A lot of jurors generally don’t understand the difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence which is a flaw in our system. They make the mistake of assuming that because it’s circumstantial evidence, it therefore presents other possibilities for the crime which they immediately equate with failing the “beyond a reasonable doubt” claus, so they acquit.
I had an arson case a few years ago I served on where this crackhead burned down a womans garage and half her house, and despite 3 witnesses seeing this crackhead flaming up his pipe with his gas torch, despite them seeing him breaking the window and entering, we still had 4 idiots in our jury that wanted to acquit because they had this circumstantial evidence misundertstanding “Oh well another crackhead could have been in there and lit the place on fire” and I said no no no no no..This isn’t imagination land where other people suddenly appear and do the crime, there is no evidence of another person, 1 + 1 = 2, the dude took specific steps, it wasn’t his house, he broke in, it’s not a crack den.
Although we could not see him, the probability is certain beyond a reasonable doubt he put his torch on her couch in the garage which started the fire. The fire marshall said it was started by a direct burning torch, 3 witnesses saw him with a torch, but the HELL I had to go thru to get them to convict this POS was incredible!! They were all set to let him off scot free, meanwhile her husband sustained 3rd degree burns, her dogs and cats were killed, and these morons were all set to let him fly because “we couldn’t see what happened in the garage” and finally we did convict, but it was a real lesson on how effed up this system can be.
If the crime ain’t on HD video in technicolor with 3D glasses and surroundsound in THX, you can be damn sure the defense is going to use the juries misconception of that reasonable doubt shiet to the fullest extent,and that’s what happened in this case.
The fire story is excellent. Several years back, a molestation case was in our local circuit court. The jury acquited the man. When the jury was asked about the little girls testimony, they said that they believed her. But, they would have preferred more evidence.