Quote:
Originally Posted by FireGilbert
I’ll have to watch the video but can you please clarify the bolded? It seems contradictory as if the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that should be enough to convict. Or are you saying he should have been convicted but the judge/jury didn’t have enough understanding of poker to remove this doubt?
|
Beyond reasonable doubt if you know poker really well. Not enough to be convicted by a lay judge and/or jury.