Even if this was the person you loved most in the world, you would know in your heart of hearts that they were guilty and that no other explanation was possible.Well, if I were still a defense attorney I'd love that instruction. As a prosecutor - not so much. As I read this, it changes the standard to beyond any doubt, not beyond a reasonable doubt. In the second clause of the sentence this could be fixed by adding "reasonable" between other and explanation (although this makes the explanation somewhat circular).
The first clause strikes me as raising the defendant too high in the eyes of the jurors. A juror should start from an objective point of view. If no evidence is presented the presumption of innocence is a default in the courtroom which would require a finding of not guilty. However, the jurors should start out not favoring either side and input and/or subtract evidence until it either does or does not reach the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nobody starts out neutral with a family member. In fact, experience teaches that often loved ones cannot believe that their brother, son, daughter, husband, etc. is guilty no matter how overwhelming the evidence.
If we went back to using a positive definition of reasonable doubt I think the two argued over in the prior note would be okay:
an abiding conviction of the truth of the chargeAlthough, I must admit to some trepidation over how a jury might handle "moral certainty."
an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the guilt of the accused
In the end, I think that the way Virginia handles reasonable doubt, by announcing to the jury what it is not and allowing the jurors to decide exactly what it is, works about as well as could be expected and I doubt the jury worries as much about all the legal technicalities we lawyers argue about. They know it's supposed to be a high standard in order to convict someone, no matter how we word it.