Reasonable Doubt from a Juror's Perspective

Anyone who has ever had to sit as a juror in a criminal trial can attest to this being one of the most stressful experiences that one will ever have to face (other than perhaps being tried for a crime yourself). You want to ensure that justice is served while also guaranteeing that an innocent person is not sent to jail. Before making the final decision of whether one is guilty of a crime, each juror must decide whether there is "reasonable doubt" surrounding whether or not the defendant actually committed the crime. But what is "reasonable doubt" and how does a juror use reasonable doubt to make a decision regarding the guilt or innocence of another human being?

According to lawyers.com, reasonable doubt is defined as "a doubt about the guilt of a criminal defendant that arises or remains upon fair and thorough consideration of the evidence or lack thereof ... A reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral certainty that a person is guilty or a particular fact exists." Not exactly the easiest directions to follow for the juror who is a law novice, especially when we are not presented with all of the answers as you would be in an episode of CSI. In the perfect CSI world, one would have all of the details laid out in a nice package, with an easy decision in the end. In the real world, however, we rarely have all of the information and instead have to rely on the information that we have to make a just decision.