The jury, given the evi­dence pre­sented and looking only at that inci­dent as opposed to other behav­iors of his, came to the right ver­dict,” says James Alan Fox, a crim­i­nol­o­gist at North­eastern Uni­ver­sity in Boston. “The rest of us have the ben­efit now of hind­sight and fore­sight sur­rounding the trial. [But] we are not bound by rule of evi­dence, nor do we have to follow ‘beyond a rea­son­able doubt’ when we pass our own judgments.”


Read the article at The Christian Science Monitor →