>>Third, they asked if the judge could "redefine reasonable doubt." Jurors sometimes struggle with what constitutes a reasonable doubt of someone's guilt, versus an unreasonable doubt. The judge told them reasonable doubt "is a doubt based on reason," but added: "The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36629950)

XOXO

HTFH

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635511)

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/974498.P.pdf

The rationale behind this rule is "our belief that efforts to define

reasonable doubt are likely to confuse rather than clarify the concept.

. . ." United States v. Williams, 152 F.3d 294, 298 (4th Cir. 1998). We

are convinced "that the term reasonable doubt has a self-evident

meaning comprehensible to the lay juror which judicial efforts to

define generally do more to obscure than to illuminate." United States

v. Headspeth, 852 F.2d 753, 755 (4th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted)

This rationale is challenged when, as in the present case, a jury specifically

requests a definition of reasonable doubt. We understand that

when a jury specifically requests a definition of reasonable doubt during

deliberations, there is a risk that the jury may be confused over

what standard of proof to apply in a criminal case. At the same time,

we also appreciate the constitutionally-mandated importance of the

reasonable doubt standard in a criminal trial. See In re Winship, 397

U.S. 358, 362 (1970) ("Expressions in many opinions of this Court

indicate that it has long been assumed that proof of a criminal charge

beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required."). Nevertheless,

we remain convinced that attempting to explain the words "beyond

a reasonable doubt" is more dangerous than leaving a jury to

wrestle with only the words themselves.7

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36629956)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635562)

Are you a 0L?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635779)

he walks

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36630017)

never said the opinion stands for the proposition i'm supporting. the opinion contains language recognizing that there could be error in this situation, and that the judge is treading in deep water if the jury asks and he gives an instruction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36630352)

you seem unable to get this distinction.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36630644)

anyway, i think this sort of error is pretty clearly reversible IF there is an error AND there was no waiver. an instructional error on the burden of proving reasonable doubt is going to be prejudicial -- is it possibly structural / reversible per se?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36630728)

have no idea who this poaster is.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36632327)

what details of your job were poasted here? none

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635279)

Happy to talk off the board about this specifically.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635306)

I was surprised to find that there's no pattern instructions in this circuit when I went looking for them

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635333)

if the dumbass jury can't figure out "reasonable doubt" then there's not much he can say to help them

100% of the time i've seen juries have questions, the judges answer is basically "decide only on the evidence in front of you" or "re-read the jury instructions"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36630569)

"There are reasonable doubts and unreasonable ones. An unreasonable doubt would be to wonder if an alien committed the crime. A reasonable one, on the other hand, would be if Rick Gates did it."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635176)

A reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant's guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence.19 It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt.20 It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.21

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4053731&forum_id=2#36635875)