Brown
Brown v. Yarborough
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Steven Ernest Brown (“Brown”) appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition. A California jury convicted Brown of committing lewd acts upon a child under the age of fourteen. Brown argues that the jury instructions used at *608 his trial unconstitutionally lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof.
Due process “requires the prosecution to prove every element charged in a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gibson v. Ortiz, 387 F.3d 812, 820 (9th Cir.2004) (citing In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). If the jury is not properly instructed concerning the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, a due process denial results. See Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433, 437 , 124 S.Ct. 1830 , 158 L.Ed.2d 701 (2004) (per curiam). “Any jury instruction that ‘reduce[s] the level of proof necessary for the Government to carry its burden ... is plainly inconsistent with the constitutionally rooted presumption of innocence.’ ” Gibson, 387 F.3d at 820 (alterations in original) (quoting Cool v. United States, 409 U.S. 100, 104 , 93 S.Ct. 354 , 34 L.Ed.2d 335 (1972) (per curiam)).