[KevinB]

Your logic is flawed. Lets say a jury hears 100 cases, in each of those cases believes it's 80% likely that the defendant committed the crime, and votes to convict in all 100 cases. Well, that means that it's extremely likely that nobody was wrongfully convicted. Why? Because in each case there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant did it.

At 80% most jurors will say to themselves, "yep, the prosecution has shown me enough that I am comfortable with the notion that the defendant did it and I will not have to worry about losing any sleep over whether I helped convict the wrong guy."

There is never - or almost never - certainty in the law. For that reason math and law do not mix well.

Incidentally, in civil cases the burden is much lower, basically anything over 50%. The jury must find for the plaintiff if it thinks based on the evidence that it's "more likely than not" that the defendant is liable.

[patton]

That particular professor made quite a name for himself, tearing people up in court. His class was fascinating.

Why don’t you go debate it with him.