I am a lawyer, although I generally don't handle criminal cases. This is not legal advice. You should only rely on the advice of an attorney you have retained and who has a duty to investigate the facts and law that apply to your situation.
Every criminal defense attorney will argue there is a reasonable doubt. The prisons are full of people who used this argument unsuccessfully. The most common reasons an appellate court will reverse a conviction are if there is provable jury misconduct (very rare), if the judge's instructions to the jury misinterprets the law and that likely changed the outcome, or if there is no possible way the jury could reasonably believe the evidence supports a guilty verdict.
What I learned in law school 40 years ago is that "reasonable doubt" is far from the same thing as "ironclad evidence." In theory, a jury should acquit if the evidence leaves them with a doubt based on a reason. But if the police officer testifies that you were doing 80 mph and you testify you were just doing 65, the jury can believe the police officer and convict you. A conflict in the evidence does not mean there is reasonable doubt if the jury decides the police officer is more believable than you are. They can legally discount your testimony completely.
OTOH, if you can have the radar gun tested and it over-registers by 15 mph, that could be a different story. In fact, a good judge will not let the police officer's testimony be admitted if that is the case unless the evidence shows the radar gun registered 95 mph, which means you were really doing 80.
The big deal lately is that many forensic labs have been shown deficient in their procedures in handling and testing evidence. The kind of scientific study needed to show this is far beyond the resources of almost any criminal defendant. I'm not sure if any convictions have actually be reversed yet because of this finding.