Quote Originally Posted by Master View Post
Why does it have to be a unanimous decision for a guilty verdict and not just a majority? Seems like a unnecessary high bar.
Because that's what the Supreme Court ruled a while ago. What it means in practice is that the defence in a case like this just has to get one Fox News/angry white person type admitted to the jury and then hire an "expert witness*" to say that the murderer didn't really commit murder and that gives the Fox News juror the leeway to claim they have reasonable doubt as to whether the murderer did in fact commit the murder we can see being committed on the videotape of the murder. That's all it takes.

*There are "expert witnesses" who have some vague credentials to comment on incidents like this and they can make a good living going round the country testifying in trials like this. They're just there to give one person on the jury an excuse to have reasonable doubt, for a nice fee.