[sourcery]

The Constitution requires that a criminal conviction be for an intentional act (because the common law definition of "crime" requires mens rea.) And it requires that the jury believe that the defendant committed a crime (including his intention to do so) beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is not whether the jury believes the defendant—the standard is whether the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he had a gun in his backpack (there is a difference between believing the probability is somewhat higher then even that the defendant knew there was a gun in his backpack and believing the same beyond reasonable doubt.)

[Domandred]

Jury instructions given, from my understanding talking to Netalia, was that in order to render a guilty verdict a crime had to have been committed (yes, but debatable) AND that there had to have been intent as well.

Both had to occur for a proper guilty verdict.

Prosecutors showed crime (yes he did it, that was never a question), but could not prove intent in my wife’s mind.

[ctdonath2]

Thing is ... the charges for attempting to bring a gun on board are civil, not criminal. This puzzles me greatly.

[sergeantdave]

Looks to me like this case would fall under “Crimes against the bureaucracy.”

No victim, only offense against the state and the arbitrary rule by unelected bureaucrats.

The world saw a lot of that in fascist Germany and soviet Russia.