Juries will do strange things

I lost a jury trial case last week. When I explain the facts to you you will wonder how it is possible to loose. A man, in a drug induced state, walks into a 91 year old womans house in the middle of the afternoon while she is taking a nap. He claimed at trial that he doesn't remember doing any of this, but after going into her house, he finds her bathroom, takes out his dentures (meth causes people to loose their teeth) and takes a crap on her toilet. When the 91 year old woman wakes up, she finds him passed out on her toilet with his pants around his knees.

How could he not be found guilty of Criminal Trespass? All I can say is that juries do strange things. When talking with them afterwards, they mentioned that we hadn't proved the case "beyond a shadow of a doubt." I guess we didn't discuss reasonable doubt well enough, but I am positive there was not a single mention of "shadow of a doubt" at trial or in the jury instructions. I guess I need to do a better job of explaining reasonable doubt.

I think the jury system is an amazing system of justice and criminal law gives defendants the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes it feels like it just does not work. That is why civil lawyers are so hesitant to take their cases to trial, and it is a good lesson to learn early on in my career.