I was on a jury many years ago that still has me shaking my head. A guy was arrested for selling crack cocaine in the park. He had been observed for several days making transactions before he was arrested. Upon arrest he was found to have several “rocks” in his pocket. He claimed that he thought they were just wax and he was just ripping people off, he said he didn’t know it was real cocaine. The jury decided that we had no way to prove beyond a doubt ( not reasonable doubt) that he really knew he was selling cocaine.
It seems to me that if a case like this really held up almost anybody could claim lack of knowledge. Can you top this one?