Jury duty lesson

I was subpoenaed to be on jury duty for "the April term". The April term runs from April 1 to July 31. I call in when instructed to do so, then report to court if necessary. I had to show up at court on Tuesday.
I was seated on a jury for a "distributing a controlled substance" trial.
The police presented their evidence, and it was convincing. At first. The state forensic investigator who presented the toxicology information was very interesting. After her testimony, we took a lunch break. After the break, the state's "confidential informant" testified. This fellow was entertaining enough to keep everyone in the courtroom from taking an afternoon nap! He was neatly dressed in a brown suit and tie and looked as if he knew what soap and water were. This was a stark contrast to the defendant, who wore the same rumpled jeans and green tee shirt both days. The CI started out by explaining that he went to the police and offered his assistance to arrest the defendant. He had no quarrel with the guy, he said that drugs had ruined his life and he didn't want anyone else's life ruined by drugs. Kind of a community service. He described the officers who searched him before and after the buy as "machines". They gave him the best searches he'd ever had (giggles from the jury). He talked about how the price of narcotics is determined (about a dollar per mg), but that "since a certain doctor closed up shop and got sent to jail" the price had gone up (more jury giggles). When the defense lawyer questioned CI, it got nearly hostile, but still amusing. I think each was trying to confuse the other. CI's health history, drug history and an arrest for DUI last fall were all discussed. Even though they weren't really relevant to this case. Lawyer would ask a question, CI would answer, then Lawyer would rephrase the question. CI would then answer in an exasperated tone, "I just told you.......". Even the judge was laughing!
During the trial, a young lady was kicked out of the courtroom because she kept saying"He's a liar" as the CI was testifying. A young man was nearly kicked out because his phone rang, very distracting.
The second day of the trial, the defense presented one witness. The defendant did not testify. That's probably what saved him! After lunch, we began deliberating. The Deputy told us about another trial where the jury got into a heated debate that lasted about two hours. When asked if they needed to review any evidence to calm the situation down, the jurors said that they hadn't even started discussing the evidence, yet. They were still trying to select a foreman! Our foreman volunteered! Even though we were in unanimous agreement that the defendant was guilty, we couldn't convict him with the evidence we had. Much as we wanted to keep this guy from selling one more pill, we couldn't do it. Why? Because the evidence that the state presented, especially the CI, left reasonable doubt. By not having a reputable person to witness the buy, we could not trust the CI's testimony. He had difficulty remembering some of the events of one buy, even though he said that he reviewed his notes the night before. Sadly, the defendant was acquitted and is now free to sell whatever he wants to whomever he wants.
Hooray for our legal system!