[dem bums]

The fire wasn’t intentional arson, it was routine brush burning that accidentally got out of control.

That was the story put forth by the Hammonds. A jury of their peers, however, heard the evidence (including the testimony of a nephew who witnessed the fires being set), and found them guilty of arson.

[Hieronymus]

Arson causing less than $1000 damage.

It comes down to your definition of arson.

The nephew is alleged to be mentally unbalanced and estranged from the family.

[P-Marlowe]

A jury of their peers, however, heard the evidence (including the testimony of a nephew who witnessed the fires being set), and found them guilty of arson.

With the right set of jury instructions and a jury filled with brain dead government employees, almost anyone can be convicted of anything.

I am always kicked off juries because I will not promise to follow the instructions of the judge. I tell the judge that it depends on the instructions.

In this case a jury of their "peers" would have exercised jury nullification.

I can guarantee that none of the jurors who voted "guilty" knew these guys could be put away for essentially the rest of their lives for this minor violation of some bureaucratic rules.