gloss · the reading room

McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶38

Third, our case law does not support the Second Circuit's conclusion that the trial judge's response to the jury's note violated Hernandez's right to due process. See Estelle, 502 U. S., at 71–73; Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147 (1973). We have never held that the Due Process Clause, or any other provision of the Federal Constitution, requires a trial court to explain to a jury an issue that the jury is not required to decide.
Read in context ›

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.