Also I can totally be wrong about this its one of those "I' think I heard this a few times" but I think this is one of those things where the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.
That's how tyrannies operate.
The thing is, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not mathematical/logical proof, it's (as I recall the jury instructions I've seen on this) basically proof to a degree that a reasonably diligent person would use in their most important business dealings.
Multiple sources of evidence that point in the same direction, even when there are theoretically possible innocent explanations for all them, can still constitute "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which is not "proof beyond any doubt".
Not meaningfully, for a number of reasons.
> Say one piece of circumstantial evidence puts the likelihood of guilt at 20%/ not guilty at 80%.
Problem with that is that it is rarely easily quantifiable.
> Now another one has a 15/85 ratio. Take that 15% from 80%
This, of course, assumes that the pieces of evidence are independent, which is not necessarily true.
Applying math to the issue isn't really helpful, because that's not the way jurors process evidence.
And if the system were changed to force them to work that way, it would just be a giant mess.
And how is it determined (beyond a reasonable doubt, with a vigorous defense) whether or not you committed the crime of tax evasion?
