I am respectively editing to this point only. If you truly believe what you have written above then I hope that you are never unjustly charged or suspected of a crime. My opinion has only to do with what you said above, and not this case in particular.
I am lucky to have never been charged with anything other than speeding. I hope that luck holds out, and I hope to improve my odds by not committing crimes, or at least avoiding murdering people as that seems to land one in court. But relevant to the point, here's what you took issue with of mine:
So, the point is to show that the totality of the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt (not no doubt) that the defendant committed the crime. To me, the prosecution has now met this burden. The task is not to show that each piece of evidence if viewed in a vacuum could have some other explanation, but rather all the evidence in the entirety. View it all in that context, and it is clear what happened.
And that is a fair summary of how things work. The jury is not charged to abandon common sense or view things in a vacuum. Let me illustrate further by quoting the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instructions for criminal cases as relevant.
The jury must find the states case made beyond a reasonable doubt for each element of the offense, not for each iota of possible evidence. Here is one concluding instruction the judge likely will give the jury:
You should consider all the evidence, arguments, contentions and positions urged by the attorney(s) and any other contention that arises from the evidence; and using your common sense you must determine the truth in this case.
Actual common sense is encouraged in light of all the evidence. As to the burden of proof of the offense and its elements, not dissected bits of information and fanciful conspiracy theories, the judge would likely instruct thusly:
Reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, arising out of some or all of the evidence that has been presented, or lack or insufficiency of the evidence, as the case may be. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that fully satisfies or entirely convinces you of the defendant's guilt.
And as to the weight of the evidence, the judge would likely say:
You are the sole judges of the weight to be given any evidence. By this I mean, if you decide that certain evidence is believable you must then determine the importance of that evidence in light of all other believable evidence in the case.
Again, the admonition that evidence be construed in light of all other believable evidence.
I say likely because these are pattern instructions and the judge may instruct as he wishes though by practice the attorneys will suggest various pattern instructions or perhaps an instruction drafted or modified to fit the case in particular.
Now, it is right of each attorney to attack evidence in piece and the opposing narrative as a whole, but it is not required for the jury to consider the mere possibility of various alternate theories of evidence as more important than the picture in total.
Granted, the system is not perfect, but that is how it works.
These instructions noted above (which are current, I just looked them up on casemaker) and the philosophy behind them is consistent with how we understood juries to decide things in practice and in theory when I tried cases. However, I left trial practice several years ago and if you have more recent information to show juries should work differently now, Id be glad to type corrected.
