Antonio Nathaniel Davenport, Jr., Petitioner v. United States

The case asked whether the Constitution requires a trial judge to give jurors a specific definition of "reasonable doubt" when a defendant asks for one. The Supreme Court said the Constitution does not forbid judges from defining the term, but it also does not require them to do so.

This affects criminal trials across the country because judges often tell jurors they must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without further explanation. For example, a defendant who wants a detailed instruction cannot claim the Constitution always entitles him to one.

The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. The practical effect is that trial courts and lower courts will apply this rule in future criminal cases.

The case asked whether a defendant has a constitutional right to a specific jury definition of "reasonable doubt" when he requests one. The Court said no.

Criminal defendants, trial judges, and jurors are directly affected. Judges can choose whether to define the term, rather than being constitutionally forced to do so.

This Supreme Court case is over. Lower courts and trial judges will use this decision when similar jury-instruction disputes come up.