In light of this Court's recent Sixth-Amendment jurisprudence emphasizing the constitutional primacy of the role of the jury, should this Court revisit its 5-4 decision in Boyde, which adopted the "reasonable likelihood" test for determining whether ambiguous jury instructions violate due process, and instead return to the previous standard, in which appellate courts inquire whether reasonable jurors "could have" interpreted the instructions in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution?

Whether the Court should revisit the 'reasonable likelihood' test adopted in Boyde v. California and instead return to the previous standard where appellate courts inquire whether reasonable jurors 'could have' interpreted the instructions in an unconstitutional manner