Editing Reasonable doubt (section)

==Definitions and critiques==
Critics of the standard, including some jurists and legal scholars, point out that the instruction “beyond a reasonable doubt” can be circular: it does not clarify ''how'' certain the jury must be, only that it must be “more certain” than other standards (such as preponderance of the evidence).<ref>In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)</ref> Various courts have tried to elaborate with phrases such as “the kind of doubt that would make a person hesitate to act,” or “moral certainty,” but these have often been deemed unhelpful or potentially confusing.<ref name="Pi2020"/>

Research suggests that where the law intends a clear distinction between “preponderance,” “clear and convincing evidence,” and “beyond a reasonable doubt,” jurors given only verbal formulations struggle to separate these levels in practice. Studies of mock jurors have found no consistent difference in outcomes under purely verbal instructions. By contrast, instructions incorporating some numerical guidance produce more consistent results.<ref>Kagehiro, Dorothy K., Defining the Standard of Proof in Jury Instructions, 1 Psychol. Sci. 194 (1990)</ref><ref name="Pi2020"/>