Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
The jury is instructed as such by the judge.

 Quote:
3.7 PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT;
AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the [information] [indictment] through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.
...

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.7.rtf


Exactly as I said and the opposite of what you're saying. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt through the evidence presented by the prosecution. Nowhere does it say that the defendant must be found 'not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt'.


Once again using slightly different words... The jurors use reasonable doubt when rendering their verdict. They are instructed by the judge to use that high standard. If they use a different standard than they are not following their instructions.


You seem not to understand how it's being used, though. The way you state it, the jury believed beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not guilty. That is not the burden of the defense. I think that you may believe the same thing that I'm saying, but the words that you're typing and posting mean the opposite.

whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."