I realize that criminal standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, but I wonder if some juries expect more evidence and develop such a high standard with respect to forensic evidence that they acquit people of crimes that they are clearly guilty of because there may not be a murder weapon even though the circumstantial case is strong.
I think that some juries are becoming accustomed to these crime shows in which every case offers perfect evidence and they have the same expectations in real life. This is a little concerning to me because we used to convict people without DNA evidence and now I think that the criminal defense attorneys have the upper hand because juries are expecting more evidence for convictions.
I mean, do we have to have a video tape of a person committing a crime in order to convict a defendant? I feel that some jurors misinterpret what we mean by beyond a reasonable doubt. It really does not mean beyond an absolute doubt.