Opinion ID: 1608431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Jurisprudential Support for Instruction Given in This Case

Text: In affirming the use of the reasonable doubt instruction given in this case, the Court of Appeals noted that instruction No. 21 from the Federal Judicial Center's pattern criminal jury instructions includes an instruction identical in substance to that given by the district court and that in a concurring opinion in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994), Justice Ginsburg endorsed the pattern instruction. See Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions: Report of the Subcommittee on Pattern Jury Instructions (Comm. on the Oper. of the Jury Sys., Jud. Conf. of the United States, Fed. Jud. Ctr. 1987). Due in large measure to the Federal Judicial Center's recommendation and Justice Ginsburg's approval of the instruction, the language at issue in this appeal has been used by trial courts in several jurisdictions, which has in turn led to challenges on appeal under the Due Process Clause. Federal courts have consistently rejected the claim that the real possibility language, criticized by Putz, constitutes reversible error. See, e.g., U.S. v. Rodriguez, 162 F.3d 135 (1st Cir.1998); U.S. v. Artero, 121 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir.1997); U.S. v. Conway, 73 F.3d 975 (10th Cir.1995); U.S. v. Williams, 20 F.3d 125 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Taylor, 997 F.2d 1551 (D.C.Cir.1993); U.S. v. Porter, 821 F.2d 968 (4th Cir.1987); United States v. McBride, 786 F.2d 45 (2d Cir.1986). Various state courts have also rejected challenges to instructions with the real possibility language. See, Williams v. State, 724 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind.2000); Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 697 A.2d 432 (1997); State v. Darby, 324 S.C. 114, 477 S.E.2d 710 (1996); Smith v. U.S., 687 A.2d 1356 (D.C.1996), adhered to on rehearing 709 A.2d 78 (D.C.1998); Scott v. Class, 532 N.W.2d 399 (S.D.1995); State v. Castle, 86 Wash.App. 48, 935 P.2d 656 (1997). Similarly, courts have almost unanimously rejected the claim that the firmly convinced language, challenged by Putz at trial and on appeal, is reversible error. See, e.g., Harris v. Bowersox, 184 F.3d 744 (8th Cir.1999); U.S. v. Brand, 80 F.3d 560 (1st Cir.1996); Conway, supra ; Williams, supra; Taylor, supra; U.S. v. Velasquez, 980 F.2d 1275 (9th Cir.1992); U.S. v. Velazquez, 847 F.2d 140 (4th Cir.1988); State v. Ferguson, 260 Conn. 339, 796 A.2d 1118 (2002); Merzbacher, supra ; Smith, supra; State v. Van Gundy, 64 Ohio St.3d 230, 594 N.E.2d 604 (1992); State v. Merwin, 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026 (1998); State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo.1987) (en banc); Castle, supra; People v. Matthews, 221 A.D.2d 802, 634 N.Y.S.2d 235 (1995). Finally, we note that the Arizona Supreme Court has ordered that an instruction substantially similar to that given in the present case be given in all criminal cases. State v. Portillo, 182 Ariz. 592, 898 P.2d 970 (1995) (en banc).