Just to wrap up the "Jury Duty" saga: we concluded the trial this past Thursday, deliberating for about 10 minutes, and we found the defendant not guilty. Essentially, it sounds like a case of road rage that could have gone just as much to the "victim" as the defendant. All of us on the jury suspect there is more to both sides of the story than what we were told via testimony. The behavior of the defendant described by the "victim" was not in line with the defendant's demeanor when he was stopped and questioned by police officers, two of whom testified at trial. The defendant was also not arrested at the time of said stop, which goes a long way toward his not being the immediate threat the "victim" made him out to be. He was actually called a day later by a detective and was asked to turn himself in, which he did. For us, the state didn't provide enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and thus, we had to acquit. It was one man's word against another, with no other evidence to support the charge. I feel justice prevailed.