nuanced permutations to other cases causing a grey area that makes it impossible (IMHO) to properly define.

Say for example there's a case where the evidence is eyewitness testimony by police and physical evidence police say they found at the crime scene that ties back to the accused.

To a jury full of people pre-disposed to trust police, believe what police say, and take what police say as fact, that evidence represents indisputable facts and they would therefore (in good faith) sentence the accused to death.

But we know that throughout history there are plenty of examples of police lying and planting evidence - if that were true in this hypothetical case, the jury just sent an innocent person to his death.

If anything, the age of "alternative facts" has shown us that people are willing to believe alternative facts (lies) if they confirm biases - what is "indisputable fact" to one person is not the same to another.  I don't trust flawed humans (we are all flawed) to get those decisions right every time - even at a standard of "indisputable fact" that can't be as objective as we'd want it to be - to ensure no innocent people would be killed by the state.