I’m no lawyer with their fancy degrees and leather belts, but a couple readers make the same point, which strikes me as fairly sensible, in response to the Wone 3 post below:

So what happened to “Beyond a reasonable doubt”?
Seems that the judge’s quote – ”But to convict an accused, a trier of fact must be firmly convinced based on evidentiary certainty” — sets up a standard (certainty) that is impossible to attain.

And:

I’ve been fascinated with this case for several weeks. One quibble with your post- if the judge thinks they did it, then the prosecution did prove it’s case, the rest is mere legalisms. Yes, I think “legalisms” matter and are important, but the bigger picture still holds. Basically, the judge said – these guys are killers and my job is to take them away from society so that they don’t do it again (and show others that murder is not tolerated), however, we’ve written our laws such that I just can’t do my job.
So, we just spend tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to tell the people of DC that they’re on their own. Lucky you! That’s why I live in the burbs.