Action/reaction: How Jack Robison’s chemistry lab led to an indictment from the DA

June 10, 2009

The prosecution mantained that explosions of the size that Jack was producing would inevitably damage property, but the defense countered that there was no evidence of destruction of property, other than video of explosives disturbing “unimproved land.”

“The defendent should not be penalized for causing a degree of harm to unimproved land not clearly within the statute’s reach,” wrote Jack’s attorney, David P. Hoose, according to court documents.

He later wrote: “What the Commonwealth desires is a conclusion from the jury that the substances Mr. Robison possessed were dangerous and therefore his intent in possessing them must have been unlawful,” according to the documents.

The jury didn’t reach that conclusion; they found Jack Robison innocent on all counts.