Trial by Jury

[Sir_Die_alot]

Wording does become a hurdle (I don't say obstacle because a hurdle implies that you can find a way to a reasonable solution). My first (and so far, only) jury duty case concerned a guy charged with both being under the influence and possession with intent to sell meth. Conviction on the influence charge (misdemeanor), mistrial on the felony possession with intent. It was the "intention to sell" that deadlocked the jury, as the simple possession had been made out and agreed upon. But as per judge's instructions and advice, we could not convict on simple possession (in lieu of possession with intent) because that specific charge was not filed.

Juror misconduct was blatant. In order to pursue their argument, the jurors who were leaning for acquittal on the intent-to-sell angle were presenting hypothetical explanations as to why the defendant had his cache of meth doled out into individual packets (that he may have acquired or even stole the drugs in that form from his supplier, for instance). All cut-and-dried, if it weren't for the fact that no evidence of the kind was ever presented in trial.

Sounds like you either had some meth heads in your jury box or the defense lawyer did a great job of stretching the word "reasonable" in reasonable doubt. Maybe meth is the aliens way of tracking humans and he is a high interest target so needs multiple tracking devices. :rolleyes: