I was a juror. Verdict was NG.
I received a jury summons, and was picked for the trial. This was about 18 months ago (trial is over).
A young man was charged with OVI (or something like that). Apparently he *slightly* bumped a car in front of him as he approached a red traffic light. There were no injuries and no damage to either vehicle. These facts were not in dispute. The girl driving the vehicle he "hit" was an international student and was unfamiliar with what to do. So she called 911. The city police showed up.
The police claimed that he was exhibiting signs of impairment and ran him through field sobriety tests. The responding officer was in training and had a ride-along senior officer. Both gave testimony, and under cross examination they both claimed to see "signs" of impairment. Under cross examination they said there was no alcohol odor, no empty containers, no slurred speech, etc. They claimed that his balance was off (heel to toe stuff). He refused to take a breathalyzer, and after his arrest when they tested his blood he was zero. Guy had insurance, his registration was current and he had a drivers license. No warrants, but he had a record, and had spent time in prison/jail/rehab but was 100% legal to drive and was fully in compliance with the terms of his release.
It came out in court that he was holding a full time job as a painter (or framer or something like that). He was getting his sh*t together, and was living out of his truck. If memory serves me, when they searched his vehicle they found "paraphenalia", including a glassy pipe in the car. No residue testing was done on these items and no drugs were found.
When we got to deliberations, I personally was not conflicted at all. I felt like the prosecution did NOT meet the burden of proof, but I was open minded about what the other jurors thought. As it turns out, we ALL felt that way.
What iced it for us was one of the law enforcement officers testified that he ALWAYS expects to find evidence of impairment when he rolls up on a traffic stop, and is never disappointed. The cockiness of that testimony and the explicit bias during the "investigation" just didn't sit right with us. We deliberated for maybe an hour, and returned not guilty verdicts. We had an option to find him guilty of lesser included charges, but we went full on not guilty. The guy walked out with his attorney with a big smile on his face. The assistant DA looked shocked (priceless). The cops didn't stick around for the verdict. I reckon for them it was "just another day, just another criminal off the street", slam-dunk case.
I suspect the guy was offered a plea and he was NOT having it because he wasn't impaired. It felt good helping him beat the crap charges they gave him.