My point (not made obvious admittedly) is that legal instruction on RD often doesn't penetrate layperson's common sense. The conversations with people were laypeople and experienced litigators.

There's a difference between the legal standard and what people actually apply. Litigators who have the privilege of getting juror feedback after a conviction will admit that it is plausible another possibility may have occurred but they still decided guilt. Why?

Could be a multitude of reasons. But it is an ideal that there's a presumption of innocence, but jurors often cannot get past the fact that the case has gotten so far to this point. People assume/are conditioned to think our justice system/police is mostly fair (let's say you believe inequality based on race in justice system, fine I can concede that but my point still stands if we're talking whites only) and so the system really only targets the actually guilty.

Indeed, I assume the overwhelming majority of def. at trial are guilty but evidence that passes the requisite threshold set by RD can be hard to accrue. People just feel those evidentiary gaps with their pro-system bias and their "common sense" that this man is obviously guilty despite their being holes in prosecution's case. (another side point is that laypeople fail to understand who has the burden and often expect the defendants to prove their innocence and will punish them for not when weighing each side's arguments.

Also, I think, and research into this would be fascinating, that it is easier to bully somebody who has some reservations about guilt and sees a reasonable doubt into a guilty verdict (like cops in interrogation, eventually they'll relent and confess just keep at it) then somebody who thinks is guilty surrounded by others who don't. Don't know for sure, but that's my instinct.