I’m going to nitpick, but I think it’s worthwhile: it’s important to note that the law doesn’t say “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The burden of proof for the defense is “reasonable doubt.” Beyond a shadow of a doubt would essentially mean absolute certainty, and that rarely exists, as all kinds of “unreasonable doubts” can always be raised (“What if the defendant has an evil twin?”). But there seems to be plenty of very reasonable doubt in this case. Georgia’s decision is unconscionable.