Political rhetoric of the day comes and goes, but the basic laws generally stay the same. However the jurors ultimately define what a reasonable doubt is, which is why juror selection has such a huge effect on case outcome. That is why a lot of times you get a decision that seems to fly in the face of logic, because you can get a jury that has biases stacked in one direction strong enough to make them decide to be more harsh, or sometimes to be more lenient.
IE I personally feel cosby case should have been thrown out even if the actions he did may have been true, since there is absolutely zero ability to prove his guilt beyond any reasonable definition of reasonable doubt 20+ years later, or even that there was any sort of assault at all after all this time. I mean any guy on earth who made an ex gf mad could have her make up a story decades later and put him in jail if that is truly enough for a conviction - or even someone he never had anything to do with at all but who doesn't like his politics, or something else about him. Going in the other direction we constantly see cases of cyclists snuffed out but the jurors (who themselves are probably nearly all drivers but not cyclists) seem to give out only the most nominal punishments to these drivers except in the very worst cases.