The following excerpt is from Ceja v. Adams, No. 1:17-cv-00291-LJO-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. 2018):
A federal court's review of a claim of instructional error is highly deferential. Masoner v. Thurman, 996 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1993). A reviewing court may not judge the instruction in isolation but must consider the context of the entire record and of the instructions
Page 47
as a whole. Id. The mere possibility of a different verdict is too speculative to support a finding of constitutional error. Henderson, 431 U.S. at 157. "Where the jury verdict is complete, but based upon ambiguous instructions, the federal court, in a habeas petition, will not disturb the verdict unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that violates the Constitution." Solis v. Garcia, 219 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Estelle, 502 U.S. at 72) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.