To my surprise, today the attorneys for both sides in the Brandon Craig trial discussed whether the jury instructions should include multiple charges, and one of the issues was whether or not “double jeopardy” might be involved—just as I wondered last week. I honestly assumed my interpretation of “double jeopardy” had no basis in the law. I thought it was simply my plain-English understanding of the Constitution versus case-law legalese.

Even defense attorney Pamela Mackey said this morning that what the prosecution was attempting was “double jeopardy,” because “you can’t convict someone four times for one homicide.” As I also complained last week, she called it “over-charging.” Maybe I should have gone to law school, after all.

In the matter of the child abuse charges, the prosecution dropped a charge of “negligent homicide.” Then the prosecutor also said the judge could be the one to decide whether it was “double jeopardy” if the jury convicted the defendant on all the counts.

Ms. Mackey’s complaint about the multiple homicide charges, it appears to me, is that the jury instructions will list three optional types of homicide. The verdict form will likely list them as 1 OR 2 OR 3, not 1 AND 2 AND 3, but (I think) the form will then list child abuse charges as AND. I mean to say, the defendant will be charged with homicide AND child abuse.

The issue of AND or OR arose in the trial in which I served as a juror, too. I assume this is common or even standard in jury instructions and verdict forms. However, as jurors we spent a fair amount of time discussing the ANDs and ORs. It isn’t a quibble. The Brandon Craig jury will surely recognize this.

Do not misunderstand me: I am not among the Court TV watchers who think the prosecution’s case is weak. I think it’s very strong. By dropping one child-abuse charge and admitting that the judge can void or overturn a conviction on the remaining charges, if he wishes, based on double jeopardy, I think the prosecution strengthened its case by clarifying and simplifying the jury instructions.

The prosecution has an extremely strong case, I believe. I think those people who have emailed CNN about flaws in the case haven’t really listened to the testimony. They’ve been listening to the TV commentators. For instance, I heard Lisa Bloom say that a certain trailer park in 1999 had no trailer homes in it—thus undercutting what one of the prosecution witnesses testified. But, if you listen to the evidence, the trailer park actually had a few trailer homes in 1999 and there are several other, similar trailer parks within the vicinity.

Let me say it again: Jurors can sift through testimony for the key truths and lies. In 10 years, any witness could be mistaken about which trailer home in a now-populous trailer park is the one where she obtained the truck used in the crime.