Note also the term "to a moral certainty." THAT, according to Professor LaFave, is the real meaning of "reasonable doubt."
You can derisively refer to those of us possessed of reasonable doubt as the "Westerfield Fan Club" if you like. Namecalling is the last resort of little minds, and we all realize that. We aren't "fans" of Westerfield, however; we're fans of seeing that justice be done. Justice cannot be done by executing the wrong person.
We also have Westerfield's attorney working overtime to suppress evidence, and then getting caught "accidentally" (wink wink!) misleading the jury about that evidence. Sorry, but if I were on the jury, I'd ignore everything in the defense case after THAT little pecadillo.
Then you shouldn't be on any jury. The judge will properly instruct the jury to consider the evidence in its totality. Jurors can't throw out evidence merely because they don't like the proponent of the evidence.
Yup. And I do properly consider the totality of the evidence. And that totality includes the integrity of the parties presenting that evidence.
If you're willing to lie when the odds of getting caught are extremely high (as they were in that event), then you're at least equally likely to lie when the odds are that much lower. It's not mere dislike that drives this--it's understanding that people who lie are likely to not just lie once.