I was observing a DWI case a while back. Normally the defendant's driver's license is suspended for a period of time. The length of the suspension depends upon a number of different circumstances. The defendant was testifying. On cross examination the prosecutor asked him if he was driving now.The defendant responded by saying ..." No...I am sitting in the witness box now". He obviously did not want to answer the question. Under the circumstances it was a brilliant answer. His answer sent the jury into fits of laughter. The prosecutor turned bright red, and changed his entire line of questioning out of embarrassment.

It was kind of an interesting outcome. There was a jury of six. Going into the deliberation two were for acquittal,  and four were for conviction. The foreman was in favor of acquittal, and managed to turn the other four jurors to vote for acquittal. Why....it turned out that the foreman hated cops, and would not believe the testimony of the arresting police officers. The defendant refused to take a breathalyser test, and the prosecution was totally dependent on the testimony of the arresting officers as to the results of the field sobriety test.

Why did the foreman of the jury hate cops? It seems that the town in which he lived was installing street lights. They left a metal pole lying in the street in front of his house for weeks. The foreman assumed it was abandoned property, and made it into the foundation for a basketball hoop in his back yard. The town eventually got around to retrieving the pole only to discover it had been appropriated for a basketball hoop. The cops arrested the foreman. As a result he was prejudiced against cops.

The prosecutor in the DWI case should have been more careful in his voir dire of jurors during the jury selection process.


Trivia question...do you know why police officers are referred to as cops?to post a reply: login - or - register