The U.S. Supreme Court agreed recently to clarify when some inmates can file federal court appeals arguing that their trial jury instructions were improper.
The court said it will hear a Louisiana inmate's argument that he should be allowed to pursue his claim that the jury that convicted him of murder was given an impermissible definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Melvin Tyler was convicted in New Orleans of second-degree murder in the 1975 shooting death of his 19-year-old daughter during a fight with his girlfriend. Tyler was sentenced to life in prison.
In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in another Louisiana case that an inmate was entitled to a new trial because the definition of 'reasonable doubt' given to the jury was improper.
The instruction said such doubt must have a 'substantial basis' and must 'give rise to a grave uncertainty.' The Supreme Court said those words 'suggest a higher degree of doubt than is required for acquittal.'
Following other appeals, Tyler filed a federal appeal in 1997 that said the jury instruction in his case was almost identical to the one thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1990.