8.
“I was prosecuting a DUI once. Pretty cut and dry. Guy gets super drunk at a party and speeds in his sports car, runs a stop sign, T-bones somebody hard, and puts the other driver in the hospital. We have everything: video of the intersection showing the speeding, testimony from the cops about how drunk he was, test data from the breathalyzer showing he was at like a 0.20, a criminologist testifying how impaired someone would be at that BAC (blood alcohol content) — the whole deal. I even put the victim on the stand to score some sympathy points with the jury. The defendant takes the stand (which rarely goes well), and concocts some wild story about how he was running away from a guy experiencing homelessness with a pipe, and that’s why he had to speed. I poke all kinds of holes in that story, and nobody believes it. I thought I had this in the bag.”
“The jury returned a not guilty verdict for impaired driving. I was bewildered. I talked to the jury afterwards, and those mouth breathers were impressed with how well the defendant controlled his Corvette, going 100 mph in a residential zone and running a stop sign. I pointed out the uncontested scientific testimony on impairment at that BAC, and one guy said, ‘Yeah, but he didn’t hit any parked cars for so many blocks!’ I lost all respect for juries after that. They really are idiots who are too daft to avoid jury service, and shouldn’t be allowed to decide what’s for lunch.”
—u/Scaevus
