Don't normal politicians get into trouble for this sort of thing?

I mean, the jury is still deciding after a trial in which the judge appeared to be a cantankerous anti-prosecution interferer, and I saw somewhere on Twitter (and confirmed in the WAPO*) that the defence got to put up a type of chart which it seems is not uncommonly used in the US: 

That's really misleading if you ask me - it is clearly designed to suggest that it is only a tiny minority of prosecutions which can possibly be found to have been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".   I am surprised American courts allow it - but they do have the weirdest outcomes there.

There's no doubt that juries do struggle with the meaning of the phrase - see this report on the New South Wales Law Reform Commission view on this a few years ago.  But I would hope that all sensible people in Australia would see the potential for that visual "aid" to only confuse the matter more - and unfairly in favour of the defence.

*  The burden the prosecutors have to overcome, he explained with a thermometer-like chart, is not that Manafort “possibly,” “probably,” “likely” or “even highly likely guilty,” but that he is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”