Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
I think the real question is if the defence is trying to raise legal reasonable doubt or whether they are, as is so often the case in these trials, just trying to give the jury a reasonable excuse to let the cop off.
|
I think sometimes they try to convince the jurors that theoretical doubt = reasonable doubt. I am not sure I totally get it either. Like obviously I get it when something is theoretically possible, but practically impossible. But at what point does theoretical move into reasonable doubt territory? How does an ordinary person know what the highest standard of proof is if they are not familiar with the legal system?
I think with any jury, you stand a good chance of getting one person with the conspiracy mind set that believes something happened no matter how improbable. I know the selection process tries to weed that out, but human processes are always subject to human error.