Motion in Limine to Permit Defense Explanation of Reasonable Doubt During Closing Argument

This motion relies on social science research to argue that defense attorneys should be permitted to use visual aids comparing the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard to lesser standards of proof during closing arguments should also be able to request supplemental jury instructions clarifying the prosecution’s heavy burden of proof. The motion cites empirical studies demonstrating that jurors frequently misunderstand the reasonable-doubt standard, struggle to distinguish it from lesser burdens of proof, and may apply thresholds for conviction that are too low. Drawing on this research, the motion argues that prohibiting defense attorneys from explaining the relative burdens of proof undermines defendants’ due process rights and proposes supplemental jury instructions distinguishing reasonable doubt from the preponderance-of-the-evidence and clear-and-convincing-evidence standards.