She has no point. "Not Guilty" means "not guilty". She can't handle that. It's rare that anyone is declared "innocent" because one iota of evidence against that is enough to squash that verdict even if the overwhelming pile of evidence supports innocence. The same problem exists for the "guilty" verdict. One iota of evidence that leans in favor of innocence is enough to demand a "not guilty" verdict by virtue of reasonable doubt. Basically...no amount of evidence will be enough to make her think he isn't guilty because that mind was made up long before this went to trial.