The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Coronel-Estrada, 951 F.2d 363 (9th Cir. 1991):
"[A]n appropriate instruction defining reasonable doubt is permissible but not necessarily required." United States v. Nolasco, 926 F.2d 869, 872 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 111 (1991). In the event the district court provides a definition, such instruction must "not detract from the heavy burden suggested by the use of the term 'reasonable doubt' standing alone." Id. at 873.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.