I was on a wacky case. A man and woman were driving to a motel so they could engage in carnal relations. They couldn't wait, so pulled into a parking lot at a 7-11 and went at it. The clerk called the police, and when they came both the man and woman appeared very drunk. Because there were no bottles in the car, it was obvious that they had driven while drunk.
The man took a breath test and failed, but once at the station, the woman claimed that she had been driving. At that point, several hours later, she passed a breath test.
One funny aspect was that the woman came dressed like a Victorian school teacher, in order to show she was not the drunken slut the case was portraying her as. Unfortunately, the jury all felt the case could not be made against them given the evidence, even though it was pretty obvious that they were driving drunk.
The jury experience was irritating. One woman kept saying how the man was sneezing when questioned, and so probably had allergies, and that allergy medicine can make you appear drunk even when you aren't. We kept having to explain that the fact he was drunk was not a point of contention - he failed the breath test and admitted to drinking. But she kept coming back to it, like she was thought she was Sherlock Holmes or something with her keen inferences. Most of the people couldn't make a logical argument to save their life.
The defense lawyer did all these things during the selection to, I guess, hypnotize us into thinking the defendent was innocent. He asked each person to say, "I presume the defendent is innocent" as if hearing that over and over would implant that into our brains.