Opinion ID: 2551366
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Trial Court Decision to Reinstruct on Reasonable Doubt

Text: Initially, the trial court instructed the jury on reasonable doubt with the standard, three-paragraph Redbook instruction we crafted en banc in Smith v. United States . [10] The government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it is only necessary to prove that a fact is more likely true than not, or, in some cases, that its truth is highly probable. In criminal cases such as this one, the government's proof must be more powerful than that. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt, as the name implies, is a doubt based upon reason  a doubt for which you have a reason based upon the evidence or lack of evidence in the case. If, after careful, honest, and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you cannot say that you are firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt then you have a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based upon reason. The government is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, or to a mathematical or scientific certainty. Its burden is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[ [11] ] After deliberating for more than four days, the jury sent the following note to the trial judge: Could we please get further clarification and instruction as to the reasonable doubt standard. We have reread the instructions provided numerous times, and we would request additional guidance. The prosecutor was skeptical: the jury had already reread the instruction, and I don't know that there's a whole lot more explanation that we can provide to the jury beyond the red book explanation. The trial judge, however, noted commentary in the Redbook that referenced a decision of this court, Payne v. United States, [12] which found no plain error necessitating reversal following revisions (reflected in strikeouts and italics) to the third paragraph of our mandated instruction: Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more important matters in life. However, it Reasonable doubt is not an imaginary doubt, nor[.] It is not a doubt based on guesswork or speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based upon reason. The government is not required never has to prove guilt beyond all doubt,[.] That's impossible. They do not have to prove guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's no such thing. or They do not have to prove guilt to a mathematical or scientific certainty  and they do not have to prove guilt to a scientific certainty. Its burden is They have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.[ [13] ] The trial judge proposed to reinstruct the jury by repeating Smith 's reasonable doubt instruction, augmented in paragraph three by the language from Payne. The judge explained that the Smith /Redbook instruction is so heavily weighted to the defense, in my judgment, that an improvement, or at least a change as approved by the Payne court, is long overdue. The government echoed the trial judge  the original reasonable doubt instruction ... is heavily weighted toward the defense  and then agreed with the court's proposal. All defendants strongly objected. Counsel referenced this court's admonition in Smith, where we stressed, in the strongest terms, that the trial court should `resist the temptation to stray from, or embellish upon, that instruction.' [14] Furthermore, they noted, the Payne court, a three-judge division, had no authority to modify the en banc mandate. [15] The trial judge acknowledged that defense counsel had made a point, agreeing that the reinstruction is in one direction here, and that may be a problem. A colloquy then ensued in which defense counsel convinced the judge to omit two brief sentences from Payne: That's impossible and There's no such thing. [16] Even with those omissions, however, counsel argued that the cumulative impact of the revised instruction would amount to cheerleading for the government without any sort of really substantial clarification of the standard. The judge (while acknowledging that his reexplaining would be more graphic) was not moved. Finally, counsel offered language to counterbalance the additional language from Payne  again, without success. [17] The judge then brought the jurors into the courtroom and answered their note, first, by saying: I'm going to ... give you an instruction now that is much like the reasonable doubt instruction originally given, but with some change that may be helpful. Whereupon he read the first two paragraphs of our en banc Smith instruction, followed by his revised Payne instruction. Reasonable doubt is the kind of doubt that would cause a reasonable person, after careful and thoughtful reflection, to hesitate to act in the graver or more important matters in life. However, it is not an imaginary doubt, nor a doubt based on speculation or guesswork; it is a doubt based upon reason. The government never has to prove guilt beyond all doubt, they do not have to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, they do not have to prove guilt to a mathematical certainty, and they do not have to prove guilt to a scientific certainty; they have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Emphasis added.)