Presumption of innocence
Pineda-Barrientos v. Maryland
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Francisco Pineda-Barrientos asks whether jurors must be told before evidence begins that he is presumed innocent and that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Who it affects
- Pineda-Barrientos did not get Supreme Court review, and the Court issued no ruling on the jury-instruction questions in his case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
He also asks whether refusing that instruction until the judge’s final directions is an error that automatically requires a new trial (structural error).
The dispute concerns when jurors must hear instructions about the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof in a criminal trial.
Question presented
1. Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require a criminal jury, on request, to be instructed on the presumption of innocence and the burden of reasonable doubt before the presentation of evidence? 2. Whether refusal to give an instruction, on request, on the presumption of innocence until final instructions is structural error, overruling Kentucky v. Whorton, 441 U.S. 786 (1979)?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.