[Henrietta]

I posted this on an earlier thread. You might find it instructive or interesting:

Re: reasonable doubt

We've all speculated as to what the term 'reasonable doubt' means. Here, from pp 52-53 of "Criminal Law," Professor LaFave's hornbook (not to be confused with "horndog") is what "reasonable doubt" means:

"There must be an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge." Reasonable doubt is "that state of the case, which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge."

LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.

[VRWC_minion]

LaFave is the expert's expert on criminal law in this country.

I don't disagree but you might find the link to the SC cases I provided interesting. (Wouldn't the SC be an expert?)

Apparently, reasonable doubt has evolved to mean a lower standard since the 1800's and the SC has given some instructions on how to clarify.

One of the above posts is an example given to jury in CA that was constitutional. It may or may not agree with your interpretation.