I don't know. My friend was not knowledgeable about he law. He said he felt there was something wrong in the process, but the judge instructed them to make a decision based on whether the facts indicated the guy actually tried to run drugs. He very reluctantly thought yes. He was 26, I believe. Maybe now 12 years later and have having been through it once he would resign from the jury in protest of an unfair law. At the time he went along with what he thought was his duty to answer on the facts without regard to his personal opinion.

The way he explained it, the police had a standing reward for informants. This guy was not an employee but someone with a history of taking advantage of the reward. This came out in cross examination. Also, the defense pointed out that a percentage of the drugs went unaccounted for while in police custody. My friend also mentioned he was unclear on the specifics b/c he was not allowed to ask questions. It was up to the two sides to question witnesses; his job was to watch and decide matters of fact.

He felt so bad about it that he got upset when he heard sounds similar to those on the records the informant used. He's a very easy-going, upstanding guy. He was not an ideologue and never believed in decriminalization of drugs, but this experience made him think the way they enforce the drug laws is wrong.