So the third day came and the evidence against my client did not look nearly as grim as expected. Yes, she had received money from the state for caring for her mother; and yes, her mother had not been in Idaho (or the US for that matter) during some of that time. Still, the charges required proof of a specific intent, and when the state rested, with little more than I had conceded in opening argument, I did what every criminal defense lawyer does – I uttered that Rule 29 stuff. Not enough evidence judge. No jury could find specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. And I handed him a little brief with a couple of Idaho cases on specific intent in theft cases. And I breathed a little breath of that rarified courtroom air, and waited. But not for long. “It’s a little thin, Mr. prosecutor. You’ve gotten all you could out of it, but the evidence is what it is.” “Yes,” he said, “but intent can be inferred.” But not here. Not this time, Mr. Prosecutor. This was one of those cases that tugs at your guts in trial. My client had taken great care of her aging mother. Mom had gone back to Iran (and yes, that raises all kinds of problems in jury selection) to visit family. The money had been used to help pay for care in Iran. Good faith trumps specific intent to defraud, sometimes. And this was one of those times. Not Guilty. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal granted. Client smiling and mom thankful, we left the courthouse. But now the question: how much proof of the specific intent is really required? If you are headed to trial in one of these – chime in.