I would not like to send this man to prison. I would loose sleep over it. But let me say it again. If I was on that jury and the facts were presented to me as they are stated in the OP and I was not in Texas I would have to decide if this man committed a crime under the laws in the state where this happened.
I wish one of the guys here with the background in the law would chime in here and tell me where I am wrong.
I already have, Scott. The job of the juror is more to bring about justice than it is to enforce the literal law. That's part of why we have a jury system, rather than an inquisitorial one, as they do in other nations. A professional judge is all you need to determine if the laws were broken. A panel of the defendant's peers, however, represent the people,
not the state, and therefore are empowered to consider whether or not, in the case before them, a rigid application of the law would bring about justice or injustice, and find accordingly.
Why do you think a jury isn't simply instructed to vote yes or no on a set of facts proposed to them by the judge, following which
said judge determines if the law was violated? That's not how it's done. A jury not only determines what the facts were, but is also empowered to determine guilt or non-guilt, i.e., a person could be found to have violated a law, literally interpreted, yet still be acquitted, i.e., determined
not guilty. Were it otherwise, a jury would only be asked to report to the judge what facts it has found to have occurred. As it is, it's asked only to determine guilt or non-guilt.
In our legal tradition, however, this only works in one direction, i.e., in the direction of acquittal, not conviction. Should a jury decide to disregard the law in their
conviction of a defendant, a judge is empowered to acquit notwithstanding a jury's verdict if he determines that the facts don't actually support the conviction.
This is a double safety valve, built into our legal tradition, in favor of the accused..
