{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"When There\u2019s Only \u201cReasonable Doubt\u201d - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QfuYpenuLi\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/when-there-is-only-reasonable-doubt\/\">When There\u2019s Only \u201cReasonable Doubt\u201d<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/when-there-is-only-reasonable-doubt\/embed\/#?secret=QfuYpenuLi\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;When There\u2019s Only \u201cReasonable Doubt\u201d&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"QfuYpenuLi\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/Jury-Box.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"Law students are taught that the \u2018beyond a reasonable doubt\u2019 standard is the bedrock of the justice system, one that is desirable because, as Blackstone declared, it is \u201cbetter that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.\u201d But does that resonate with jurors? In other words, when a lawyer argues that \u201cthe prosecution can\u2019t prove this person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt\u2019 is the message not one of innocence but of a concession of probable or potential guilt? Does it smack of gamesmanship? And is it easy for lay persons, not in the halls of academe but in courts in cities where crime may be prevalent, to apply? These questions were brought to mind when reading a news account of a high profile murder trial with substantial evidence of guilt but also some reasons to doubt. As reported in the news media (not necessarily the source for a verbatim accounting of a courtroom proceeding), the defense lawyer\u2019s opening emphasized that there was no physical evidence linking the accused to the killings, no gun &hellip;"}