[Born Conservative]

Actually, I think the reporter was correct. A report in another local paper reported the 3 charges as well. Not sure how this can be.

http://www.citizensvoice.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=14061927&BRD=2259&PAG=461&dept_id=455154&rfi=6

[mugs99]

Actually, I think the reporter was correct. A report in another local paper reported the 3 charges as well. Not sure how this can be.

This is a result of a supreme court decision in an alcohol prohibition case. "In 1932, a decision was handed down regarding an accused bootlegger from Eureka, California. James Dunne was accused of possessing liquor, of selling liquor, and of possessing liquor for sale. He was acquitted of the first two charges, but found guilty of the third. His lawyers appealed, saying- wait a minute, the evidence is the same on all charges, how can he be not guilty of possession, not guilty of selling, but guilty of possession for sale?

Taft was gone. This was Justice Holmes' last case before retiring, and he delivered the 8-1 decision. The court decided that each count must be considered separately, and "Consistency in the verdict is not necessary."

Up to that time, it was unusual to bring multiple charges against a defendant. This decision gave prosecutors the green light to pile on as many charges as they could think of, in hopes something would stick. In the decades since, this has become a fine art"....Excerpt from DPFT History of Prohibition.

Altough prohibition was repealed, the laws enacted to enforce prohibition were not. We see the same thing happening today with the WOD.
...