The long discussion of reasonable doubt that O'Mara lead was pure torture for me. He said that even third year law students don't get it. When you are told you acquit if you have a "wavering abiding conviction of guilt" and "you are not allowed to look up abiding in a dictionary" we are getting into the realm of theology more than law. I did enjoy the moment a male pj argued that the standard of proof for civil and criminal cases should be the same. I agree. Why should taking billions out of one pocket and putting it into another pocket follow from a much lesser standard of proof than needed to convict a drunk driver?
The whole concept could be made more intelligible if lawyers and judges stopped using the expression "reasonable doubt". It is much easier to understand, "You acquit if it is reasonable that the defendant didn't do what he is charged with" or "The prosecution has the burden of showing that it is unreasonable that the defendant might not have done it or in the case at hand, killed in self defense. O'Mara's discussion then would have been all about what does it mean when something is reasonable instead of engaging in confusing word play. It is important to get the jury thinking about possible ways the evidence could reasonably arise from an innocent scenario rather then contemplating if their abiding conviction is wavering.