C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y is ‘reasonable’ and are quite familiar with the meaning of ‘doubt.’ Judges’ and lawyers’ attempts to inject other amorphous catchphrases into the ‘reasonable doubt’ standard, such as ‘matter of the highest importance,’ only muddy the water. This jury attested to that. It is, therefore, inappropriate for judges to give an instruction defining ‘reasonable doubt,’ and it is equally inappropriate for trial counsel to provide their own definition. Trial counsel may argue that the government has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ but they may not attempt to define ‘reasonable doubt.’525 Several examples of Lawyer’s Interpretation of Beyond Reasonable Doubt Standard of Proof It is interesting to see how the attorneys interpreted this standard in their closing statements before the jury in some American courts: Well, how do you know what presumption of innocence is? When do you know you have it? I have read as much as I could about this and not much is written. Although it is a basic tenet, there is surprisingly little written, but the best explanation I have heard was the explanation offered by the former president on the California Bar Association, Mr. Joseph Ball, who practiced in these courtrooms quite a bit. He said imagine, if you can, if the closest member of your family or your dearest, most trusted friend was accused of wrongdoing. What would your reaction be? Disbelief? Rejection of the accusation? Belief in the innocence of your friend and your family members? A refusal to change until you were shown bit by piece proof that the presumption of innocence was not correct? That is the attitude you should have in the presumption of innocence. You would be of a mind set that resists this accusation that has disbelief in it. That insists that proof, solid proof, quality proof be given to you that would enable you to have a moral conviction to an abiding certainty of guilt. Your oath requires nothing less than that, and that is why to be a juror is a particular discipline because you have to think differently than we ordinarily think in our regular affairs. We all are subject to suspicion. We hear a story, there is an inclination to believe it. Rumor, the same. You have got to as a juror reverse that inclination, that very human tendency, and you have got to sit there and resist that charge, this accusation. What does that mean? It means you take every piece of evidence in this case and you examine it, and you be skeptical of it and disbelieving in it and you turn it over and you see if it has flaws or if it has taint, and if you find it to be in that condition, you reject it, and you are particularly careful when you are called upon to examine a theory of the prosecution as opposed to evidence, and I am going to be talking quite a bit about the difference in a case 525 Glass, at 387, (italics in original, internal citations omitted). 113