Call or Text:
(317) 576-3824
Crime dramas make trials look routine for prosecutors and defense attorneys, but they are not. Few attorneys have extensive jury trial experience. Most cases end in a plea agreement. A quick plea agreement can bury the weaknesses in the State's case: police mistakes, lack of corroborating evidence, and changing witness testimony. I believe defense attorneys try too few cases. A trial forces weaknesses in a case to be exposed, and that is a good thing for the criminal justice system.
Prosecutors decide which cases to file. They can screen out weak ones, and thorough vetting is why they win many of the cases they file. But practice varies by county. Some prosecutors file nearly every case the police bring them; others file only their strongest cases. Even if the prosecutor has filed what appears to be a strong case, juries still may acquit. Juries weigh the evidence independently and are willing to reject the police and prosecutor's theory of the case when insufficient evidence exists to convict.
The cases below were handled in my office while I was the elected prosecutor. In each case, the deputy prosecutor believed the evidence was strong enough to convict, but the jury disagreed. These are real cases that illustrate that juries decline to convict when police and prosecutors have not met their high burden of proof at trial.
Charge: Dealing methamphetamine; driving while suspended.
The defendant did not own the car. Two other drug users were in the vehicle during the traffic stop. The police officer collected a digital scale but did not examine it closely prior to placing it into the evidence locker. At trial, the officer acknowledged the mistake of not examining the scale properly. This mistake, and the lack of corroborating evidence, resulted in the jury finding the defendant not guilty on the dealing charge.
Lesson: When drugs are found in a shared vehicle, constructive possession is hard to prove. Juries expect more evidence to convict than just "it was in the car."
Charge: Domestic battery (on video).
The police had video of the incident and believed the defendant was the aggressor. But the jury saw it differently. The video also showed the alleged victim struck the defendant. The jury believed it was mutual combat and the police did not produce enough evidence to prove a crime was committed.
Lesson: Juries see video evidence from a different vantage point than the police. They draw their own conclusions after listening to both the prosecution and defense during a trial.
Charge: Domestic battery.
Police often submit a report to a prosecutor based only on the initial complaint. Many times the police do not conduct follow-up investigation to obtain corroborating evidence. In this case, police interviewed the alleged victim but not the defendant. At trial, the defendant testified he was defending himself and the alleged victim was acting "like a wild animal." The jury acquitted.
Lesson: Juries expect the police to be fair and obtain both sides to a dispute before making an arrest.
Charge: Possession of methamphetamine.
Police investigated a traffic accident and found methamphetamine in the crash debris zone. The operator of the vehicle was arrested. The jury found there was insufficient evidence to prove the driver knowingly possessed the drug.
Lesson: To prove a crime was done "knowingly," police and prosecutors must prove that a person was aware to a high probability that a crime was being committed.
Charge: Domestic battery in a vehicle, no other witnesses.
The defense argued that the State's own DV expert's testimony about relationship control applied equally to the victim as to the defendant. The relationship was abusive in both directions. The victim was uncooperative, had reconciled with the defendant, and had a child together before trial. There was also evidence the victim was committing a battery at the same time.
Lesson: When the State's own expert testimony cuts both ways, juries pay attention. Mutual aggression can undermine the prosecution's narrative.
Charge: Burglary (items stolen from a shed).
The items were of little to no value. The victim was not credible. Most importantly, officers did not attempt to corroborate the victim's story by interviewing other people who were in the home at the time. The jury said they simply did not feel there was enough evidence.
Lesson: An uncorroborated accusation, especially from an unreliable witness, may not be enough evidence for a jury to convict during a trial.
Charge: Fondling over clothes of an 8-year-old child.
Officers never went into the home to view the bedroom or take photographs. The mother and other family members were not honest about who else was in the home. There were several people living in the home off and on during the time period in question. The jury struggled to convict on the word of the child alone when the police had done so little to investigate.
Lesson: In the most serious cases, juries expect the most thorough investigations. When officers do not photograph the scene, do not document who had access, and do not investigate alternative suspects, a jury may find the police investigation was not sufficient to meet the high burden of proof during a trial.
Charge: Stalking; intimidation.
The jury found the defendant guilty on the misdemeanor harassment count but acquitted on the felonies. The prosecutor noted that the defendant came across as somewhat sympathetic on the stand and that the victim was "not the most sympathetic." The prosecutor also realized in hindsight that more phone extraction data should have been presented.
Lesson: Juries are human. Credibility and sympathy matter. When the defendant presents well and the State's evidence has gaps, a jury may convict on some counts but not others.
These cases share a theme: the charges looked solid on paper, but the jury held the State to its burden and found the evidence fell short. Whether that happens in any given case depends entirely on its own facts.
I know cases like these because they happened in my office. As the elected prosecutor, I reviewed every jury trial my office lost to understand what went wrong. I now use that experience to examine the investigation and the evidence in the cases filed against my clients, and to make sure the State is actually held to its burden.
Ethics Notice (Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1): The case examples above are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to guarantee, promise, or predict a similar outcome in any other case. Every case is different, and results depend on the specific facts, evidence, applicable law, and decisions of the judge and jury. These examples are presented solely to illustrate that juries may evaluate evidence and facts differently than defendants, police officers, or prosecutors expect. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.