Cage v. Louisiana
498 U.S. 39 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A jury instruction that defines "reasonable doubt" using terms like "grave uncertainty" and "actual substantial doubt" is unconstitutional because a reasonable juror could interpret such language as requiring a higher degree of doubt for acquittal than is required by the Due Process Clause.
Facts:
- Cage was put on trial for first-degree murder in Louisiana.
- During the trial, the judge provided the jury with an instruction defining the concept of 'reasonable doubt.'
- The instruction stated that any doubt must be a 'grave uncertainty' and an 'actual substantial doubt.'
- The instruction also contrasted reasonable doubt with 'mere possible doubt' and 'caprice and conjecture.'
- Finally, the instruction informed the jury that what was required for conviction was not absolute certainty, but a 'moral certainty' of the defendant's guilt.
Procedural Posture:
- Cage was convicted of first-degree murder in a Louisiana state trial court and sentenced to death.
- Cage, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the state's highest court.
- On appeal, Cage argued that the jury instruction defining 'reasonable doubt' was constitutionally defective.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana, as the appellee court, affirmed the conviction, finding that the instruction as a whole was understandable to a reasonable person.
- Cage then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction that defines 'reasonable doubt' as a 'grave uncertainty' and an 'actual substantial doubt,' while requiring a 'moral certainty' of guilt, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a jury instruction that defines reasonable doubt with terms such as 'grave uncertainty' and 'actual substantial doubt' violates the Due Process Clause. The standard established in In re Winship requires the prosecution to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. When a jury instruction equates reasonable doubt with a 'grave uncertainty' or an 'actual substantial doubt,' it suggests a higher degree of doubt is required for acquittal than the Constitution permits. The court reasoned that the common understanding of the words 'substantial' and 'grave' implies a greater doubt than a reasonable one. When combined with the instruction that only 'moral certainty' rather than evidentiary certainty is needed for conviction, it becomes clear that a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction to allow a guilty verdict on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause.
Analysis:
The Cage v. Louisiana decision significantly impacts criminal trials by scrutinizing the specific language used in reasonable doubt jury instructions. It establishes that while trial courts have some latitude, they cannot use definitions that dilute the prosecution's burden of proof under the standard set by In re Winship. This ruling invalidated many states' stock jury instructions and forced a nationwide revision to ensure the language used does not unconstitutionally lower the standard for conviction. The case reinforces the Supreme Court's role in ensuring state criminal procedures meet the minimum fairness requirements of the federal Due Process Clause.
Unlock the full brief for Cage v. Louisiana