Originally Posted by yster

just thought I'd point out that "reasonable doubt" does not mean "beyond a shadow of a doubt". These people get crucified in the media, and if it starts before voir dire (jury selection), it is possible to contaminate the pool, but more often than not on the case-of-the-moment the jury gets sequestered and doesn't see the media stuff anyway.
Though mistakes do happen, it is important to note:
74% of crimes do not result in arrest
76% of charges filed are dropped or taken to juvenile court
22% of charges go to trial
thus only 14 of 1,000 crimes actually go to trial
These people are not just chosen randomly, they are more often than not guilty, so assuming guilt as a person who is not actually assigned to determine the guilt is probably a safe bet. It's not cost-effective to frame people, wrongful prosecution is almost *always* a result of the prosecution believing incorrect witness testimony.
If a guy's wife disappears in the middle of a period of marriage conflict, statistically, he probably is a good first place to look.
going back to the "beyond the shadow of the doubt" fallacy that many people assume, it's not "prove that it was him and not someone who looked exactly like him", it's "what would a reasonable person infer from this situation?"
civil trials are even looser in regards to this, OJ is a good example.