I hope the prosecution can spend equal amount of time lecturing all of the jury and anyone who will listen what the meaning of "Reasonble "Doubt' is. Most attorneys assume (incorrectly) that is it clear. The majority of cases lost are lost becuase some juror was not going to embarrass themselves and ask for an explanation and ask again if they didnt get it. Many, many people think if the have a doubt, then they must acquit.
A doubt doesn't mean that you can't vote guilty...not at all. People have doubts all the time. The point is...is it reasonble or not? If it is not reasonable, then you must convict.
Oh man...somebody's got to teach this to all the public. Twelve jurors in Tampa got it wrong....totally wrong. They thought it wqs "Beyond the shodow of a doubt".
It you wake up and the streets are wet you don't assume an aircraft just dropped water or over your neighborhood (possible, but not likely because that is not reasonable). you assumed it rained...that is reasonable.
The OJ jury and the anthony jury didn't have any logical thinkers seated. Both could not connect the dots and both said they had doubts so they wouldn't convict. Their doublt were NOT reasonable and they certainly should have convicted. There needs to be an extensive test given to jurors to see if they comprehend the term. Juries need abstract thinkers.
lease:
