context: In cases challenging state criminal jury instructions in general, the United States Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the states.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: " '[R]eview by this Court of state action expressing its notion of what will best further its own security in the administration of criminal justice demands appropriate respect for the deliberative judgment of a state in so basic an exercise of its jurisdiction.' "
citation_a.sentence: See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 149, 94 S.Ct. 396, 401, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973) (“ ‘[R]eview by this Court of state action expressing its notion of what will best further its own security in the administration of criminal justice demands appropriate respect for the deliberative judgment of a state in so basic an exercise of its jurisdiction.’ ”) (quoting McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 340, 63 S.Ct. 608, 613, 87 L.Ed. 819 (1943)).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: "The administration of criminal law in matters not affected by constitutional limitations or a general federal law is a matter peculiarly of local concern."
citation_b.sentence: See also Fisher v. United States, 328 U.S. 463, 476, 66 S.Ct. 1318, 1324-25, 90 L.Ed. 1382 (1946) (“The administration of criminal law in matters not affected by constitutional limitations or a general federal law is a matter peculiarly of local concern.”).