Doubt in Favour of the Defendant, Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt know, we have all kinds of rules in the criminal process. We have procedural and technical rules, then we have some fundamental, substantial rules. The presumption of innocence is that type of rule. It is unwavering. It is part of our criminal justice system … And I would like you to understand it fully and entirely, so that when the judge describes or explains the law to you, and you analyze and deliberate on the evidence, and you are told about the presumption of innocence and the Commonwealth’s burden of proof, that it is not something that goes in one ear and out the other. It is not something that you take as some technical or procedural rule. It is part of our criminal justice system. And it relates to our actual idea of what a prosecution is… The point I’m making is that there are fingerprint experts, there are ballistics experts, there are medical technicians, there are investigators; anything that you can conceive of to investigate and to prosecute, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has it at its disposal. So what does the person accused of the crime have? The person accused of a crime, you, me, any other citizen in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he has the presumption of innocence. I mention that to you so that when you review the evidence in the case, when you deliberate on it, that you think of it in those terms. Now, the other concept in the law is that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, what is a reasonable doubt? The judge will define it. The judge will say something like this: He will say a reasonable doubt is that type of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate from acting in a matter of importance to himself. That kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to restrain from acting in a matter of the highest importance to himself. It is a real doubt. It is not a fanciful doubt, the kind of a doubt that you conjure up in your mind to avoid the unpleasant duty of convicting someone. The Commonwealth does not have to prove its case beyond all doubt because there is a doubt about everything, but it must be a reasonable doubt. Now, you make decisions everyday in the week. The kind of decisions that you make everyday in the week are not the kind of decisions that you are to make in determining guilt or innocence, that is embodied in the concept of beyond a reasonable doubt. You may decide whether you will take the 8:30 train or drive into work. Whether you will wear a suit and tie or go casual. Whether you will go out to lunch or to Horn and Hardart’s, whether you will go with your girlfriend or not. You make that decision, decide whether or not to wear a suit and tie, whether or not to go out to lunch, say you don’t like to go out with her anyway. So you weigh that and come to a decision. But that is not the kind of decision I am talking about because the definition is that kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person to be restrained from acting in a matter of the highest importance to himself or herself. What kind of decision involves a matter of the highest importance to yourself? Well, that may very well be whether you are going to get married, whether you are going to have a baby, whether you are going to change your job, whether you are going to 116