case because there was a print court ruled that one looks when the instructions were looked at in whole two point nine zero in all the other instructions that were given in the case that the moral certainty certainty language in the supreme court as has said although they didn't find that there was a violation of the any rate we should stand in victory versus brassica they also said that they do not countenance that language so it's not like it violated mr president's right to have a jury find him guilty based on proof beyond reasonable doubt because in this case it's not only do we have a moral certainty language which the supreme court has not countenance but we also have that abiding there's no clearly stops from court law or not however the clearly started supreme court lost that you cannot say lose the beyond a reasonable doubt standard and in this case we have a combination when you look at the cumulative error in th that a lawyer makes the judge has to respond at the time and say the instruction the the arguments a counselor not evidence the instructions control and and by what you say the only instruction that i see that's an issue here is tonight now which is not constitutional on its face the other instructions seem to have been satisfactory so why don't we presume that the jury follows the instructions of the trial court and and the admonition of the court is that it isn't sufficient we absolutely the court actually should assume that the jury follows the instructions of the court and assisted in the taking of property are standards met is that in context what he's really even though he used to be word he used belief but isn't what he's really saying if you think we've proven it if you find that we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt then we've met our burden well that's  is just to use the word conviction and beyond a reasonable doubt standard is problematic in itself because you're using the word conviction and so then confuted you're saying you have an abiding conviction that he was guilty and here saying if you believe he went into that house and it's sitting and taking out property our standard is not period so belief should never be equated to beyond a reasonable doubt because finding based on the other hand that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but to say if you believe he's guilty if you believe he was there then you guilty that that is definitely diluting and watering down that i didn't read this argument to be in suggestion that they try to get some kind of you know dream or you know some kind of superstition that was tied to what that was proven right what happened in realistically what happened many times in the series will come back and say well i didn't believe the client  believe i believe that that that he was involved and that's really not what this country is standing for when we have the highest burden of proof in the land and when we never sadness that we never want to lock someone away and take away their freedom on anything less than near certainty so to say police and we're naturally going to believe that someone who's charged and someone who's sitting at defense counsel table is involved because the government has had brought forth charges and believe strongly enough in their case that they're bringing the case so i think juries naturally are going to believe that that because someone is charged that that they're guilty what we want in our system obviously is for people to only be found guilty if there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt and just a belief i think beyond a reasonable doubt lowered  that's not in the record it was simply both the court's instruction about an abiding conviction with no mention of moral certainty and the prosecutor's statement is the same so given that i would suggest that the two ninety issue is really a non issue sense because the prosecutor in his closing purports to define abiding conviction and the instructions don't further defying abiding conviction that's true the evidence but this court went further and actually said don't listen to lawyers with their statements about the law and in fact during the prosecutor's opening argument she never mentioned reasonable doubt she talked about the other that she said nothing about reasonable doubt however when saying that well if you think he's innocent that's obviously not guilty fifty filthy fifty fifty not guilty preponderance not guilty probably guilty not guilty clear and convincing not guilty that the only thing they could decide on was proved beyond a reasonable doubt but then he went further he reasonable doubt with the level of confidence that a person would have a juror if one of their loved ones was in the hospital and the doctor recommended pulling the plug because of their vegetative state or a coma so given what the defense is arguing for the prosecutor then just not at the beginning of the argument that during the course of a closing argument to say you need to have an abiding conviction in the truth of the charge what is a conviction it's a b it were as soon as she said that defense counsel objection and the trial court says you got to listen to me on the line and then gives the instruction later in the instructions after the closing arguments so my way of thinking is that hermanson got about two minutes left i think you're out of the clear and convincing standard is the standard that applies when someone pulls the plug and obviously that's one of the most important decisions a family member can make in a criminal case the standards even higher beyond a reasonable doubt what that means courts have struggled with for over a hundred years and so have jurors and trying to find that there have been different formulations the problem in this case is the weight it's what the prosecutor citing fuzzing and what the court did about it and what language what language could a lawyer use to describe abiding conviction that didn't include a term like conclude or belief or something that would be fraught with the same kind of ambiguity that you're attacking here what the basically you're basically saying that the defense is going to stablish is their entire defense that the burden of proof reasonable doubt put up the charge and then the prosecutor comes out and basically is left with reading the reading the instruction and not describing what in his or her view of the term abiding conviction means at all because anything that they use in english language is going to be subject to the same kind of attack it seems to me well here is the defense didn't concentrate on abiding conviction  what the prosecutor could have done is what prosecutors do every day in closing arguments sake reasonable doubt is one based on common sense and your experience you don't leave your common sense of the door you bring it and and it's not prosecution you have prosecution closing arguments and closing arguments then you have the rebuttal closing argument which has to be all you have to do is believe he was there with no curative from the court whatsoever this than during with all the other instructions are given to point going on with the moral certainty language in the buying conviction so my point is that victor versus nebraska does not save the government in this case this court can find that clearly establish