I presume the State sought to show Ms. White guilty of DWI because DUI by minor is only a Class C? Sounds like there was proof she had a detectable amount of alcohol in her system regardless of her appearance on video. Is the reason this is not a lesser included offense of DWI so that those acquitted of DWI can still be tried under 106.041? Otherwise, I do not understand the purpose of it not being an option in a trial like hers.

While I understand the jury's reasoning, isn't it generally illogical to assume that the tape will capture everything exactly as observed by the officer and wouldn't that be necessary for a juror to be able to use the tape to evaluate the invalidity of the officer's opinion/conclusion? Without proof of that predicate maybe the tape should be rejected under Rule 403.

Just out of curiousity, how did this trial take 2 days?

Rusty could convince a jury that Saddam Hussein is just misunderstood and was just being picked on for no good reason. (I thought about making an Anna Nicole joke but that could be in poor taste.)