Your selective posting of the first paragraph, however, may tend to confuse; the Court did not say that the "to a moral certainty" instruction could not be used, they said that it might tend to be confusing.
Another definition was suggested:
"Several Federal appellate circuits have dealt with the problem of defining reasonable doubt by instructing trial judges not to provide any definition at all, a trend Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a concurring opinion. She said that a preferable course would be to arrive at a better definition, and she cited one suggested in 1987 by the Federal Judicial Center, a research arm of the Federal judiciary. Making no reference to moral certainty, that definition says in part, "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt." Justice Ginsburg said that this instruction "surpasses others I have seen in stating the reasonable doubt standard succinctly and comprehensibly."
If you keep reading they give a jury instruction in CA that was held to be constitutional. I posted the full wording above. I think the introduction sentence as follows
Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is not a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt.
Might not be exactly what some expect.