By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. It is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt.
The term “reasonable doubt” is meaningless. Kentucky bars lawyers from attempting to define it to the jury. However prosecutors will cheat and say, “We’re just talking about what’s reasonable here” which is intended to mislead the jury.