[VRWC_minion]

I wasn't being selective, I just chose the first paragraph. I was going to post whole thing but thought better of it.

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.

[Henrietta]

Here's what the article says:
"California defended the use of the moral-certainty language as a "commonsense and natural" phrase that conveys an "extraordinarily high degree of certainty." The Court's vote today was unanimous in the California portion of the decision, Sandoval v. California, No. 92-9049, which upheld a man's conviction for four murders over two weeks in 1984."

The court upheld the use of the "moral certainty" language, even while suggesting language that might be less confusing. See my post above for this.

The "moral certainty" language upheld by the Court is the language that I've posted before in several threads (I you all get sick of me posting, tell me and I will stop) in the LaFave hornbook.