Court Opinion

ID: 9710486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:10:38.094568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:43.238538
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring in the judgment:
“[S]o long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, ... the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof.” Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 5, 114 S.Ct. 1239, 1243, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994) (citations omitted). There are thus many constitutionally acceptable ways in which the judge can “correctly convey the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.” Id. (citation omitted).
When several permissible alternatives are available, “[ajppellate judges ought not to substitute their ... notions of apt phraseology [in jury instructions] for the experience of trial judges in such matters; our more limited responsibility is to ensure that the law is correctly stated for jurors to apply.” United States v. Yunis, 288 U.S.App. D.C. 129, 139, 924 F.2d 1086, 1096 (1991). Substantially for the reasons stated in my separate opinion in Proctor v. United States, 685 A.2d 735, 744-45 & n. 6 (D.C.1996), I continue to believe that this court ought not to prescribe which particular definition of reasonable doubt a trial judge must or should utilize in instructing the jury. Instead, like our colleagues in Maryland, we should “refuse[] to adopt a boilerplate explanation of the term so long as, “when an explanation is given to the jury, it does not tend to confuse [or] mislead [the jurors] or prejudice the accused.’ ” Hunt v. State, 345 Md. 122, 691 A.2d 1255, 1269 (1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 2536, 138 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1997) (ellipsis omitted) (quoting Wills v. State, 329 Md. 370, 620 A.2d 295, 301 (1993)).
If a ipodel decree is to be adopted, I should think that it ought to have an experiential basis founded upon field-tested information regarding the kind of phraseology which is most readily understandable to lay jurors. As appellate judges, our expertise is in the law, rather than in communicating with citizens who are not trained in our craft.1 The disciplines of law and communication are quite different from one another, and when a choice is being made between legally acceptable formulations of reasonable doubt, the most useful thing to know is which one will best enlighten the jury. The differences between the two disciplines reinforce my view that we should follow Chief Judge Mikva’s counsel in Yunis, swpra2
*84My colleagues do not share my reservations, however, and I acknowledge that the model instruction that they have collectively composed is constitutionally unassailable. In terms of understandability for the jurors, it is doubtless an improvement upon the somewhat stilted prose of the old Redbook instruction which was deemed de rigueur until today. See, e.g., Butler v. United States, 646 A.2d 331, 333-35 (D.C.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1009, 115 S.Ct. 1326, 131 L.Ed.2d 206 (1995).3 I also agree with the court that the trial judge’s instruction in the present case did not deprive Smith of liberty without due process of law. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment.

. I do note, however, that as a result of the helpful efforts of amicus curiae, the judges of the Superior Court had the opportunity to state their views on the question before the en banc court. Indeed, several judges did so.

. By affirming the judgment, the court has held that the trial judge’s instruction at issue in this case—the FJC "pattern instruction"—"conrectly conveyed the government’s burden of proof under the reasonable doubt standard and did not shift or lessen that burden of proof.” Maj. op. at 79 (citation omitted). In the next breath, however, the court has advised the trial judge and his colleagues that, in the future, they are not supposed to use the instruction that the court has just sustained against constitutional attack. Indeed, trial judges are told to eschew any reason*84able doubt instruction, no matter how constitutionally sound and lucid it may be, except the “Darius Smith" instruction adopted today by the court.
In my opinion, the court completed its job when it announced and explained its holding with respect to the FJC instruction. The discussion beyond that is advisory and, I think, unwise. Even when we go en banc, "an issue is ripe for adjudication only [if] the parties' rights may be immediately affected by it.” Allen v. United States, 603 A.2d 1219, 1229 n. 20 (D.C.) (en banc), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1227, 112 S.Ct. 3050, 120 L.Ed.2d 916 (1992) (citation omitted). In the present case, the court's adoption of its own reasonable doubt instruction does not affect the litigants in this case one iota, and counsel for the government conceded at oral argument that such a step would be advisory in nature. Unlike Judge Ruiz, I do not believe that advisory statements in opinions are the means by which we should "respond in a comprehensive manner to systemic issues.”
Now that the en banc court has spoken, however, pragmatic considerations lead me to agree with the majority’s conclusion that it would be best for all concerned if the trial judges used the instruction which this court has approved. Such a course would save lawyers and judges a lot of time and energy and avoid unnecessary appeals.

. I think it ironic that in Butler, decided quite a short time ago, we warned trial judges against any deviation from the Redbook instruction then in vogue. A judge who prematurely anticipated and used the Darius Smith instruction would have incurred appellate displeasure. Now, the judges are being advised to use the Darius Smith instruction, and a return to the pre-Darius Smith Redbook language has become a "no-no.”