My experience serving on the jury has taught me one thing: the D.A.'s job is to prevent the jury from hearing anything of any interest whatsoever.

Did that man (or boy -- he looked like he only started shaving last week) not take into consideration the entertainment value of the evidence?

This was the state's case:

D.A.: "Could you describe what happened to you the evening of October 31?"

Witness 1: "Someone broke into my van and stole my purse."

D.A.: "Did you see who did it?"

Witness 1: "No."

D.A.: "Could you describe what happened to you the evening of October 31?"

Witness 2: "Someone broke into my van and stole my wife's purse."

D.A.: "Did you see who did it?"

Witness 2: "No."

Jury: Zzzzzzzz.....

D.A.: "Who threw the rock through the window and stole the victim's purse?"

Witness 3 (who was actually caught using the stolen credit card and is being charged with theft and forgery in a separate but charge): "The defendant."

Defense Attorney: "Are you addicted to heroin?"

D.A.: "Objection!"

Now, that was the single most exciting thing brought up at this trial, and that jerk has to have it stricken? Without us getting the details?

Defense Attorney: "What was in the letter you sent the defendant while he was in jail?"

D.A.: "Objection!"

Defense Attorney: "Why did you send the defendant a letter while he was in jail?"

D.A.: "Objection! That is a material and an elephant!"

Dammit, asshole, what was in that letter? I want to know. And that judge could've overruled it, too, for the sake of our purient interests. But noooo... Everything that trial was lacking -- intrigue, sex, and perhaps even mayhem -- was probably contained in the pages of that letter, I just know it.

Long story short, there were no fingerprints or evidence of any kind that proved that kid threw a rock through a van window and snatched a purse, other than what that girl said. And she was the one caught with the swag. (That's my 1940's criminal jargon for the day.) So, even though he clearly hung out with a bad sort of young adult who engaged in petty theft and drug use, the charge was not "hanging out with a bad sort of young adult who engaged in petty theft and drug use," it was "Criminal damage to property" and "entering a vehicle without permission" and "theft from a vehicle." Thus, we found him not guilty.

It was not nearly as exciting as one of them there crime shows what I watch on the TV.