[Jim Noble]

You can used deductive reasoning to arrive at a verdict as to FACT.

The State still has to prove each element of the CHARGE.

The FACTS that the jury decides are not "what really happened", they are "did the State prove 1, 2, 3...."

It does not matter if the jurors think Casey killed Caylee. What matters is, did the State of Florida prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the elements of the various charged offenses were true.

[conservativebuckeye]

I realize from a technical standpoint, you are correct, but that’s not how my mind works. I can’t avoid thinking to myself whether she’s guilty or not rather than whether or not the state is proving their case beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you in good conscience vote to acquit somebody you think has committed murder? I’ve always felt that if the Constitution has a weakness, this is it. The Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreknown that trials would simply become about who has the slicker lawyers rather than absolute truth. They also couldn’t have known that lawyers would only care about victory rather than justice.

[caww]

It does not matter if the jurors think Casey killed Caylee. What matters is, did the State of Florida prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the elements of the various charged offenses were true.

That statement makes the State of Florida the party the Jury is or not convicting of this crime, rather than Casey who was charged with the crime...not the state.