Does the Attorney General have the authority to instruct a jury to consider lingering doubt?

As the Attorney General reasons, however, defendant, having sought the instruction, was well aware of the concept of lingering doubt and could have argued it had he believed it beneficial to himself. That he failed to do so cannot convert the trial court's ruling into error. The jury was instructed, moreover, that it could consider the circumstances of the crime ( 190.3, factor (a)), any other circumstances that extenuated its gravity ( 190.3, factor (k)), and any sympathetic or other aspect of defendant's character or record that suggested a sentence other than death (CALJIC No. 8.85). This instruction, as we have noted (e.g., People v. Sanchez, supra, 12 Cal.4th at pp. 77-78, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 843, 906 P.2d 1129), is sufficiently broad to encompass any residual doubt any jurors might have entertained.