The judge reads the instructions in open court. Some states provide every juror with their own copy. From the juror comments I heard, they were definitely confused about the burden of proof. Defense attorneys try to convince juries it’s an impossible burden.
Thank you, I missed that part (it was a holiday weekend and we were doing other things, so I didn’t see all of it). But yes, they seemed confused about the burden of proof. I understand that the defense tries to confuse them, but sheesh, their job is to not become confused, and I simply don’t think it’s that difficult to understand that you don’t have to have a video tape of a crime or an eye witness or the folks from CSI Miami there to explain to you exactly what happened step by step to convict someone. Or maybe you do now. And I still think that if a defense attny has nothing other than his own imagination as proof he should be punished for bringing up his theories in court as if they are facts. Shoot, he apparently could have blamed to judge for the child’s death if he’d wanted to and gotten away with it.