In this case, when a jury was instructed that reasonable doubt was "an actual substantial doubt," and that what was necessary to convict the defendant was a "moral certainty"
Of his guilt, the Supreme Court held that it allowed a "finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause."

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Cage v. Louisiana is the case where the Supreme Court held that instructing a jury that reasonable doubt was "an actual substantial doubt" and that what was necessary to convict was a "moral certainty" of guilt allowed a "finding of guilt based on a degree of proof below that required by the Due Process Clause."

In This Case, When a Jury Was Instructed That Reasonable