Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
In criminal cases in my state, a defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecutor can prove his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt." However, the term "reasonable doubt" is not defined, presumably being left to the discretion of the individual jurors.


I found this at The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.

I reckon you're right. The line between common sense and moral certainty seems rather vague. Any doubt whatsoever in ones mind, even doubting yourself, can be reasonable doubt, can't it? Seems reasonable. I think?