Anything Mueller’s involved in.
Surprises me a bit that “reasonable doubt” wasn’t defined in the jury charge...
Great comment!
I will not speculate about jury nullification.
5.56mm
BINGO
About the Ostrich Jacket ? LOL
Leftist answer:
It all depends.
If the defendant is someone we don’t like then is 100% metaphysical certitude. Anything less and you must convict.
If the defendant is a liberal beloved by the left then it is the slightest doubt in your mind. Even a 1% chance the defendant did not do it is reasonable doubt.
Conservative answer:
You are morally convinced the defendant did NOT do the crime, you must acquit. The evidence must be overwhelming to overcome the presumption of innocence.
In all honesty I would hate to be a juror on this trial. I wouldn’t be able to know whether someone is guilty or innocent cause I don’t understand the details of the case and I would be bored to death.
Ruhroh, a railroad job fixin’ to jump the tracks . . .
*MANAFORT JURY ASKS ABOUT DEFINITION OF SHELF COMPANY… 2:15 PM - 16 Aug 2018
**************
A company that make shelves?
Well yes if the entire jury is asking. But often times it’s one or two people that are dug in and not agreeing to the acceptable answer so they want to the judge to give them the definition.
Could go either way. Could be an idiot looking for absolute 100% proof. Or an idiot saying if there is one witness (no matter how much of a liar they are) it’s proof.
lol...that’s what the judge should have said! Well played!
If one has doubt then the prosecution did not prove their case.
Hard to read in to this.
It could be one jury member is holding out for reasonable doubt
and the rest of the jury is trying to convince the one jury member
to leave reasonable doubt behind.
Reasonable Doubt? Simple, if you suspect the information is tainted or biased, not absolute, bet your life on it, then that is doubt. Actually, I like that test, “Would you bet your life on it?”
How many counts are there?
If found Not Guilty ,will Manafort get out of Solitary ?
Best answer! The act of asking proves reasonable doubt. I think "Would you bet your life on it?" would help further define it.
These are not what the prosecution wants the jury to be asking.
The jury instructions define reasonable and the defense should have beaten that to death in closing, especially if that is their sole defense. By the time they retire, the jury should have no doubt what a reasonable doubt is.