Law students are taught that the ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard is the bedrock of the justice system, one that is desirable because, as Blackstone declared, it is “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” But does that resonate with jurors? In other words, when a lawyer argues that “the prosecution can’t prove this person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the message not one of innocence but of a concession of probable or potential guilt? Does it smack of gamesmanship? And is it easy for lay persons, not in the halls of academe but in courts in cities where crime may be prevalent, to apply? These questions were brought to mind when reading a news account of a high profile murder trial with substantial evidence of guilt but also some reasons to doubt. As reported in the news media (not necessarily the source for a verbatim accounting of a courtroom proceeding), the defense lawyer’s opening emphasized that there was no physical evidence linking the accused to the killings, no gun …