Having worked a court stenographer for over 40 years in military courts (both as an NCO and as a civil service employee), I have always thought that the judge's instructions to panel (jury) members on "reasonable doubt" was clear, concise, and easily understandable. As a matter of fact, one year, my mother was on a civilian jury and was confused about the "reasonable doubt" instruction given by the judge in her case. When I quoted her the instruction given in military courts, she told me that that was so easily understood that she had no further questions about it.
A "reasonable doubt" is not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offense, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution which does not amount to an element need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty.
A very good definition.
I think some people on these Clancy threads made their minds up before anything ‘evidentiary’ was presented, and ignoring it even after it was.
Thank you for posting, very good read.
Each state follows its own unique statutes regarding an insanity defense with 4 states not even allowing it. The state of Massachusetts uses The Model Penal Code AND the burden of proof is on the state to prove the defendent was not insane at the time of the criminal act. In some states the burden is on the defense to prove insanity. Here is a brief explanation by state:
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html
So 11 jurors found reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case, the case being ONLY regarding proving that Clancy was NOT insane. Then 1 juror did not find so much reasonable doubt, meaning he believed the state’s case that Clancy was not insane and is therefore guilty of something on the list 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter.
Reasonable doubt cannot be forced on that juror.