How has the court interpreted the reasonable doubt instruction in a civil case?

Defendant contends the court abused its discretion and deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, by restricting counsel's

[14 Cal.Rptr.3d 245]

argument in this manner. We disagree. Counsel was precluded neither from previewing the reasonable doubt instruction nor from arguing the evidence did not prove guilt by that standard. The court barred counsel only from giving an incomplete version of the instruction, including only that part favorable to the defense and omitting that part favorable to the People.¹¹ Such a limitation was well within the court's discretionary control over argument ( 1044; Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853, 862, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593) and did not preclude counsel from fairly arguing the case against conviction.

[14 Cal.Rptr.3d 245]