What is the standard reasonable doubt in a criminal case?

"'The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocencethat bedrock "axiomatic and elementary" principle whose "enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." [Citation.]' [Citation.] Due process 'protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he [or she] is charged.' [Citation.]" (People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, 978-979.)

In People v. Johnson, supra, 119 Cal.App.4th 976, "during jury selection the court amplified at length on the standard reasonable doubt instruction . . . ." (Id. at p. 979.) "The court authorized the prospective jurors to find [the defendant] guilty even if they were to have 'some doubt' about his guilt and characterized a juror who render[ed] a guilty verdict with 'no doubt' about his guilt as 'brain dead': 'So you've got to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all possible doubt. [] . . . [I]f any of you think you can sit in a jury trial in a criminal case and render a guilty verdict and walk out of this courtroom feeling good about the verdict because there is absolutely no doubt

Page 8