Opinion ID: 509231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Jury Instruction Issues

Text: 21 Petitioners argue that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on direct and circumstantial evidence, the right to disregard the testimony of an impeached witness, and the definitions of knowingly and willful denied or contributed to denying them a fair trial. 22 We note that the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that, as a matter of state procedural law, the petitioners were not entitled to an instruction on direct and circumstantial evidence because no circumstantial evidence was offered in this case. Furthermore, the court concluded that, as a matter of Tennessee law, the terms knowingly and willful contained in the statute under which petitioners were charged are words in common usage and do not require a special definition. Finally, the court found that the jury was fully and fairly charged on their right to disregard impeached testimony. 23 In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to show how they were prejudiced by any of these alleged errors. We find that they do not raise issues of Constitutional dimensions cognizable under federal habeas corpus. 24