Can reasonable doubt be compared to an "everyday" experience?

We are also troubled by the suggestion that reasonable doubt can be compared to an "everyday" experience. The process of adjudicating guilt is a major and meticulous undertaking. People do not, "every single day," bear the solemn task of examining evidence and determining an accused's guilt. The comparison-to reflexive, quotidian decisions like "getting up," "having a meal," and "travel[ing] to . . . court"-is flagrant and seriously distorts the standard.^[2] The government's analogies reflect an effort- even if unintentional-to "reduce [its] burden of proof." See United States v. Henry, 545 F.3d 367, 383 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that prosecutor's suggestion to the jurors that the decision of whether to convict the defendant was the same as deciding whether to recommend their child to take a job with him was improper). District courts in this circuit have rightfully admonished such analogies.^[3]