Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt Proof which is so convincing that you would not hesitate to rely and act on it in making the most important decisions in your own lives. If you are convinced that the government has proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, say so by returning a guilty verdict. If you are not convinced, say so by returning a not guilty verdict.520 The Model Criminal Jury Instructions of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (last updated in April 2015) define reasonable doubt as: [A] fair doubt based on reason, logic, common sense, or experience. It is a doubt that an ordinary reasonable person has after carefully weighing all of the evidence, and is a doubt of the sort that would cause him or her to hesitate to act in matters of importance in his or her own life. It may arise from the evidence, or from the lack of evidence, or from the nature of the evidence.521 Similar language is found in the Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit (last updated in May 2014): Reasonable doubt is doubt based upon reason and common sense, and not doubt based on speculation. A reasonable doubt may arise from careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from a lack of evidence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person, after careful consideration, would not hesitate to rely and act upon that proof in life’s most important decisions. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant’s guilt.522 The Seventh Circuit contains no instruction regarding the definition of the reasonable doubt standard. The Commentary to the Pattern Jury Instructions explains that the Seventh Circuit repeatedly held that it is inappropriate for the trial judge to define the reasonable doubt standard for the jury.523 In United States v. Glass, the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit stated that attempts to explain the term “reasonable doubt” do not usually result in making it any clearer to the minds of the jury.524 In Glass, the Court stated: [T]hat is precisely why this circuit’s criminal jury instructions forbid them. ‘Reasonable doubt’ must speak for itself. Jurors know what Sixth Circuit Committee, Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions, (last updated March 2014), instruction 1.03. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Model Criminal Jury Instructions (last updated 2015) instruction 3.06. The Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Fifth Circuit (2015) contain nearly identical language: “a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in making the most important decisions of your own affairs.” 522 Eighth Circuit, Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the District Courts of the Eighth Circuit, (last updated March 2014), instruction 3.11. 523 Seventh Circuit, Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions (2012), citing United States v. Glass, 846 F.2d 386, 387 (7th Cir. 1988) (hereinafter “Glass”). See also United States v. Hatfield, 590 F.3d 945, 949 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Bruce, 109 F.3d 323, 329 (7th Cir. 1997). 524 Glass, at 387 (7th Cir. 1988), citing Holland, at 140. 520 521 112