There's this long running theme of lawyers using elaborate weird-ass metaphors to try to pretend the concept of "reasonable doubt" has an actual definition when it pretty clearly does nothttps://twitter.com/MaraWilson/status/1384212162969694220 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
In Il courts, you're not allowed to try to define it for the jury. Instant mistrial if a court tries to define it for the jury.
Yep. It's basically a term of art for "make the jury sort it out as an impenetrable black box"
Comes across as who actually finds it reasonable to kneel on someone’s neck for 9 mins until they are dead. There’s your answer.
at least in the civil context for, say, negligence, most people can get their head around what reasonable is- it's worse when you throw in a concept like "doubt" into the mix.
in the 19th century, MA courts defined it as being to a "moral certainty" which became an influiential phrase. There was a SCOTUS case in 1994 Victor v. Nebraska, that was all about arguing whether including the phrase moral certainty in the instructions violated due process.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.