The jury is supposed to make all the decisions with respect to weighing evidence once it’s admitted. The standard for admitting evidence is very low if it can b

The jury is supposed to make all the decisions with respect to weighing evidence once it’s admitted. The standard for admitting evidence is very low if it can be authenticated, and it’s basically “is it relevant and does it have an impact on the questions the jury will be asked to ultimately come to a conclusion on without unduly prejudicing the jury in some way.” The jury’s decision must meet the standard of liability (more likely than not, clear and convincing, no reasonable doubt, etc.) So it’s entirely possible for a ton of evidence to come in that none of it meets what you’d consider the “no reasonable doubt” standard and for a jury to consider all that suspicious evidence to be true enough that they can convict someone under the “no reasonable doubt” standard.