I was on a jury for the first time last year, and it was an educational experience to be sure. It was a standard DIU case. A guy was leaving a casino when a cop noticed he was weaving into the other lane and so he pulled him over and performed field sobriety tests. The driver had already admitted to having "a couple drinks", and he failed all the field tests and admitted to it. The driver then agreed to take a breath test at the police station. He failed it miserably; his blood alcohol was nearly double the legal limit and this was probably an hour after he was pulled over.<br><br>What happened at the courthouse was incredible. The jury selection process took hours. Several people just told the judge they couldn't be impartial because they "hate cops" (that one works, trust me).<br><br>When the trial actually began it was the most amateur, ridiculous presentation by the prosecution I could imagine. The lead prosecutor appeared to be in her early twenties and she had a stutter. She tried to use a Powerpoint presentation but neither her nor her colleague could get the computer to work (stupid PCs
). The only witness was the deputy sheriff that made the arrest. He was a young arrogant prick fresh off the farm (the defendant was black, btw) that started out polite but began to act annoyed after a few hours. <br><br>The defense lawyer was a mid thirties woman with long blonde hair, lots of gold jewelry, and I kid you not... a black leather jacket! She would stride up and down the jury box and say things like, "what do we really
know about this so-called 'breathalyzer test'. Sounds like a bunch of technological mumbo-jumbo to me!" It was incredibly funny and I had to stop myself from laughing the first hour or two. After that I wanted to cut my own throat it was so boring and redundant.<br><br>When the time came to deliberate I was chosen as lead juror (no idea why) and nearly every single juror but me wanted that man innocent on both counts (DUI and blood alcohol over the limit, two separate charges). It was amazing! Now I'm a commie bastard and the prosecution was anything but dynamic, but every piece of evidence was right there, including time stamped, calibrated originals from the blood alcohol machine. Not to mention the guy admitted to drinking and failing the field tests. I ended up conceding that the DUI (swerving, field test, etc.) could
have been subjective and so in exchange the entire group agreed on a guilty verdict for the blood alcohol charge. When it came down to it they all hated the cop, but most amazingly, NO ONE believed the dang machine!!
. In essence, evidence didn't mean sh!t.<br><br>So, the guy was found guilty of being over the legal limit, but not of the actual DUI (however that works). The funniest thing of all was that the defense lawyer was crushed. She thought for sure he would be innocent of both charges. Hilarious!<br><br>My overall impression of an entire day at the courthouse is that with a jury anything
is possible. Anything.<br><br>