"C J Campbell" wrote:

Despite the fact that an eyewitness who knew him personally (it's a small
town) clearly identified him coming out of the house, he was seen giving
belt buckles to his buddies at the soup kitchen, and he still had one of the
knives and one of the belt buckles on his person when apprehended by the
police -- it took two solid days of deliberation to convince the whole jury
that this guy was guilty. In fact, the original vote was 10-2 to acquit. The
last holdout never was convinced that the case was proved, but finally voted
with the rest.


Amazin', ain't it?

I was on a panel trying a DUI case in which the accused had driven her car
into a tree. When emergency responders arrived, the car was on fire and she
was asleep on the ground some distance away, uninjured.

When the state trooper interviewed her, she admitted to having been drinking
and she filled the trooper's car with alcohol fumes. She was unable to
complete a field sobriety test, actually falling down at one point. This was
an hour after the accident.

She refused a breathalyzer test, but was charged with DUI based on the other
evidence.

After a full afternoon of deliberation (I guess juries in such cases don't get
as much time as felony juries) the panel was deadlocked 6 to 6 and she walked.
One of my fellow jurors remarked that field sobriety tests are "tricked up to
make people look drunk" and should be disregarded. When I reminded him of the
trooper's other testimony, he said the trooper was probably lying because he
would "get in trouble" if the woman wasn't convicted. Five other jurors found
this argument convincing.


--
Dan
C172RG at BFM