United States v. James Allen Newport, United States of America v. Bennett Eugene Brewer, United States of America v. Dennis Leon Thomas

Good Law
747 F.2d 1307·1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 16528
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 23, 198483-1263, 83-1264 and 83-1266California628 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alarcon, J.

James Newport and Dennis Thomas appeal their convictions stemming from their participation in a scheme to manufacture and distribute phenyl-2-propanone and methamphetamine.

We must decide whether a jury instruction which equates “reasonable doubt” with “real doubt” diminishes the government’s burden of proof in violation of due process. We conclude that giving a “real doubt” instruction to the jury does not constitute constitutional error and affirm. i

The district court gave the following instructions on reasonable doubt:

Newport and Thomas argue, without citation to any authority, that “there would appear to be a Due Process constitutional infirmity with the ‘real doubt’ instruction given by the Court.” They also contend that “[a]s defined by Webster, the term ‘real’ must mean ‘indubitable’ or ‘unquestionable.’ ” This argument ignores the fact that the same source lists other meanings for the term “real,” which preceed those 'selected by appellants, including “authentic,” “genuine,” “actual,” and “true.”

“Real” is defined in Webster’s Third International New Dictionary 1890 (1971) as “that is precisely what its name implies: not merely so called: truly possessing the essence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.