Yet again, CNN’s trial coverage proves that defense attorneys are as confused by “reasonable doubt” as jurors are. Cop Steven Rios was found guilty of murder last week in a retrial. His well-meaning pro-bono attorney, Gillis C. Leonard, told “Best Defense” that he was confident he had made a case for reasonable doubt. (For information see the Missouri NBC affiliate, KOMU.)

I didn’t follow the trial, so I can’t comment on the attorney’s case. What I can say is that a jury is never likely to find for a defendant whose case is solely based on “reasonable doubt.”  A winning defense has to be a proactive case for innocence.

I repeat, I’m not a lawyer. I’m a rhetorician. But, after all, trials are nothing but arguments—rhetorical arguments.

There is no such thing as “reasonable doubt.” In the English language it’s an oxymoron. Any argument based on a nonsensical term like that  is doomed to failure.

Police arrest people whom they have REASON to believe are guilty. Grand juries indict people they have been given REASONS to charge with crimes. By the time a juror hears a case, several judges have expressed the REASONS that the defendant should stand trial.

When a juror goes into deliberations, if she is reasonable she will have doubts and questions about the case, which she will discuss with her fellow jurors. These doubts will include holes in the prosecution’s case, including (probably) legitimate holes poked in it by the defense.

However, unless the defense has provided a REASONABLE alternative to the defendant’s guilt, the jury will have to follow the judge’s instructions concerning the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and conclude that, despite open questions, the only reasonable verdict is “guilty.”

Now I know this is hard—maybe impossible—for a lawyer to believe. Lawyers are trained to think inside the box (inside the witness box, inside the jury box, inside the covers of law textbooks). And I know the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a reasonable “standard” for “conviction.” But that doesn’t make the Supreme Court or all the law professors in the country right.

The English language cannot be redefined and re-parsed by fiat. There is no “reason” in “doubt.” That is the way a juror will hear it. And “conviction” is both what happens to defendants who rely on “reasonable doubt” defenses and the state of mind of a juror about the defendant’s guilt after hearing a proactive prosecution but a defensive defense.

Look at the cases I’ve discussed in this blog. The defense cases that relied on reasonable doubt, poking holes in the prosecution, and in which the defendant refused to take the stand all result in convictions. The defense cases that not only poke holes in the prosecution but also proactively suggest alternative killers, explain the defendant’s bizarre behavior, and where the defendant takes the stand and doesn’t come across as a self-serving liar produce hung juries and acquittals.

There is no such thing as “reasonable doubt”—not in a scientific laboratory, not in a church, not in a courtroom. There’s just doubt. But the U.S. Supremes say “just doubt” isn’t good enough for “not guilty.”