Whether the Fourth Circuit's reasonable doubt charge conflicts with Victor v. Nebraska

QUESTION PRESENTED The majority of circuits instruct the jury that reasonable doubt is not all possible doubt, but they clarify that “possible” means imaginary or fanciful. The Fourth Circuit instructs the jury that reasonable doubt is not all possible doubt, without defining “possible”. In addition, the circuit prohibits attorneys from defining reasonable doubt to the jury. Reasonable doubt charges vary greatly across the country, subjecting defendants to different standards depending on the jurisdiction. In this case, the jury was charged that reasonable doubt was not all possible doubt and that it was the jury’s duty to determine guilt or innocence ... beyond a reasonable doubt; defense attorneys were specifically ordered not to define reasonable doubt while the prosecutor implored the jury to “do its job” and return a verdict that “speaks the truth”. The questions presented is: Whether the Fourth Circuit’s reasonable doubt charge conflicts with Victor v. Nebraska; and whether circuits can prohibit counsel from discussing reasonable doubt with the jury?