Oh I so agree that the standard for conviction of murder is well-established. My only contention was that for the death penalty, there needed to be that added burden of proof. DNA is certainly a wonderful tool but my devious mind could certainly figure out ways to frame someone by planting their DNA at a crime scene. It'll be interesting in the next decade to see how the criminals adapt to DNA evidence.

Will future murderers kill their victims and then plant skin cells from some unwitting patsy under the viictim's fingernails? Will a serial killer that works in a blood bank, leave samples from his work around his crime scenes to confuse the police? Some great stuff for mystery writers.

Bottom line is that proof is difficult to establish completely even with the most modern tools. I can't even imagine the horror of being falsely accused of a capital crime these days.