• Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury are not really sure one way or the other if the defendant is guilty or innocent.

• Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty.

• Based upon the evidence presented, we the Jury believe that the defendant is probably guilty.

• We the Jury believe that the defendant is guilty but the evidence falls a little short and we cannot find that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal trials should not be equated with a search for the truth. They are merely a process for the testing of evidence: Can the state prove the charges against a defendant by proof beyond a reasonable doubt? As former Chief Judge Richard Matsch wrote in an opinion granting separate trials for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols:

Trials, like all human events, are unpredictable. All of the participants interact in a public process, which, in essence, is an historical inquiry into past events to determine whether the prosecution has proved the defendants guilty of the crimes charged within the rules of evidence and the applicable law.

The criminal justice system was not designed to solve all of society's ills. The Bill of Rights was designed to provide protection to the accused when the Government exercises its awesome power and charges that individual with a crime.

In the 1895 Supreme Court decision, Coffin v. United States, the Court explained:

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.

The presumption of innocence goes back well before the United States, to the days of Ancient Greece and Rome. It has even been traced to Deuteronomy. The ancient code of Rome stated:

"Let all accusers understand that they are not to prefer charges unless they can be proven by proper witnesses or by conclusive documents, or by circumstantial evidence which amounts to indubitable proof and is clearer than day." Code, L. IV, T. XX, 1, 1. 25.

...In all cases of doubt, the most merciful construction of facts should be preferred." Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 56.

..."In criminal cases the milder construction shall always be preserved." Dig. L. L, Tit. XVII, 1. 155, s. 2.

The Supreme Court in Coffin also cited Lord Gilles in McKinley's Case (1817), 33 St.Tr. 275, 506,

I conceive that this presumption is to be found in every code of law which has reason, and religion, and humanity, for a foundation. It is a maxim which ought to be inscribed in indelible characters in the heart of every judge and juryman...To overturn this, there must be legal evidence of guilt, carrying home a decree of conviction short only of absolute certainty."

As Sir William Blackstone said:

[T]he law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." 2 Bl.Com. c. 27, margin p. 358 ad finem.

Ours may not be a perfect system, as evidenced most clearly by the number of persons in recent years determined to have been wrongfully convicted. But it's a very good one, and far better than those used by other countries.