> He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s just plainly insane. Absence of proof of innoc

> He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s just plainly insane. Absence of proof of innocence is not proof guilt. It’s not even suggestive of proof, let alone proof without a resonable doubt!? That would leave half the country with a death sentence because they don’t have reliable affirmative proof that they didn’t commit this murder. Do you remember where you were on the day the murder happened? If you cannot provide proof, we’ll consider you guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.