ghostofweezman
Registered User
All there needs to be is reasonable doubt... and I don't know how one can't consider reasonable doubt. We'll see if any facts change that.
Based on past experience as a juror, the defense will hammer this point home hard I imagine. Proof of guilt, and not suspicion of guilt, is what must be established in order to reach a guilty verdict. At least the jury is *supposed* to function that way. Barring any irrefutable evidence in either direction, I suspect that this matter will likely devolve into a "her word versus his" case and be settled outside of court.