The deliberating jury in the MS murder trial of teacher Carla Hughes sent an appallingly ignorant question out to the judge this morning: “Could the prosecution have called Carla Hughes to the stand?”

Let’s be generous and assume that this question came from only one juror who has never read the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

OK, so how did such an ignorant juror end up on this jury?

It seems to me that no juror who thinks a defendant can be compelled to testify against herself can possibly understand the concepts of “reasonable doubt” or “the burden of proof.”

If I were the judge in this case I would be sweating bullets, because this seems to indicate that at least one juror cannot understand the jury instructions he gave them and, so, cannot possibly return a valid verdict.

I wish I understood what constitutes grounds for a mistrial—because I think a question that demonstrates a complete ignorance of a defendant’s rights ought to be a cause for a judge to instantly declare a mistrial.