Opinion ID: 676993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Jury Charge Regarding Reasonable Doubt

Text: 13 During the jury charge, Judge Wexler told the jury that Reese is presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that defendant never had the burden to prove his innocence, to produce any evidence at all, [or] even to testify. He defined reasonable doubt as a doubt based on reason and common sense, a doubt which would make each of you hesitate to act in the more serious and important affairs of your own lives. This means after you've considered all the evidence in this case [if] you have a doubt about the defendant's guilt which appeals to your own experience, judgment and common sense, you must find the defendant not guilty. 14 After three hours of deliberations, the jury sent the judge a note asking him to explain beyond a reasonable doubt. Judge Wexler first repeated the charge quoted above. Probably sensing that something more was required, he continued: 15 Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal cases the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If based upon your consideration of the evidence you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty. If, on the other hand, you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty. 16 The defense did not object to this language.