A recent poll on Reddit of over 2,400 voters had 2,200 of them vote not guilty when given guilty, not guilty, or hung jury as options. Six days ago on Law and Crime Network, a poll of 34,612 had 85% for not guilty, 9% for guilty, and 6% for a hung jury. A CourtTV poll of 42,000 viewers had 71% not guilty, 12% guilty, and 18% voted for a hung jury. My point in showing these statistics is that a large majority of these viewers saw the same trial that the jury did. In fact they got to see more than the jury did during times where the jury was not in the courthouse. I am shell shocked that any rationally thinking person could have felt that the Commonwealth met it's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can take guilty or not guilty out of it, the only conclusion is that not only is there reasonable doubt, but. there is so much reasonable doubt that it makes one wonder what the actual F is going on here? Why don't we examine the reasonable...