The foreman of the jury in the Dossett-Leath murder trial just told the judge that the jury was deadlocked. Essentially, he said, there was a disagreement over “circumstantial evidence.” Dare I suggest it’s really a disagreement over “reasonable doubt”?

The foreman then went on to explain that there was at least one juror who wanted there to be “a smoking gun” when there was “none” in this case.

Isn’t this really a way of saying that there is no conclusive proof, only a preponderance of evidence? And isn’t that exactly what the burden of proof must be in a criminal trial—namely conclusive proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

I’m frankly amazed that it isn’t the other way around, namely, that there isn’t one juror who’s convinced Ms. Dossett-Leath is guilty despite the failure of the prosecution to prove homicide. I guess this just proves “beyond a reasonable doubt” that I have a very lofty idea of what proof is.

Or maybe it all comes down to this “final bullet” after all. As I said earlier, I didn’t hear all the evidence about the cartridge casings and bullets. I don’t know whether or not the prosecution presented convincing evidence that the final bullet fired was fired after the fatal bullet.