I think OJ Simpson’s acquittal can serve as an example when explaining “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” which, to me, basically means: “No one else could have really done it.”
In OJ’s criminal trial, the defense was able to cast reasonable doubt. Of course, the prosecutors did not do themselves any favors when they had OJ Simpson try on the gloves or have Mark Fuhrman testify, etc.
Interestingly, I also think the notion of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” can be used to explain why former President Park was recently removed from office (here in Korea). In a nutshell, the Constitutional Court of Korea was/is never bound by such standards. (I think the two cases are also similar in that public opinion was a factor too.)
I remember watching the OJ Simpson Trial live on CNN. (I was in Beijing at the time.) I probably became interested in law through this trial. As I watched it unfold, I remember thinking to myself, “There is no way he’ll be found not guilty…”
Final Comment: The FX drama was really well-made, and I learned things I did not know before. My only gripe (in casting): John Travolta, whenever he spoke, reminded me of John Travolta, not Bob Shapiro.
Thanks! I will try to write something about the Amanda Knox Trial too. This was/is another case of great interest to me.