LIBERTY — Attorney John Jackson closed his eyes briefly, butotherwise remained unexpressive as the jury proclaimed him guiltyThursday night of selling marijuana to an inmate in the LincolnCounty Jail in June 2003.

The jury deliberated for a little more than four hours beforereturning a verdict at 8:20 p.m.

Judge Al Johnson waived the pre-sentencing report. In passingsentence, Johnson said he was faced with one of his toughestdecisions since becoming a judge.

“This is a sad day in the court,” he said. “I have witnessed thedefendant in this court on several occasions and have witnessed hislegal ability.”

He also spoke of the “hard-fought” case and his disappointmentthat an attorney would commit such a crime. A trial in October onthe same charge resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable toreach a verdict.

“I know it’s been a difficult case for everyone,” Johnson said.”I can’t imagine a more vigorous defense than I’ve seen in thiscase. The conviction brings dishonor on this court.”

Johnson said convicting a lawyer of a felony was a seriousmatter, because it meant the immediate and permanent revocation ofJackson’s license to practice law.

“I can’t ignore that the defendant is an attorney,” he said. “Ialso can’t ignore the defendant has already lost something. I cantell you that you are fortunate I am the judge sitting over thiscase. My heart and my conscience tell me to sentence you to theminimum I can.”

The law calls for a sentence of no less than three years and nomore than seven years. Jackson was sentenced to three years underintensive supervision and house arrest. He was also ordered to paythe maximum monetary fine that could be assessed, $25,000, plus allcourt costs and fees.

“This court is not worried about what anyone thinks about thesentence of this court … I feel that this is the proper sentencein this case,” Johnson added.

Assistant District Attorney Danny Smith said it was his policynot to comment on judge’s sentences, but he had “to confess I ampleased to have this case behind us. It has been a long, hardfight.”

Defense Attorney Charles Miller said he disagreed with thesentence.

“I think John is not guilty of the crime. Therefore, no sentenceis fair,” he said.

Lynn Boyte, who was sheriff during the investigation and whenJackson was arrested, said he was also glad to have the case behindhim.

“It was a unique case in that an attorney was involved,” hesaid. “I think it shows attorneys are still human beings, and humanbeings make mistakes and bad decisions — and they have to pay forthem.”

Boyte praised the officers for their work and the different lawenforcement agencies involved for their cooperation on thecase.

“We had a good case, and I’m pleased with the decision,” hesaid.

The day’s activity saw Jackson testifying in his own defensebefore closing arguments by the attorneys.

In contrast to the first trial, Jackson testified there was no”grand conspiracy” among officers with grudges against him.Instead, he said the case was orchestrated by his client, CedricWatson, the inmate who bought the marijuana.

“I didn’t say they were out to get me,” he testified. “I said Ihad problems with these people. The one person I blame for all thisis Cedric Watson. How he managed to do all this I don’t know.”

Jackson did, however, say that the four investigating officerscommitting perjury by testifying he told them the item passed toWatson in the video-taped recording would be “inconclusive.”

“I never used that word,” he said. “How could I use the wordinconclusive when I had never viewed the tape?”

Smith seized on Jackson’s denial and the testimony of the fourofficers about the statement during his closing arguments.

“They’re either lying or they’re telling the truth. They are notmistaken,” he said. “If you think all four of these officers camein here and lied to you, by all means turn him loose.”

Smith also outlined a long chain of 10 witnesses who would haveperjured themselves were Jackson’s testimony to be believed.

Miller then addressed the perjury issue during his closingremarks.

“We never accused these officers of doing anything wrong tohim,” he said. “The only person he accused was his client.”

Much of Miller’s closing was spent trying to discredit Watsonand to show that the inmate had a motive in framing his lawyer.

According to Miller, Watson, who has five prior criminalconvictions, was looking at a long period in jail on two pendingcharges, one as a habitual criminal, and hoped to shorten hissentence by appearing to cooperate with the prosecution.

“The only thing he had left was to orchestrate a scheme to getout early or immediately, and that is what he did,” Miller said.”At best, what we have is suspicion and, in the U.S., suspicionnever rises above beyond reasonable doubt. This is not a casefilled with evidence without reasonable doubt. In fact, this is acase filled with reasonable doubt.”

After the verdict was announced, Miller said an appeal wascertain.