2 ms·

Juries are not mind readers. At best you can get to roughly what a rational person would have thought given said data, Alex Jones is not rational. It is literal

• lokar 4y ago
  In the context of needed a specific outcome in finite time, a legal process can never be certain of anything. We depend on process like juries to come to a good enough conclusion.
  • donatj 4y ago
    That's where the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" comes in though, and I don't believe there was any way that was met here.
    • dragonwriter 4y ago
      The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” describes the standard of proof for criminal conviction as a safeguard b/c of the special potential consequences (like execution, imprisonment, disenfranchisement, and lasting legal disabilities) associated with such conviction. It has no bearing on a civil defamation suit, where the general burden is merely “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., given what evidence each side has presented, what the jury finds more likely to be true.)
• Natsu 4y ago
  This is actually a legit distinction and a jury could base their decision on this. However, the matter is entirely up to the jury and in this case they decided they did know what he thought and there's not much that can be done about it. It could well be reduced on appeal and it's unlikely they can pay that much, however.