All I heard of the trial was the defense closing, and a few minutes of the prosecution closing.
One thing I noticed was the defense persistently mistated the reasonable doubt standard, and nobody objected. He kept saying it had to be proven beyond “any and all reasonable doubt” and such similar construtions. That’s not right. It sounded like he was saying they couldn’t have doubt about any bit of evidence, which I’m sure is exactly what he wanted them to think. But in reality they only need to believe beyond a reasonable doubt in their conclusion. Not about every single bit of evidence.
I couldn’t understand why they let him keep doing it. Didn’t they understand the potential consequence?
I know that the phrase is different from one state to the next. I am no lawyer, but my guess is that he is quoting the Florida “phraseology.”
But in reality they only need to believe beyond a reasonable doubt in their conclusion. Not about every single bit of evidence.
- - - - - -
I think the objections at the end were minimized because of the Judge’s reprimands of both parties. At the end, the judge was fed up and you could see it.
And sadly, Baez told the jury what they wanted to hear. As mentioned at the top of this thread, most jurors are conditioned by TV to think that ANY doubt is reasonable doubt and that there has to be answers to all questions and that just isn’t the case.
But TV fantasies and people’s stupidity lead to juries like this one.
Even my husband, who only caught part of the trial and is conditioned professionally to weigh both sides (lawyer), is flabbergasted and appalled by this decision. He is walking around the house shaking his head at this stupid jury.
He kept saying it had to be proven beyond “any and all reasonable doubt” and such similar construtions. That’s not right
Please don't take this the wrong way as I mean no offense, but is English your primary language?
The phrases "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond any and all reasonable doubt" are functionally the equivalent. If the word "reasonable" had been left out then your assertion would have merit.