Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt Hopt v. Utah (1887) As predicted, in 1887, six years after Miles, the US Supreme Court was confronted again with the definition of the reasonable doubt standard in Hopt v. Utah.409 A district court in Utah had convicted the petitioner of murder and sentenced him to death.410 One of the grounds of appeal was the trial judge’s instruction to the jury on the meaning of reasonable doubt.411 The trial judge had charged the jury as follows: [I]f you can reconcile the evidence before you upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant’s innocence, you should do so, and in that case find him not guilty... [A] reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason, and which is reasonable in view of all the evidence. And if, after an impartial comparison and consideration of the evidence, you candidly say that you are not satisfied of the defendant’s guilt, you have a reasonable doubt; but if, after such impartial comparison and consideration of all the evidence, you can truthfully say that you have an abiding conviction of the defendant’s guilt, such as you would be willing to act upon in the more weighty and important matters relating to your own affairs, you have no reasonable doubt.412 The US Supreme Court approved this definition and, in doing so, also discussed the Webster jury instruction. It noted that difficulty arises from the Webster instruction because “the words ‘to a reasonable and moral certainty’ add nothing to the words ‘beyond a reasonable doubt;’ one may require explanation as much as the other.”413 The US Supreme Court further referred to Webster, stating: It was there also said, that an instruction to the jury that they should be satisfied of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, had often been held sufficient, without further explanation. In many cases, it may undoubtedly be sufficient. It is simple, and as a rule to guide the jury is as intelligible to them generally as any which could be stated, with respect to the conviction they should have of the defendant’s guilt to justify a verdict against him. But in many instances, especially where the case is at all complicated, some explanation or illustration of the rule may aid in its full and just comprehension.414 Hopt v. Utah, 120 U.S. 430 (1887) (hereinafter “Hopt”). This appeal arose out of Hopt’s fourth conviction for the murder of John F. Turner. The three previous convictions had each been overturned by the US Supreme Court. The repeated appeals led to a total time span of seven years between the murder and Hopt’s execution, which frustrated the people of Utah and caused the public lynching of five alleged criminals. See Kimberly S. Hanger, The Frederick Hopt Murder Case: A Darker Side of Utah Territorial History, 6(0) UCLA Hist. J. 83 (1985). 410 Hopt, at 430. 411 Hopt, at 431. 412 Hopt, at 439. 413 Hopt, at 440. 414 Hopt, at 440. 409 98