As a prosecutor, I used to remind every jury that “reasonable doubt” does not require that common sense be left outside the jury room. The defense attorneys hated my repititon of the phrase, but it was necessary because the defense constantly tried to imply that “reasonable doubt” required every detail of a crime be fully revealed.
For example, the defense would hammer home the fact that one witness said the defendant was driving a green car and another witness said it was a blue car - thus, we have “reasonable doubt”. Of course, the color of the car had nothing to do with the fact that the car was used to run over an ex-spouse.
In this case, the remaining questions or doubts surround issues that do not pertain to the elements of the crime. For example, how exactly did Casey kill her daughter ... what time did the murder occur ... what good reason did Casey have to kill her daughter. These questions were smoke and mirrors used by the defense to cloud the normal judgement of jurors. Unfortunately, these jurors were easily fooled.
BTW, see my tagline. :-)
I have actually seen defense attys write the name of jurors on their legal pads and hold it up in front of them.
I agree.
Excellent post and it illustrates what I believe happened here. I think jurors in this case believed reasonable doubt meant any doubt at all.
And let’s ALL check out what Cheney Mason had to say BEFORE he joined the You Must Be Dreaming Team (not sure what else I can call this defense group)