“However, as a juror I would be basing my decision on evidence rather than what I think, and it would be up to the prosecution to put forth a compelling case that proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
decision on evidence?
You have watched too many CSI shows.
In the history of the human race, eyewitness testimony has always been considered evidence.
In your world, rape could very well be a perfect crime when no evidence is left at the scene, although the woman can identify her attacker.
If you permit me to use that last example, what's to stop a woman from accusing you of rape? She identities someone as her attacker, no evidence. Based on her word the person should be incarcerated? I seem to remember several cases where a man is accused of rape, and it is found out the whole thing was a lie (or mistaken identity).
It is also not about CSI, and I don't watch the show. It is about the burden of proof for a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the burden of proof for a civil case (preponderance of evidence). In the former, the prosecution has to a significantly higher burden of proof. In the latter, all they need to show is a 51% likelihood.
Anyway, let's see how this turns out. The jury may very well convict him. But the fact that they are asking what 'reasonable doubt' means probably shows that there are some weak spots in the case. And I say this as someone who fully believes that even though some of the women may not be telling the truth, at least several are. Unfortunately, the current legal system relies on evidence not hearsay, and whether the hearsay is true or not it unfortunately may not be enough