OKLAHOMA CITY -- Oklahoma legislators are scratching their heads and looking puzzled over Gov. Frank Keating's recent call for a higher standard of proof in death penalty cases. Many were surprised when Keating, who has presided over 40 executions in less than seven years as chief executive, told a National Press Club audience in Washington that the present standard of guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't enough when someone's life is at stake.

The governor said the time-tested standard is OK as proof of guilt for other felony cases but that in capital cases the standard should be guilty to a degree of "moral certainty."

That's what's puzzling lawmakers. They don't know what Keating means by "moral certainty." Neither does he. He was unable to define it when pressed by reporters, although he made it clear he believes it would be a higher standard than the present one.

Oklahoma leads the nation in executions so far this year with 13.And the state received unwanted at tention in the not-too-distant past when two men convicted of murder including one who came within days of being executed, were proven innocent by DNA evidence and released after 12 years in prison.

There was more unfavorable attention focused on the state earlier this year when the Rev. Jesse Jackson and others protested the state's first execution of a woman. As the number of executions has increased, so has the opposition to capital punishment.

Keating, who has clashed with officials in his own church over the death penalty, said capital punishment might not survive unless a higher standard of proof is adopted.

There are various standards in the law. In some civil cases, "a preponderance of the evidence" is sufficient, while in others it takes "clear and convincing" evidence. A common misconception, probably because of inaccurate portrayals in movies and television, is that prosecutors in criminal cases must prove a defendant's guilt "beyond a shadow of a doubt." But that has never been true. It has always been "beyond a reasonable doubt." Although he couldn't define "moral certainty," Keating took a stab at "beyond a reasonable doubt," saying it means a standard of "such a convincing character that it can be relied upon unhesitatingly in the most important of our affairs."

That may be the definition somewhere, but it's not in Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals Presiding Judge Gary Lumpkin said there is no definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in Oklahoma law."There is no definition in the statutes or in case law in Oklahoma," Lumpkin said. He said the military services have attempted to define the standard and so have some states, but Oklahoma isn't one of them. There also is no definition in the standardized instructions read to jurors before they retire to deliberate in criminal cases."It is left up to the individual to define to his own satisfaction," Lumpkin said.

Keating said he will have legislation prepared for lawmakers to consider next year.

But apparently his staff is struggling with the task, and it appears they may be backing off the "moral certainty" standard somewhat. "There hasn't been any movement on that," said Deputy Press Secretary Phil Bachrach, when he was asked if a bill is being drafted.

"We're just in the preliminary stages," he said. Bachrach said staff attorneys are researching the issue and reading court cases in an attempt to find an answer.

"The point is to raise the bar," he said. "Whether the phrase should be `moral certainty' or something else hasn't been determined." Legislators aren't rushing with open arms to embrace Keating's idea, although they politely promise to give it a hearing.

"Frankly, I think the beyond-a- reasonable-doubt standard has worked pretty well," said House Minority Leader Fred Morgan, R-Oklahoma City. "I'm very comfortable with our present standard, but I'm willing to listen to what the governor has to say," he said.

State Rep. David Braddock, D- Altus, is chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee, which probably would be called on to review any proposal from the governor.

"It's something we can look at, but I'm concerned about chang ing the standard," he said.

Braddock said DNA testing that has been developed in the past 10 years is a safeguard against convicting an innocent person in a capital case.

Rep. Bill Paulk, D-Oklahoma City, the chairman of the committee for years before Braddock took over, said it would take a lot of convincing for him to abandon the present standard and adopt Keating's "moral certainty" because it would make it harder for prosecutors to convict."I can't say I disagree with him because he can't define what moral certainty means," Paulk said.

Rep. Opio Toure, D-Oklahoma City, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is an opponent of the death penalty and said he agrees with Keating that there should be some changes.But Toure, an attorney, said he would prefer to approach it differently by changing appellate procedures and the rules of evidence and making sure only well-qualified attorneys represent defendants in capital cases.Toure introduced legislation last session to declare a one-year moratorium on executions in Oklahoma but was unable to get it out of the House Rules Committee.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Dunlap, R-Bartlesville, said he wouldn't be inclined to sponsor a bill for the governor."I would like to stay with the current standard," Dunlap said. "I think the present system works pretty well."Dunlap said automatic appeals in capital cases provide a safeguard.