In the UK we had a trail about a woman that took the points her husband received in regards to vehicle offences (bad driving). The case itself is pretty simple. The question put to the jury was simple enough as well. Did she accept the points willingly, and was she culpable. The the that the person involved was publicly well know, and her than husband was also a public figure in politics should be irrelevant. However the jury didn’t seem to get it. It asked silly questions about “should a possibility, that did not form part of anything presented in court be taken into account, or is the jury limited to evidence before it”. “What is reasonable doubt” was another question posed.