I was selected to be on a jury recently and these all sound like questions they asked us during the selection process, just on a bigger scale because unfortunately everyone knows who Hulk Hogan is. It's to try and remove people who have very obvious biases one way or the other.
e: And here's how they introduced the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" - the judge pointed at the American flag on a pole at the back of the room, where the flag part was not held up but just hanging off the pole. He called a juror:
JUDGE: What is that?
JUR: The American flag.
JUDGE: How do you know that?
JUR: I can see the stars and stripes, the American flag pattern.
JUDGE: But you can't be sure, can you? It's hanging, it's not completely unfurled.
JUR: I'm pretty sure.
JUDGE: So you are drawing a conclusion, not beyond ALL doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented to you?
JUR: Yes.
The judge went on to explain a bit more about it in a more eloquent way than I can paraphrase here.
e: And here's how they introduced the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" - the judge pointed at the American flag on a pole at the back of the room, where the flag part was not held up but just hanging off the pole. He called a juror:
JUDGE: What is that?
JUR: The American flag.
JUDGE: How do you know that?
JUR: I can see the stars and stripes, the American flag pattern.
JUDGE: But you can't be sure, can you? It's hanging, it's not completely unfurled.
JUR: I'm pretty sure.
JUDGE: So you are drawing a conclusion, not beyond ALL doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence presented to you?
JUR: Yes.
The judge went on to explain a bit more about it in a more eloquent way than I can paraphrase here.