⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Eleventh Circuit hears Jenkins versus Florida, a challenge to a burglary conviction after a confrontation with his former girlfriend. She had gone to her mother's house, and Jenkins followed her inside. According to her trial testimony, she tried to close the door, but he pushed it open, and a struggle followed. His defense emphasized his previous visits and testimony that he had been welcome there. The jury convicted him of burglary with battery. This appeal concerns his trial lawyer's failure to request a specific instruction about licensed or invited entry, a potential defense to burglary. The lawyer argued that he had permission to enter, but did not ask for the instruction that Jenkins says would have told jurors how to apply that defense. State courts rejected his ineffective-assistance claim, and a federal district judge denied his petition for habeas corpus, his request for federal relief from the state conviction. Jenkins now appeals that denial; this is not another direct criminal appeal or a new trial. He will argue that the state court misdescribed the jury instructions and overlooked evidence supporting the requested defense. Florida will answer that being a welcome visitor is not permission to force entry, and that a reasonable lawyer could have declined the instruction. It will also argue there was no reasonable probability of a different verdict. Listen for two layers: how a reasonable defense lawyer could have handled the case, and how much room federal judges have to second-guess the state court. The judges must consider constitutional effectiveness and prejudice, not merely whether a different jury instruction would have been better.

Terrill Jenkins v. State of Florida (No. 23-11455) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, argued November 4, 2026.