What you are still missing, Harold, is that in the OP's state the prosecutor is allowed to use the fact that the items did not scan as intent. He does not have to prove what was in the OP's mind; he is allowed to infer intent by the fact that the OP neglected to see that the items scanned properly. Perhaps that's not the case in your state, but it is where the OP is. And yes, I confirmed that was the law.
So personally I think having an attorney (a PD if necessary) try to plea it down or negotiate a diversion program would be a much better way to go. I think that any attempt at a defense in court would play out the way I sarcastically defined. Clearly you are not familiar with the concept of sarcasm if you thought I was seriously suggesting that as a viable option as opposed to a description of how such a defense would, IMO, come across. Perhaps you might want to take an Extension School course on writing techniques?
That you find it necessary to interpret any answer that is not a ham-handed use of a legal bazooka when a slingshot would do as well, or better, as hostility against the OP (whoever the OP of the day is), really speaks far more about you than it does about me, or the other responders, Harold.