Missouri Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1, Per Se Violation Conspiracy To Fix Prices — Includes Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction is a legal instruction that provides guidelines for determining liability in antitrust cases where there is an alleged conspiracy to fix prices. This instruction is specific to Missouri and is used by judges to guide juries in these cases. Keywords: Missouri, jury instruction, antitrust, per se violation, conspiracy to fix prices, alternative rule of reason, liability. The Missouri Jury Instruction — 3.3.1 Section 1 distinguishes between two types of instructions when it comes to conspiracy to fix prices cases: the Per Se Violation Instruction and the Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction. 1. Per Se Violation Instruction: The Per Se Violation Instruction is used when the alleged conspiracy to fix prices involves conduct that is considered inherently illegal and anti-competitive. Under this instruction, if the jury finds that a conspiracy to fix prices existed, it must presume that the conduct is illegal and violates the antitrust laws. The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant(s) to demonstrate any justifiable or legitimate business reasons for their actions. 2. Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction: The Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction is used when the alleged conspiracy to fix prices involves conduct that may potentially have legitimate or pro-competitive justifications. This instruction requires the jury to engage in a more detailed analysis of the evidence and assess the reasonableness and potentially pro-competitive effects of the alleged conduct. The jury must consider all relevant factors, such as market conditions, business justifications, and potential benefits, to determine whether the conspiracy violates antitrust laws. These two types of instructions, the Per Se Violation Instruction and the Alternative Rule of Reason Instruction, provide guidance to juries in antitrust cases related to price-fixing conspiracies in Missouri. By using these instructions, the court aims to ensure fair and consistent decision-making, considering both the potential harm to competition and any justifiable reasons for the alleged conduct.