Court Opinion

ID: 9746513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:20:13.179166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:14.265402
License: Public Domain

FARRELL, Associate Judge,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the court, and have only a few observations concerning the reasonable-doubt instruction given in this case. The departure here from the Redbook instruction is, of course, further reason why the court en banc should revisit the issue of what instruction is necessary on reasonable doubt. See Proctor v. United States, 685 A.2d at 740-42 (D.C.1996) (separate remarks of Associate Judge FARRELL). I am not of the view, apparently shared by two or more federal appellate courts, that the jury should receive no explanation of that concept. Given the “vital role” which it plays in our scheme of criminal procedure, Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. at 39-40, 111 S.Ct. at 329, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 363, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)), juries should not “be left without some elaboration of what reasonable doubt means.” Butler v. United States, 646 A.2d 331, 337 (D.C.1994). The issue in the present case arises only from the appearance of two words (“real possibility”) in the federal pattern instruction which the judge gave and which I believe provides a model for this court to adopt and mandate in future cases. Proctor, 685 A.2d at 741-42, (separate remarks of Associate Judge FARRELL). Appellant argues that “real possibility” could be taken by the jury to mean a “serious” or “substantial” possibility — on the order of “substantial evidence” in the civil administrative context — which is more than reasonable doubt requires. But the court explains convincingly why, taken as a whole, the instructions here do not realistically allow of that possibility. For future purposes, however, the arguable ambiguity in these words can be remedied easily by the addition of a few words, i.e., “a real possibility as distinct from an imaginary or fanciful one.” With that minor supplementation, the federal pattern instruction remains a strong improvement over the Redbook explanation of reasonable doubt.