I wouldn’t convict someone of speeding on a 70% probability. This isn’t a civil case where the standard is the preponderance of the evidence — it’s higher by design. As for the folks who are outraged, you win some, you lose some, but the duty of a jury is to check their emotions at the door and follow the law.
They are not suppose to check their common sense at the door!
Right that is what I was saying. That the jury had to answer both questions, homicide or accident and if homicide who did it, make it harder for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The one thing I did not realize until I typed up my previous post, I think the tougher the penalties, the harder it is to establish to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I would guess in theory reasonable doubt for running a stop sign and murder should be the same thing, but what the state wants to do in each case is so different.