury to think about that fact in the calm, safe environment of a courtroom and conclude that no one shoots someone in the back in self-defense.
But this instruction told the jury: Don't judge Wesley by what you know now, sitting safely in this courtroom. Judge him by what he knew in that terrifying moment when Tom was charging at him with a gun. Wesley didn't know where his bullets would hit. He didn't know if Tom would get a shot off first. He only knew that a man who had already threatened to kill him was coming back with a loaded weapon.
Without this instruction, jurors might think: "Well, he was shot in the back, so it couldn't have been self-defense." With this instruction, they had to ask: "In Wesley's position, at that moment, would I have believed my life was in danger?"
Instruction #3: Not Held to "Cool and Correct Judgment"
The instruction reads is a similar but slightly different version of the one above:
"The Court instructs the jury that in passing upon the action of the defendant the jury should not try him by the light of after-developed events - not hold him to the same cool and correct judgment which they are able to form. They should put themselves in his place and judge his acts by the facts and circumstances by which he was surrounded."
This instruction reinforces the previous one: The jury cannot expect Wesley to make perfect decisions under life-threatening pressure. They cannot expect him to have the clarity of thought that they have in a safe courtroom. They must judge his split-second decision by the chaotic, terrifying circumstances he actually faced.
The prosecution wanted the jury to think: "He should have done X, Y, or Z instead of shooting." This instruction allowed us to argue: "When someone is charging you with a gun, you don't have time to consider alternatives. You react to save your life."
Instruction #4: Stand Your Ground - No Duty to Retreat
The instruction reads:
"The Court instructs the jury that in this State, no one is required to flee in the face of threatened assault, but may stand his ground, and in a proper case may anticipate an attack and, if reasonably necessary, slay his adversary to save his own life. The Court instructs the jury that a person claiming the right to self-defense is not required to retreat or to consider whether she could safely retreat. If she is honestly and reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily harm, she may stand her ground and use whatever force is reasonably necessary under the circumstances, even to the extent of taking the life of the attacker."
This may be the most important instruction of all: It directly addresses an argument the prosecution almost always makes in self-defense cases: "Why didn't the defendant just leave? Why didn't he run away? Why didn't he retreat?"
In Wesley's case, the prosecution could have argued: "When Tom started to leave with his son, Wesley should have let him go. He should have retreated into another room. He should have run out the back door. Instead, he chose to shoot."
But Mississippi law is crystal clear: Wesley had no duty to retreat from his own home. He was not required to run away from an armed intruder who had already threatened his life. He could stand his ground.
Even more importantly, this instruction told the jury that Wesley could "anticipate an attack." He didn't have to wait until Tom actually pulled the trigger. When Tom wheeled around at the stairs and came back with his gun raised, Wesley could reasonably anticipate that Tom was about to shoot him. The law allowed him to act first.
This instruction completely dismantled any argument that Wesley "should have" done something else. He had the legal right to stand his ground in his own home. He had the legal right to defend himself without retreating. And he had the legal right to act when he reasonably believed an attack was imminent—not after he'd already been shot.
Without this instruction, jurors might have convicted Wesley based on the mistaken belief that he had a duty to flee or that he should have explored other options before using deadly force. With this instruction, they understood that Mississippi law placed no such burden on him.
The Verdict
At 5:02 p.m., the jury retired to deliberate. At 7:18 p.m., they returned.
"We the jury, find the defendant Wesley, not guilty."
Wesley's family celebrated. Tom's family grieved. Both reactions were understandable. As I had told the jury during the trial, even in cases of justified self-defense, there will always be another family left to grieve.
What I Learned About Jury Instructions
As a young attorney, I would have filed standard instructions without much thought. After all, they're just legal boilerplate, right?
Wrong. Jury instructions are the roadmap the jury uses to navigate the evidence. They tell twelve ordinary citizens—who probably know nothing about self-defense law—exactly what standard to apply when judging your client's actions.
In Wesley's case:
• Without the first instruction, jurors might not have understood that Wesley had a right to defend himself, not just a possible defense.
• Without the second instruction, they might have focused on where the bullet struck instead of what Wesley reasonably believed in that moment.
• Without the third instruction, they might have expected Wesley to react with the calm precision of someone who had hours to think, not seconds to survive.
• Without the fourth instruction, they might have believed Wesley had a duty to retreat or should have tried to escape rather than defend himself in his own home.
These instructions didn't win the case by themselves—the facts and evidence did that. But they gave the jury the proper legal framework to understand those facts. They told the jury: "You are allowed to find self-defense even if the shot hit the victim in the back. You are allowed to consider Wesley's perspective, not just the calm analysis you can do now. And Wesley had no duty to retreat from his own home."
What This Means If You're Facing Charges
If you're charged with a crime where self-defense is your defense, your attorney must do more than tell your story. They must ensure the jury receives proper instructions that allow them to view your actions through the correct legal lens.
This means:
1. Your attorney must research and request the proper jury instructions well in advance of trial.
2. Your attorney must fight for instructions that accurately reflect Mississippi self-defense law.
3. Your attorney must object if the prosecution requests instructions that misstate the law or unfairly prejudice your case.
4. Your attorney must weave these instructions into their closing argument, reminding the jury of the legal standards they must apply.
In Wesley's case, my co-counsel Aafram and I fought for every instruction that would help the jury understand the law of self-defense. We knew that the prosecution's emotional appeals and polished presentations could sway a jury—unless the jury had clear legal standards to follow.
The Takeaway
Jury instructions aren't just legal formalities. They're not boilerplate. They're the difference between a jury that understands self-defense law and a jury that convicts based on emotion or misunderstanding.
As I matured as an attorney, I realized that the battle for justice isn't just fought through witness testimony and closing arguments. It's also fought in the careful, technical work of ensuring the jury receives proper legal instructions.
Wesley walked out of that courtroom a free man because the jury understood that self-defense isn't judged by "after-developed facts" or "cool and correct judgment." It's judged by what a reasonable person would believe in that terrifying moment when their life is on the line.
That's the law. And that's why jury instructions matter so much.
---
Coxwell & Associates, PLLC
Experienced Criminal Defense Throughout Mississippi