Well, he's supposed to be guilty not just by a preponderance of the evidence (or even by "clear and convincing" evidence) but by evidence that shows his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" before he is put under the hammer of criminal liability...
>
> True enough, his trial was substandard and there's plenty to
>quibble about with the process leading to his conviction.
Reason enough for a new--fair--trial, no?
Brad DeLong