the defense if the reviewing court could not say that it did not contribute to the conviction and your trial if necessary d n a evidence is incredibly persuasive juries find it to be nearly infallible this was not acceptable shorthand as the state would have to leave the state cannot take scientific evidence of the cannot be excluded type turn it on its head say that the d n a evidence found the person who was on there and then claim that it was turning to argument form the trial court also heard when in response to a jury note asking for a definition of reasonable doubt it told the jury that quote you received all the definition which is non of reasonable doubt reasonable doubt is for you to determine it has long been the case and illinois and the lower courts have repeatedly held that courts should not attempt to define reasonable doubt for a jury because the words themselves are the best definition and the phrase is essentially self defined now it will mean  realize this but isn't that what the court goal it was for them to define saying that the words are self defining does not mean that there is no definition and it does not mean that the jury is free to accept whatever adopt whatever definition of reasonable doubt it chooses what what is self defining and that the words themselves are the best definition that's not the same as saying there's no definition in the jury can go forth and adopt whatever definition it chooses and people in the first district court and people view term and recently held that very similar comment it's for to have its preferred way of responding to questions of this nature yes i think there's room for something in the i p i or something in the rules to say if you receive a question from a jury about the definition of reasonable doubt that comes up from the main area  closing argument they are can be excluded the defendant's counsel said quote this can't be the defense of the victim's profile cannot be excluded the the remarks complained of need to be consider in the context of the entire closing argument when you consider in the context of the entire closing argument that the jury could not have been misled likely or actually misled by what the what the prosecutor stated because again the testimony was clear that the only testimony in the whole that the whole course of the trial was that the victim's d n a profile could not have been excluded from having having been provided to contribute to the mixture that was clear the jury heard the testimony they knew but there was never any testimony by anybody that there was an exact match here and further the the trial judge instructed the jury twice that the arguments are not evidence and that the lawyers can draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented that people submit that this wasn't a reasonable inference the victim testified that this bill though was used on her the night before she made the complaint and this  were that the victim could not have been excluded that's physical evidence and the fact is another fact is that the defendant's d n a was found in the white towel shut just as the victim testified that  that she spit out his jacket into the white house found this is physical evidence and therefore we don't believe the concern an issue to an issue three it closely balanced wrong that this is not just a crowd of credibility reasonable doubt is free to determine people don't believe that the definition of reasonable doubt i think it's different than what happened in terminal and what happened frankly turman the jury was told quote is for the jury to collectively determine what reasonable doubt is i think the last part of that vote is as important as what reasonable doubt is he's clear that's clearly the definition of franklin very similarly quote reasonable doubt is what each of you individually and collectively as twelve of you believe is reasonable doubt and all again what each of you believe is reasonable i think that's more of a definition that will be had here but at the same token justice from what you were discussing earlier i don't if if the judges say nothing to the jury what is the jury supposed to do what conclusion  possible conclusion could they come to then it is up to them to assess reasonable doubt act i don't know how anything any of these types of statements give the jury any more are with regard to whether the evidence was closely bounced in this case the state makes the point where they rely on this forensic evidence to support their contention that they are is version of events is more credible than james  with the rest of the materials that were recovered from the home those were recovered from the bedroom may have had to make some search of the house and found a white towel in the basement but there was never any testimony by which they are identified this as the white tile the  provided an alternate explanation he was distraught over the demise of his marriage and their russian financial troubles the state clearly used the scientific evidence to bolster its case an attempt to suggest the science of how with regard to issue for  certainly but that's it now what the judge just told you to do in this case but it is different for a jury to look around and say well this is a very unsatisfying not answer and we're going to have to figure out whether a reasonable doubt exists here and what we think those words mean is different than a trial court telling a jury you reasonable doubt the definition of reasonable doubt is for you to determine it's i understand that they're the the trial judge has now given the imprimatur of you get to choose the