"Any jury analyst knows that facts are cut to fit the cloth of beliefs. Who could believe that the Scopes trial "proved" evolution to everyone's satisfaction? Or that Brown v. Board of Education motivated the Klan to burn its robes instead of crosses? Who among us is sufficiently naive enough to believe that all potential jurors answer the voir dire questions honestly?
And there is still another form of belief-based "doubt"—the kind I have had to constantly overcome throughout my career. How could such a wealthy, successful pillar of the community actually be a child molester? How could a nice, polite, soft-spoken individual have raped his own little daughter ... especially when "experts" testified that "he didn't fit the profile"? How could a PTA-officer, charity-volunteer mother shake her infant son into permanent brain damage? "