Well yes if the entire jury is asking. But often times it’s one or two people that are dug in and not agreeing to the acceptable answer so they want to the judge to give them the definition.
Could go either way. Could be an idiot looking for absolute 100% proof. Or an idiot saying if there is one witness (no matter how much of a liar they are) it’s proof.
My understanding is the jury verdict must be unanimous. If that’s true, I predict Manafort won’t be found guilty.
Exactly.
I am sure that the jury charge defined reasonable doubt. It is just that many jury charge definitions are not all that clear. For example:
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.
If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty."
“Well yes if the entire jury is asking.”
The forman asks on behalf of the jury. For one or all of the jurors.