text: do you think you have a well developed sense of what reasonable doubt is? have you ever given much thought to the logic of your standard for reasonable doubt?   do you ever take real or hypothetical court cases and try to determine how valid your initial belief about the defendents were?  do you think it would do you well to engage in such discussions? if i remember the jury instructions correctly, "reasonable doubt" is the doubt that it would take for a reasonable person to act. reasonable doubt is not beyond all doubt. it's a tough standard, and it's subjective.  but i think it's about the best one that can be developed.  i think it does not matter too much, because in most cases you've got jurors who are _sure_ (99-100% sure), jurors who are sure that the person is not guilty, and then people who are not quite sure (in the maybe 60-70% range).  i don't think defining "beyond a reasonable doubt" helps for most of the jurors. at most, it helps for group (3), but so long as you tell them it's more than "more likely than not", they are able to act on their instinct.