REASONABLE DOUBT
I am hoping that when the juror's deliberate that they understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means.
It does not mean beyond a doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt.
I am posting a simplified version of reasonable doubt so people can understand reasonable doubt.
I borrowed this article from a friendly site and it shows how reasonable doubt comes about.
Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence, is essentially observed circumstances from which a valid conclusion can be drawn based on those observed circumstances. For example, one winter evening, just before you go to bed at night, you look out the window and see that the streets are clean.
You wake up in the morning, look out the window and see that the ground is covered with a light dusting of snow. From the observed 'circumstance' you can speculate/consider the following.
a) Someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow
b) If you believe in snow fairies, it could have been that they passed by and covered the ground in snow.
c) It snowed during the night.
d) If you had never seen snow before, you can't figure out what happened during the night to cover the ground with all that white stuff.
Of course, the correct answer is (c). The snow on the ground is evidence, (proof) that it snowed during the night and that conclusion, based on your observations, is just as valid as it would be if you sat up during the night looking out the window and watched the snow fall.
The same applies to the "meteor" example the Dr. used. You didn't see the meteor collide with the ground but the evidence, (the crater it created) left behind is valid circumstantial evidence, (proof) that a meteor landed at that spot at some time before you observed the crater.
That's kind of awkwardly written. Hope it makes the point.
Great explanation of circumstantial evidence.
So for those who think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" means "beyond any possible doubt", that is like saying (in this example):
"I can't say for sure that it snowed during the night, I did not see it, so maybe answer (a) actually happened (someone passed by in the night with a truck full of snow and sprinkled the streets with snow)"
Could someone get a truck and fill it with snow? Yes, that is not impossible
Could someone drive the truck to your street and sprinkle that snow around evenly? Yes, that is not impossible
However, absent some strong, logical evidence to support the "truck with snow" theory; most intelligent people would come to the conclusion beyond a REASONABLE doubt that there is snow on the ground because it snowed during the night. Is this conclusion beyond ANY doubt? No, it is not, because the truck with snow scenario is not absolutely impossible. But the conclusion can be reached beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard required to reach a guilty verdict.
(So in the Arias case, the fact that Jodi made up a story that is not impossible does not mean the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that this murder was premeditated
Thanks
lease:
