Lots of people on juries are stupid and cowardly and will not return a guilty verdict unless they have 100% proof that someone is guilty. They can no longer connect dots.
Isn't this the way it's supposed to be?
“Lots of people on juries are stupid and cowardly and will not return a guilty verdict unless they have 100% proof that someone is guilty.”
Yes, jurors understand that the prosecution must prove their case.
I thought that was the plan.
Having been jury foreman on a couple of cases, I can attest to what you say is true. The judge directed and polled the jury pool prior to selection that each potential juror was to decide guilt or innocence based upon the law as it currently was, not how they want it to be. A couple of jurors violated that until I reminded them repeatedly that they swore an oath attesting that they would follow the law as is, not should be. It takes at least one juror with conviction to keep the entire jury in focus.
In this particular case, conviction relied on the credibility of the FBI.
That the FBI no longer has credibility with the public appears to be the primary reason for this acquittal.
Last time I checked, that's more or less how it's supposed to work.
Proof beyond a doubt is the purpose of a trial.