I would hope they did know the other background, because the alternative is that they would convict a guy "in the absence of a case". He's clearly guilty as hell, but the state didn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Must it be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" WRT this type of case?
< I would hope they did know the other background, because the alternative is that they would convict a guy "in the absence of a case". He's clearly guilty as hell, but the state didn't prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt. >
Not beyond a resonable doubt to who? You? A dozen citizens disagree with you. Did you listen to the young man testify? Good Lord, I didn't have a dog in this hunt and I was crying. He was extremely credible. What makes you think that you can't convict someone if you believe the victim is telling the truth?
If that was the case, the jury would've come back with a verdict of not guilty. But they didn't--the jury came back with a verdict of guilty on all counts.