snipped from wikipedia article:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard required by the prosecution in most
criminal cases within an
adversarial system, also called the "
Burden of Proof". This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a
reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.
There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. "
The shadow of a doubt" is sometimes used interchangably with reasonable doubt, but this extends far beyond the latter, to the extent many believe it an impossible standard. Reasonable doubt is therefore used."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_doubt
I'm assuming this is the legal definition of reasonable doubt. If so, the facts surrounding this case are enough to make me, a reasonable person, believe KC is guilty. Granted, I've not heard all the prosecution evidence nor heard the defense dispute the evidence. After KC's defense is presented I may have a doubt but not to the extent that my belief in her guilt is changed. If that's the case, I could legally vote guilty. Is this right?
Before everyone says it, I concede that I would never be picked to sit on this jury because of my preconception of her guilt but, I'm assuming those on the jury will be presented with much the same evidence we know of along with evidence we don't know of. The same jury will hear KC's defense and may have doubt but I don't think it will change their minds as to her guilt. Even with some doubt, they can legally vote guilty, right? IOW, by the legal definition of reasonable doubt, they don't have to be absolutely certain, do they?