C O M P A R AT I V E S T U D Y thought patterns that you have because if at the end of this case-and I have no doubt but that innocence is amply shown here--but if at the end of this case you have a suspicion of guilt or you think there’s a possibility of guilt, even a probability of guilt, under the law that the court will give to you, you cannot vote for a guilty finding unless you have an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of guilt, which transcends and is much beyond the question of possibility, probability, a maybe, a perhaps, and speculation. Oftentimes jurors have walked out of a courtroom voting not guilty for someone who they thought might have committed the crime. They have performed their duty precisely in accordance with their oath. I don’t think it is close in this case, but I think it is important to think about it. Your function actually is a narrow function in the law. The question before you is not really question of guilt or innocence. It is not that. You will be given verdict forms, and when you look at those verdict forms as to which way you vote, there is no verdict for innocence. There is none. There’s only a verdict form for guilty and not guilty on each of the charges … because you are not to concern yourself with the question of innocence. The sole issue is: Has the prosecution offered enough evidence, proof, that satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt, an abiding conviction to a moral certainty? That’s the only question. If they have, guilty; if they haven’t, irrespective of any other attitude you might have on innocence or suspicion, it is not guilty. So what we are engaged in, in this process of eleven months, is the question of, has there been presented to you enough evidence, proof, that you are satisfied that the prosecution has sustained its burden of bringing your mind to an abiding conviction to a moral certainty.526 And: Now, the two principles of law that I want to discuss with you are the presumption of innocence and the Commonwealth’s burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence has been discussed with you. The judge explained it to you. When you sat out there before you were selected as jurors, there were questions asked of you during the selection, and the presumption of innocence means basically that the fact that someone has been arrested, charged, against whom a bill of information was issued and stands in court, that is not evidence against him. He is cloaked with the presumption of innocence and he carries that with him through the entire proceedings, until such time as twelve people are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed the offense charged. Now, the judge explained to you the practical significance presuming someone innocent before hearing any evidence. But I would like to indicate to you that there is a more basic fundamental reason as to why there is a presumption of innocence. You 526 Matthew Bender Inc.2001, Criminal Law Advocacy, summation in People v. Skyhorse by defense lawyer Leonard Weinglass, available at:http://www.claraweb.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ Reasonable-Doubt-NC-2002.htm (last accessed 14 November 2016). 115