[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
The first two responses are exhibiting some kind of math phobia or mental block. This is very disconcerting so I am going to try to show in precise detail why this guy deserves to be convicted.

Firstly lets say that the jury originally believed that there was a 20% chance he was innocent. What precisely do I mean by that? It means that the jury thinks that if they were presented with a million identical cases with the exact same evidence, 200,000 of the defendents would be innocent. First make sure you understand that definition.

OK, now assume that the shoe size fits one percent of the population. Now lets go back to the million identical defendents. 800,000 are guilty. All 800,000 have that shoe size. 200,000 are innocent. 2,000 have that shoe size. The other 198,000 are sent home. The trial now is for 802,000 defendents. All identical with the (adjusted) exact same evidence. Now the jury believes that one quarter of one percent of the defendents are innocent. (2000 out of 802,000).

Bringing it down to one defendent, the shoe evidence should change the juries probability of innocence from 20% to one fourth of one percent. The fact that juries may not think that way is neither here nor there.

Bringing it

[/ QUOTE ]

I would agree with you, but I don't think you can break down someone's probable guilt that clearly. For me it would depend on why I had reasonable doubt. Clearly the shoe-print evidence is huge, I think it would just depend on the particulars of the case.

For example, if the defendant admitted to being at the crime scene, the shoe-print is practically irrelevant. That's why I said it depends on so many other factors.

(Edit: Somehow I missed it when you said the following [ QUOTE ]
If it wasn't, its instant acquittal. But since it is the jury is now contemplating a conviction.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess I would agree with you in that case, but I still maintain that it would clearly depend on many factors.)