Notwithstanding any belief I have in the likely guilt of a defendant simply by virtue of their appearance in court, I'm a far less biased juror than most folks--who believe police are completely truthful because cops are generally good at maintaining eye contact with a jury. I've no problem looking at the evidence and considering it all fairly, instead of voting a defendant immediately to jailbait status. That doesn't mean I think the defendant is innocent--but I wouldn't vote guilty if a prosecutor didn't meet his burden of proof, either. That's why the verdict is "NOT GUILTY," not "INNOCENT."
However, if you think that I'm wrong about the 99% figure, you're either a criminal defense attorney who is so foolish he actually bought his own arguments, or you're completely addled. That there are occasionally innocents brought before factfinders does not mean remotely that most defendants deserve exoneration. Most defendants don't go to trial at all, either having the charges against them dropped (because the states' attorney/AG can't legally substantiate a claim, not because the defendant is not guilty), or due to diversionary programs or pleas made before trial. But you knew that because of your extensive background in the judicial process, I'm sure. You may believe the trial courts are rife with actual innocents, but those people are rarely a part of criminal procedure.
And FYI, smartass, the next voir dire I take part in won't involve me handing anything to the judge--besides a list of questions to ask the prospective jurors.
A difference between "not guilty" and "can't legally substantiate a claim," may exist in the minds of Wyatt Earp Syndrome prosecutors, but fortunately neither jurors nor our legal system are interested in distinctions which make no difference. But thanks for betraying your fair mindedness--again.
As for what you hand judges, yawn, you'll excuse me but I think there's a thread going on over at the canteen about a dog that can bark the alphabet.