1 00:00:15,316 --> 00:00:20,716 Speaker 1: Pushkin. Hey there, it's Michael Lewis. Before we get to 2 00:00:20,756 --> 00:00:22,636 Speaker 1: this episode, I want to let you know that you 3 00:00:22,636 --> 00:00:25,916 Speaker 1: can listen to each episode of Judging Sam The Trial 4 00:00:25,956 --> 00:00:29,476 Speaker 1: of Sam Bankman Freed ad free by becoming a Pushkin 5 00:00:29,556 --> 00:00:33,516 Speaker 1: Plus subscriber, and with your subscription you'll also get exclusive 6 00:00:33,516 --> 00:00:37,356 Speaker 1: access to ad free and early bingeable podcasts like Paul 7 00:00:37,436 --> 00:00:42,236 Speaker 1: McCartney's new podcast, McCartney A Life and Lyrics, Malcolm Gladwell's 8 00:00:42,236 --> 00:00:46,716 Speaker 1: revisionist history, The Happiness Lab from Doctor Lorie Santos, and 9 00:00:46,836 --> 00:00:49,956 Speaker 1: tons of other top shows from Pushkin. Sign up an 10 00:00:49,996 --> 00:00:52,916 Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts or at Pushkin, dot fm. 11 00:00:52,556 --> 00:00:53,516 Speaker 2: Slash Plus. 12 00:00:55,236 --> 00:00:58,316 Speaker 1: Welcome to Judging Sam The Trial of Sam Bankman Freed. 13 00:00:58,636 --> 00:01:02,196 Speaker 1: I'm Michael Lewis. Bankman Freed was worth tens of billions 14 00:01:02,236 --> 00:01:06,276 Speaker 1: of dollars before FTX his cryptocurrency exchange came apart at 15 00:01:06,276 --> 00:01:09,556 Speaker 1: the seams, and now he's being tried for financial crimes. 16 00:01:09,556 --> 00:01:11,156 Speaker 1: They could send him to prison for the rest of 17 00:01:11,196 --> 00:01:21,556 Speaker 1: his life. Lydia Jean Cott host today. Thanks for joining us. 18 00:01:22,436 --> 00:01:26,076 Speaker 3: I'm Lyddy jean Cott. The trial of Sam Bankman Freed 19 00:01:26,476 --> 00:01:29,836 Speaker 3: is officially underway. I arrived at the courthouse for the 20 00:01:29,876 --> 00:01:32,756 Speaker 3: Southern District of New York at six am Tuesday morning. 21 00:01:33,356 --> 00:01:38,596 Speaker 3: It's this big, imposing building with revolving golden doors. Reporters 22 00:01:38,636 --> 00:01:42,116 Speaker 3: though use a side entrance. When I got there, there 23 00:01:42,196 --> 00:01:44,916 Speaker 3: was already a handful sitting on the ground. Someone even 24 00:01:44,956 --> 00:01:45,996 Speaker 3: brought a folding chair. 25 00:01:46,356 --> 00:01:48,036 Speaker 2: The mood was friendly and excited. 26 00:01:48,236 --> 00:01:50,596 Speaker 3: It was kind of like we're all waiting for a 27 00:01:50,636 --> 00:01:53,356 Speaker 3: flight together and we're friends. I spoke to a few 28 00:01:53,356 --> 00:01:56,076 Speaker 3: people while waiting for the court doors to open, and 29 00:01:56,556 --> 00:01:57,596 Speaker 3: why are you here this morning? 30 00:01:58,396 --> 00:02:00,396 Speaker 4: Hi? My name is Nick Day. I'm a reporter and 31 00:02:00,476 --> 00:02:04,236 Speaker 4: editor White coined USK. We are covering the trial of 32 00:02:04,356 --> 00:02:08,756 Speaker 4: Sam Bankman freed. We broke the original balance sheet last year, 33 00:02:09,516 --> 00:02:12,636 Speaker 4: ultimately led to the situation FTX found itself in when 34 00:02:12,636 --> 00:02:15,596 Speaker 4: it filed for bankruptcy in November last year. And so 35 00:02:15,876 --> 00:02:16,396 Speaker 4: what's your nat? 36 00:02:16,716 --> 00:02:20,076 Speaker 5: Josh Blancy will pay you. We both work for The 37 00:02:20,076 --> 00:02:22,876 Speaker 5: Times of London. I'm interested if they watched Michael Lewis 38 00:02:22,876 --> 00:02:26,276 Speaker 5: in sixteen minutes, to be honest, because it's guy. I 39 00:02:26,276 --> 00:02:27,956 Speaker 5: thought it was very interesting when he called his book 40 00:02:27,956 --> 00:02:29,916 Speaker 5: a letter to the jury, so to interest see if 41 00:02:29,956 --> 00:02:31,316 Speaker 5: that comes up, they're going to have to spend a 42 00:02:31,316 --> 00:02:34,676 Speaker 5: lot of time explaining, Okay, here's a what is a cryptocurrency? 43 00:02:34,676 --> 00:02:35,556 Speaker 5: What does in exchange? 44 00:02:35,676 --> 00:02:38,636 Speaker 4: I don't fucking understand how well. 45 00:02:38,716 --> 00:02:41,436 Speaker 3: Our goal is to help you understand at least half 46 00:02:41,436 --> 00:02:44,596 Speaker 3: of it. When we were finally let inside, we waited 47 00:02:44,596 --> 00:02:47,236 Speaker 3: in another long line to give up our electronics, and 48 00:02:47,276 --> 00:02:49,836 Speaker 3: then we were ushered into overflow rooms where we could 49 00:02:49,836 --> 00:02:53,276 Speaker 3: watch the proceedings on monitors. Even though the image was greeny, 50 00:02:53,476 --> 00:02:56,196 Speaker 3: we could tell Sam had gotten a haircut. His famous 51 00:02:56,236 --> 00:03:00,156 Speaker 3: curls were definitely more closely cropped. Once court was in session, 52 00:03:00,556 --> 00:03:05,676 Speaker 3: the first order of business was selecting a jury. More specifically, 53 00:03:05,876 --> 00:03:09,756 Speaker 3: their process known as voidir, which is when potential are 54 00:03:09,836 --> 00:03:13,356 Speaker 3: questioned by a judge before a jury is selected. The 55 00:03:13,436 --> 00:03:16,316 Speaker 3: legal teams for both the defense and the prosecution had 56 00:03:16,316 --> 00:03:19,396 Speaker 3: submitted a list of proposed questions, which I was able 57 00:03:19,436 --> 00:03:22,636 Speaker 3: to look through before the trial started. The questions ranged 58 00:03:22,676 --> 00:03:26,516 Speaker 3: from what potential jurors did for a living, to whether 59 00:03:26,556 --> 00:03:28,716 Speaker 3: they'd be able to vote to convict on this trial, 60 00:03:29,236 --> 00:03:31,996 Speaker 3: and even if they had seen Michael Lewis's appearance on 61 00:03:32,076 --> 00:03:35,596 Speaker 3: sixty Minutes this past Sunday. A lot of people seemed 62 00:03:35,636 --> 00:03:37,876 Speaker 3: like they were trying to get out of participating. One 63 00:03:37,956 --> 00:03:39,956 Speaker 3: dury said they had a wedding in a few weeks, 64 00:03:40,116 --> 00:03:42,836 Speaker 3: another was applying for jobs. Others couldn't get the time 65 00:03:42,836 --> 00:03:45,236 Speaker 3: off from jobs that they had. Someone else said they 66 00:03:45,236 --> 00:03:47,356 Speaker 3: were scheduled to go to El Salvador for a Miss 67 00:03:47,476 --> 00:03:51,236 Speaker 3: Universe pageant. One potential juror said he couldn't serve because 68 00:03:51,236 --> 00:03:55,156 Speaker 3: he didn't understand crypto, but the judge didn't seem convinced. 69 00:03:55,636 --> 00:03:57,796 Speaker 3: By the end of the day, there were fifty potential 70 00:03:57,876 --> 00:04:01,076 Speaker 3: jurors left. On day two, each of them will introduce 71 00:04:01,116 --> 00:04:03,596 Speaker 3: themselves for one minute so the lawyers can get a 72 00:04:03,596 --> 00:04:07,356 Speaker 3: feel for who they are. Then twelve jurors and six 73 00:04:07,396 --> 00:04:10,116 Speaker 3: alternates will be seated, and they will be the people 74 00:04:10,476 --> 00:04:14,316 Speaker 3: who will ultimately decide Sam's fate. I wanted to understand 75 00:04:14,316 --> 00:04:17,716 Speaker 3: more about how lawyers think about jury selection, like what 76 00:04:17,756 --> 00:04:19,876 Speaker 3: are they looking for? How do they know who might 77 00:04:19,916 --> 00:04:23,396 Speaker 3: be favorable to their side? Today on the show, a 78 00:04:23,436 --> 00:04:27,196 Speaker 3: conversation with Ellen Leggett. Ellen's maybe the best person to 79 00:04:27,236 --> 00:04:30,436 Speaker 3: talk to us about this. She's a trial consultant and 80 00:04:30,476 --> 00:04:33,636 Speaker 3: she's been helping lawyers select juries and cases for over 81 00:04:33,716 --> 00:04:36,716 Speaker 3: three decades. Ellen welcome to judging. Sam. 82 00:04:37,836 --> 00:04:40,716 Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Old Jay, And I was wondering. 83 00:04:40,436 --> 00:04:44,036 Speaker 3: If you could start by explaining what exactly a jury 84 00:04:44,076 --> 00:04:45,236 Speaker 3: trial consultant does. 85 00:04:45,436 --> 00:04:50,316 Speaker 2: Absolutely, as you said, I've been a jury consultant for 86 00:04:50,636 --> 00:04:53,476 Speaker 2: three decades, which is to say that I've been doing 87 00:04:53,516 --> 00:04:58,796 Speaker 2: this pretty much since the start of psychologists assisting lawyers 88 00:04:58,836 --> 00:05:01,876 Speaker 2: in the courtroom. I am a psychologist by training. Not 89 00:05:02,196 --> 00:05:09,236 Speaker 2: all jury consultants are, but clearly in many situations and 90 00:05:09,676 --> 00:05:13,996 Speaker 2: having a person in the courtroom to assist the lawyers 91 00:05:14,436 --> 00:05:18,076 Speaker 2: is not new, even though many people in the country 92 00:05:18,116 --> 00:05:21,076 Speaker 2: haven't really understood what the role of a jury consultant is. 93 00:05:22,076 --> 00:05:26,756 Speaker 2: We do many things that surprisingly don't involve a crystal ball. 94 00:05:29,476 --> 00:05:32,836 Speaker 2: Many people think we can just walk into a courtroom, 95 00:05:33,076 --> 00:05:37,756 Speaker 2: sit there and divine things about the jurors, and would 96 00:05:37,756 --> 00:05:41,636 Speaker 2: that it were that easy. But no divine powers are 97 00:05:41,716 --> 00:05:44,916 Speaker 2: necessary or brought into the courtroom. In fact, there's a 98 00:05:44,956 --> 00:05:49,556 Speaker 2: lot of science that is behind usually what we are 99 00:05:50,196 --> 00:05:53,236 Speaker 2: doing as we look at the jury during that vas 100 00:05:53,276 --> 00:05:55,316 Speaker 2: der process and the selection process. 101 00:05:57,236 --> 00:05:59,476 Speaker 3: And I'm curious that someone who spends a lot of 102 00:05:59,476 --> 00:06:02,036 Speaker 3: time thinking about the jury, like, how do you think 103 00:06:02,076 --> 00:06:03,116 Speaker 3: about the jury's role? 104 00:06:04,436 --> 00:06:07,996 Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the jury has a very very hard role. 105 00:06:08,516 --> 00:06:13,276 Speaker 2: If one and thinks about entering a class in college 106 00:06:13,436 --> 00:06:15,796 Speaker 2: for something that you never in a million years would 107 00:06:15,796 --> 00:06:18,916 Speaker 2: want to take. That's how these jurors feel when they're 108 00:06:18,916 --> 00:06:22,876 Speaker 2: walking into a trial, and usually it's a trial about 109 00:06:22,876 --> 00:06:27,356 Speaker 2: which they will have very little technical information. So they 110 00:06:27,396 --> 00:06:30,756 Speaker 2: have a very hard job because the rules really are 111 00:06:30,836 --> 00:06:34,436 Speaker 2: set up so that they will not be able to 112 00:06:34,556 --> 00:06:39,156 Speaker 2: stand too closely to the issues. But they know that 113 00:06:39,276 --> 00:06:42,596 Speaker 2: they are, besides the judge, the most important people in 114 00:06:42,636 --> 00:06:45,356 Speaker 2: that courtroom, and they want to do their job well 115 00:06:45,756 --> 00:06:49,316 Speaker 2: and they want to render a fair verdict. There's nothing 116 00:06:49,436 --> 00:06:52,556 Speaker 2: worse for a jury than to think the public will 117 00:06:52,916 --> 00:06:54,916 Speaker 2: believe that they did the wrong thing. 118 00:06:55,316 --> 00:06:58,356 Speaker 3: Usually in life, when you're making a big decision, you 119 00:06:58,396 --> 00:07:00,756 Speaker 3: want to be like reading everything there is to read 120 00:07:00,796 --> 00:07:02,676 Speaker 3: about it. You want to be talking to the people 121 00:07:02,676 --> 00:07:05,116 Speaker 3: that you trust. And in Sam mekmund Fried's you Know 122 00:07:05,196 --> 00:07:07,756 Speaker 3: is looking at the jury instructions and it specifically says, 123 00:07:08,236 --> 00:07:09,916 Speaker 3: and I think it's always like this, you can't talk 124 00:07:09,916 --> 00:07:12,636 Speaker 3: to anyone, you can't read anything, like why have we 125 00:07:12,716 --> 00:07:15,196 Speaker 3: decided that that's the best way for a jury to 126 00:07:15,196 --> 00:07:15,956 Speaker 3: reach a verdict? 127 00:07:16,796 --> 00:07:19,876 Speaker 2: Our forefathers in their wisdom thought that they were doing 128 00:07:19,916 --> 00:07:23,836 Speaker 2: the right thing to put limits on what jurors could 129 00:07:23,836 --> 00:07:27,916 Speaker 2: do to gather information. And I don't think they were wrong. 130 00:07:28,116 --> 00:07:32,276 Speaker 2: I think instructing the jurors to rely upon what they 131 00:07:32,356 --> 00:07:37,796 Speaker 2: hear in the courtroom as well as their experiences in life, 132 00:07:37,876 --> 00:07:40,316 Speaker 2: we can't tell them to pack those up in a 133 00:07:40,356 --> 00:07:44,196 Speaker 2: suitcase and leave them all at home. But they are 134 00:07:44,636 --> 00:07:49,276 Speaker 2: given parameters to focus them on the evidence because there 135 00:07:49,316 --> 00:07:53,836 Speaker 2: are so many legal rules that govern what evidence they 136 00:07:53,876 --> 00:07:55,436 Speaker 2: can and cannot hear. 137 00:07:56,516 --> 00:07:59,676 Speaker 3: How much say the lawyers have over who ends up 138 00:07:59,676 --> 00:08:00,556 Speaker 3: on the jury. 139 00:08:01,076 --> 00:08:04,836 Speaker 2: That's a really good question. The lawyers are ultimately in 140 00:08:05,316 --> 00:08:09,676 Speaker 2: charge of jury selection. But what is most daunt is 141 00:08:09,716 --> 00:08:13,196 Speaker 2: the fact that although we talk about it as a 142 00:08:13,276 --> 00:08:18,356 Speaker 2: jury selection, it truly is jury d selection. There are 143 00:08:18,436 --> 00:08:22,116 Speaker 2: many rules about who can actually be excused, and that 144 00:08:22,276 --> 00:08:27,036 Speaker 2: is all that lawyers can do is excuse jurors. And 145 00:08:27,076 --> 00:08:30,756 Speaker 2: we can talk more about the different rules for excusing jurors, 146 00:08:30,796 --> 00:08:34,556 Speaker 2: but it's really de selection, not selection. 147 00:08:34,916 --> 00:08:38,756 Speaker 3: Yeah, for sure. And is there a limited amount of 148 00:08:39,156 --> 00:08:42,156 Speaker 3: people you can excuse? Like is it three strikes or 149 00:08:42,196 --> 00:08:43,276 Speaker 3: three people you can. 150 00:08:45,356 --> 00:08:48,556 Speaker 2: Three strikes you're out? Well, there are a couple of 151 00:08:48,596 --> 00:08:53,196 Speaker 2: ways that jurors can be excused, and some the judge 152 00:08:53,276 --> 00:08:56,676 Speaker 2: is the ultimate arbiter of and he has the decision 153 00:08:56,756 --> 00:08:59,836 Speaker 2: to make, and others are at the discretion of the lawyers. 154 00:09:00,396 --> 00:09:03,996 Speaker 2: First of all, time availability is something that they all 155 00:09:04,076 --> 00:09:07,436 Speaker 2: care about, and this is a six week trial, so 156 00:09:07,876 --> 00:09:10,876 Speaker 2: they could be excused by the judge if they really 157 00:09:11,396 --> 00:09:14,516 Speaker 2: don't get paid for jury duty and make a case 158 00:09:14,556 --> 00:09:17,876 Speaker 2: that they will have financial hardship. The judge can move 159 00:09:17,956 --> 00:09:21,436 Speaker 2: to excuse ors on that basis. Also if there are 160 00:09:21,556 --> 00:09:26,516 Speaker 2: medical reasons or time other time interferences like being the 161 00:09:26,516 --> 00:09:30,676 Speaker 2: sole caretaker for an elderly person, but other than time 162 00:09:30,796 --> 00:09:35,956 Speaker 2: or financial qualifications. The next category is do you have 163 00:09:36,276 --> 00:09:40,796 Speaker 2: a connection to the case, And you'll see that there 164 00:09:40,796 --> 00:09:43,556 Speaker 2: are many questions asked by the judge and proposed by 165 00:09:43,596 --> 00:09:46,236 Speaker 2: the lawyers that aim to find out whether there's a 166 00:09:46,276 --> 00:09:51,596 Speaker 2: direct connection, because that would create the appearance of bias, 167 00:09:51,836 --> 00:09:56,956 Speaker 2: and those people would be excused most likely. And usually 168 00:09:56,996 --> 00:10:01,716 Speaker 2: the lawyers will propose that they would like to excuse 169 00:10:01,756 --> 00:10:05,156 Speaker 2: someone for cause, but the judge decides and then, as 170 00:10:05,196 --> 00:10:10,036 Speaker 2: you pointed out, three strikes, yes, those are freebies. The 171 00:10:10,156 --> 00:10:17,356 Speaker 2: lawyers can choose to excuse. Usually three jurors each side, 172 00:10:17,356 --> 00:10:20,796 Speaker 2: but again, under some circumstances, that number may be different, 173 00:10:21,316 --> 00:10:24,156 Speaker 2: and judges can handle that process very differently. 174 00:10:24,196 --> 00:10:27,956 Speaker 3: Interesting if you were working as a jury selection expert 175 00:10:28,036 --> 00:10:31,876 Speaker 3: in this particular case, Let's say you're working for the prosecution, 176 00:10:32,556 --> 00:10:36,076 Speaker 3: what would your dreamer look like? Could you describe them? 177 00:10:37,516 --> 00:10:42,556 Speaker 2: Well, dream jurors are always going to be neutral jurors 178 00:10:43,076 --> 00:10:48,516 Speaker 2: that have the ability to see the evidence. Clearly, I 179 00:10:48,596 --> 00:10:52,796 Speaker 2: have to say that this crystal ball does not enable 180 00:10:52,876 --> 00:10:56,316 Speaker 2: me to divine what I think an ideal juror would 181 00:10:56,316 --> 00:10:58,796 Speaker 2: be for each side. We actually focus on who the 182 00:10:58,876 --> 00:11:02,316 Speaker 2: dangerous jurors would be. For the very reason that I said, 183 00:11:02,356 --> 00:11:04,836 Speaker 2: we can't go out and choose which ones are the 184 00:11:04,876 --> 00:11:09,076 Speaker 2: ideal jers. All we can do is de select dangerous jures. 185 00:11:09,916 --> 00:11:13,316 Speaker 2: So we're looking for, more likely, who are the jurors 186 00:11:13,716 --> 00:11:18,716 Speaker 2: that can hurt either side. For Sam Bangman freed as 187 00:11:18,756 --> 00:11:23,196 Speaker 2: the defendant being accused of fraud in a financial collapse, 188 00:11:23,956 --> 00:11:30,196 Speaker 2: obviously having victims who have in some way been affected financially, 189 00:11:30,276 --> 00:11:34,876 Speaker 2: whether it's from the cryptocurrency collapse or other kinds of 190 00:11:34,916 --> 00:11:39,516 Speaker 2: financial fraud, those would be very dangerous jurors. Jurors who 191 00:11:39,556 --> 00:11:43,956 Speaker 2: can identify with those that may have been victimized by 192 00:11:44,036 --> 00:11:44,916 Speaker 2: this conduct. 193 00:11:45,036 --> 00:11:47,756 Speaker 3: But would those people be disqualified or would they have 194 00:11:47,796 --> 00:11:49,156 Speaker 3: to be used Would you have to use it one 195 00:11:49,156 --> 00:11:52,836 Speaker 3: of your strikes to get someone out? 196 00:11:52,356 --> 00:12:00,516 Speaker 2: They most likely would be stricken by the defense team. However, 197 00:12:00,636 --> 00:12:04,996 Speaker 2: they will do their very best strategically if there's someone 198 00:12:05,036 --> 00:12:07,756 Speaker 2: that they're worried about that they will make a case 199 00:12:07,876 --> 00:12:11,836 Speaker 2: to the judge that the prior experiences that this juror 200 00:12:11,916 --> 00:12:15,636 Speaker 2: may have had creates a bias that they would not 201 00:12:15,716 --> 00:12:18,556 Speaker 2: be able to put aside, which is why ultimately it's 202 00:12:18,636 --> 00:12:21,956 Speaker 2: the judge who makes the call as to whether there's 203 00:12:21,956 --> 00:12:27,876 Speaker 2: a potential cause strike there. One of the things that 204 00:12:28,116 --> 00:12:35,396 Speaker 2: is very interesting in this case is the extreme intelligence 205 00:12:35,716 --> 00:12:41,116 Speaker 2: of Sam Bankman fried in a somewhat eccentric way that 206 00:12:41,516 --> 00:12:46,156 Speaker 2: may create division among jurors as to whether he's a 207 00:12:46,236 --> 00:12:50,476 Speaker 2: boy genius that we should all be admiring. And he 208 00:12:51,356 --> 00:12:56,156 Speaker 2: didn't know a lot about what the official rules were. 209 00:12:56,236 --> 00:12:59,236 Speaker 2: He was just really smart and managed to put this 210 00:12:59,396 --> 00:13:04,716 Speaker 2: all together. But he's not some premeditated crook, and therefore 211 00:13:04,836 --> 00:13:10,116 Speaker 2: he's somewhat of a sympathetic figure because as he had 212 00:13:11,316 --> 00:13:14,956 Speaker 2: he didn't have knowledge really of the all the rules 213 00:13:15,076 --> 00:13:18,636 Speaker 2: in the pond that he was playing in. So I 214 00:13:18,676 --> 00:13:23,956 Speaker 2: think that's the beneficial juror for him. But the more 215 00:13:24,156 --> 00:13:27,276 Speaker 2: likely ajor that he would be worried about is someone 216 00:13:27,396 --> 00:13:33,396 Speaker 2: who is very suspicious of how a thirty year old 217 00:13:33,556 --> 00:13:36,836 Speaker 2: can be one of the richest people in the world 218 00:13:37,396 --> 00:13:41,516 Speaker 2: without having done something wrong. People who are I would say, 219 00:13:41,676 --> 00:13:47,116 Speaker 2: actually older jurors, who are of the generation that has 220 00:13:47,276 --> 00:13:51,316 Speaker 2: to work hard, would be more dangerous for him than 221 00:13:51,436 --> 00:13:52,676 Speaker 2: younger jurors. 222 00:13:54,356 --> 00:13:56,996 Speaker 3: See that's interesting. That's why maybe I should have it off, 223 00:13:57,036 --> 00:14:00,516 Speaker 3: because I would think that maybe you would want boomers 224 00:14:00,596 --> 00:14:02,956 Speaker 3: because they would be like, oh, Sam reminds me of 225 00:14:02,996 --> 00:14:06,876 Speaker 3: my son. I think maybe the younger generation is more 226 00:14:06,916 --> 00:14:11,716 Speaker 3: skeptical of billionaires in general, more liberal. We're believing that, 227 00:14:12,316 --> 00:14:14,636 Speaker 3: you know, all money shouldn't be concentrated in the few. 228 00:14:14,676 --> 00:14:16,396 Speaker 3: I mean, you have to be speaking. These are all 229 00:14:16,516 --> 00:14:18,076 Speaker 3: vast generalizations, I guess. 230 00:14:18,156 --> 00:14:23,116 Speaker 2: But you know, that's a really interesting point that you've 231 00:14:23,156 --> 00:14:27,556 Speaker 2: just made LJ. Is that we are doing vast generalizations here, 232 00:14:28,036 --> 00:14:31,476 Speaker 2: and a lot of what lawyers do in the absence 233 00:14:31,716 --> 00:14:36,636 Speaker 2: of a jury consultant is basically rely upon stereotypes and 234 00:14:36,676 --> 00:14:40,636 Speaker 2: their own experiences. With people, and that's the way the 235 00:14:40,716 --> 00:14:43,356 Speaker 2: law has been for years and years and years. When 236 00:14:43,396 --> 00:14:46,476 Speaker 2: psychologists or jury consultants start getting into the mix, it's 237 00:14:46,556 --> 00:14:50,916 Speaker 2: just a check on those presuppositions. And often that is 238 00:14:50,996 --> 00:14:55,036 Speaker 2: why we do the focus groups or the research in 239 00:14:55,156 --> 00:14:57,076 Speaker 2: order to test them out for ourselves. 240 00:14:57,556 --> 00:14:59,596 Speaker 3: And when you say you do these focus groups, like, 241 00:14:59,836 --> 00:15:03,116 Speaker 3: how does that work? Do you have the lawyers give 242 00:15:03,156 --> 00:15:06,276 Speaker 3: opening statements and you have twelve random people listen to 243 00:15:06,316 --> 00:15:08,796 Speaker 3: the opening statements and then they say what they think 244 00:15:08,796 --> 00:15:09,076 Speaker 3: about it? 245 00:15:09,436 --> 00:15:14,756 Speaker 2: That's pretty close, LJ. You could have my job. You see, 246 00:15:15,356 --> 00:15:19,116 Speaker 2: we're trying to provide a sample of what jurors in 247 00:15:19,156 --> 00:15:24,396 Speaker 2: the trial venue might think. So we sample broadly. We 248 00:15:24,476 --> 00:15:27,516 Speaker 2: may have many more people than that listen to the 249 00:15:27,596 --> 00:15:32,716 Speaker 2: lawyers describe the case, and divide them into multiple groups, 250 00:15:32,996 --> 00:15:37,476 Speaker 2: so we may have the ability to compare this group 251 00:15:37,636 --> 00:15:40,876 Speaker 2: versus that group. This group found him guilty, this group didn't. 252 00:15:41,156 --> 00:15:42,876 Speaker 2: What were the differences? And why? 253 00:15:43,716 --> 00:15:46,796 Speaker 3: You know, you're a trend as a psychologist, and you 254 00:15:46,916 --> 00:15:49,636 Speaker 3: start paying attention to the jurors as soon as when 255 00:15:49,636 --> 00:15:51,316 Speaker 3: you're working on a case, right as soon as they 256 00:15:51,356 --> 00:15:54,596 Speaker 3: walk into a courtroom. Could you describe what is it 257 00:15:54,836 --> 00:15:56,796 Speaker 3: that you're looking for. What are you paying attention to? 258 00:15:57,156 --> 00:15:59,876 Speaker 3: And specifically, let's pretend that it's Sam's case, what would 259 00:15:59,876 --> 00:16:00,716 Speaker 3: you be watching out for. 260 00:16:02,156 --> 00:16:07,556 Speaker 2: So it's a very tense day. Your adrenaline is definitely 261 00:16:07,636 --> 00:16:12,076 Speaker 2: running and unusual sitting at council table with my clients, 262 00:16:13,676 --> 00:16:17,156 Speaker 2: next to the lawyers, and in this case, if I 263 00:16:17,156 --> 00:16:19,476 Speaker 2: were working for Sam bankmin Freed, which I'm not, I 264 00:16:19,476 --> 00:16:22,236 Speaker 2: would be sitting next to him and his lawyers at 265 00:16:22,276 --> 00:16:27,956 Speaker 2: council table. I immediately start looking at the demographic makeup 266 00:16:27,996 --> 00:16:30,596 Speaker 2: of the group as they walk in, and this will 267 00:16:30,596 --> 00:16:35,556 Speaker 2: be a courthouse filled with potential jurors. I'm immediately looking 268 00:16:35,596 --> 00:16:38,516 Speaker 2: at how many men, how many women? Making mental tallies, 269 00:16:38,996 --> 00:16:41,396 Speaker 2: trying to get a sense of the demographics. How many 270 00:16:41,436 --> 00:16:45,716 Speaker 2: gray heads do I see, how many people carrying iPads 271 00:16:45,756 --> 00:16:49,476 Speaker 2: and technology, whether they're dressed neatly, whether they're dressed in 272 00:16:49,476 --> 00:16:55,276 Speaker 2: a business suit, whether they're treating the environment formally or informally. 273 00:16:55,876 --> 00:16:59,916 Speaker 2: Looking for things that may be relevant in this matter, 274 00:17:00,476 --> 00:17:04,436 Speaker 2: but looks are deceiving. I want to be very clear 275 00:17:04,476 --> 00:17:09,876 Speaker 2: about that body language and appearances are not matter the 276 00:17:09,916 --> 00:17:15,556 Speaker 2: most in jury selection, but you can get some assessments 277 00:17:15,596 --> 00:17:17,196 Speaker 2: of personality. 278 00:17:16,956 --> 00:17:20,916 Speaker 3: And as a psychologist, when you're listening to the jury speak, 279 00:17:21,236 --> 00:17:24,316 Speaker 3: when they're answering the questions, how do you listen differently 280 00:17:24,356 --> 00:17:26,756 Speaker 3: than your average person? How does your training help you 281 00:17:26,796 --> 00:17:28,876 Speaker 3: with that? 282 00:17:28,876 --> 00:17:33,636 Speaker 2: That is a great question because I could be sitting 283 00:17:33,716 --> 00:17:36,556 Speaker 2: at council table with three other lawyers and none of 284 00:17:36,556 --> 00:17:38,916 Speaker 2: them will have heard what I heard. It's not the 285 00:17:38,916 --> 00:17:41,036 Speaker 2: content of what they say, it's how they say it. 286 00:17:41,636 --> 00:17:48,956 Speaker 2: So I am looking at whether they are being truthful? 287 00:17:49,116 --> 00:17:52,316 Speaker 2: In my eyes is how forthright are they being? Are 288 00:17:52,316 --> 00:17:56,356 Speaker 2: they trying too hard to get on this jury by 289 00:17:56,516 --> 00:18:02,916 Speaker 2: being very loquacious and talking a lot? Are they being 290 00:18:03,116 --> 00:18:07,036 Speaker 2: more attentive to one lawyer or the other, But also 291 00:18:07,996 --> 00:18:13,676 Speaker 2: they tipping their hand inadvertently because they may use the 292 00:18:13,716 --> 00:18:19,436 Speaker 2: word rules, for example, in describing their job, and the 293 00:18:19,556 --> 00:18:21,076 Speaker 2: word rules may come up. 294 00:18:21,196 --> 00:18:23,036 Speaker 3: And Yeah, and I definitely think in the case of 295 00:18:23,076 --> 00:18:26,516 Speaker 3: Sam Menkman Freed as the defense, if you're on the 296 00:18:26,516 --> 00:18:29,716 Speaker 3: defense team, you probably wouldn't want someone who is very 297 00:18:29,716 --> 00:18:30,436 Speaker 3: into rules. 298 00:18:31,476 --> 00:18:32,436 Speaker 2: Same same. 299 00:18:33,476 --> 00:18:35,756 Speaker 3: You know, this is such a high profile case. People 300 00:18:35,796 --> 00:18:38,796 Speaker 3: are going to be coming in maybe having heard about Sam. 301 00:18:38,876 --> 00:18:40,636 Speaker 3: What impact does that make on Dury's selection. 302 00:18:42,036 --> 00:18:45,556 Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a really good question, and as I noted 303 00:18:45,756 --> 00:18:49,716 Speaker 2: in these submitted questions for Vader, both sides are interested 304 00:18:49,716 --> 00:18:53,076 Speaker 2: in what have you heard in the pre trial days? 305 00:18:53,116 --> 00:18:59,116 Speaker 2: And then the publicity. First off, jurors will know that 306 00:18:59,156 --> 00:19:04,116 Speaker 2: it's an important case because of the publicity, and that 307 00:19:04,396 --> 00:19:11,756 Speaker 2: actually makes them sometimes really want to be on the jury, 308 00:19:12,156 --> 00:19:15,476 Speaker 2: and it may also intimidate them and they feel like 309 00:19:15,596 --> 00:19:17,796 Speaker 2: it's going to be too much in the glare of 310 00:19:17,996 --> 00:19:22,316 Speaker 2: publicity and they don't want that responsibility. And sometimes that 311 00:19:22,556 --> 00:19:26,716 Speaker 2: in itself gets brought out in jury selection when jurors 312 00:19:26,756 --> 00:19:32,476 Speaker 2: start talking. But overall, I think that exposure is not 313 00:19:32,556 --> 00:19:37,036 Speaker 2: necessarily what either side needs to worry about. It's whether 314 00:19:37,276 --> 00:19:41,356 Speaker 2: jurors feel that they have been persuaded to one side 315 00:19:41,436 --> 00:19:44,076 Speaker 2: or the other already, and then what have you heard 316 00:19:44,436 --> 00:19:48,836 Speaker 2: and what opinions have you formed? Now that's the jackpot 317 00:19:48,916 --> 00:19:51,596 Speaker 2: if you can get the judge to ask what opinions 318 00:19:51,636 --> 00:19:54,716 Speaker 2: have you formed? If they say that they've formed an 319 00:19:54,756 --> 00:19:58,316 Speaker 2: opinion already, the chances are they could be excused for cause, 320 00:19:58,716 --> 00:20:01,516 Speaker 2: which is why I think it was on Sam bangman 321 00:20:01,556 --> 00:20:05,956 Speaker 2: Fried's questions they actually asked, have you posted anything on 322 00:20:06,036 --> 00:20:13,636 Speaker 2: social media about this case? About crypto currency? About FTX Alameda, 323 00:20:13,716 --> 00:20:16,756 Speaker 2: have you posted anything, Because that's someone who has an 324 00:20:16,796 --> 00:20:21,036 Speaker 2: opinion and they've shared it, so they're much more dangerous, 325 00:20:21,116 --> 00:20:21,876 Speaker 2: much more dangerous. 326 00:20:21,956 --> 00:20:23,516 Speaker 3: Yeah, So if you want to get out of jury duty, 327 00:20:23,556 --> 00:20:25,156 Speaker 3: what you should say is, I've already made up my. 328 00:20:25,116 --> 00:20:28,916 Speaker 2: Mind pretty much. That's the silver bullet. That's the magic 329 00:20:28,956 --> 00:20:32,836 Speaker 2: bullet right there. Yeah, I've already made up my mind 330 00:20:32,836 --> 00:20:34,996 Speaker 2: and nothing I hear in court is going to change me. 331 00:20:35,116 --> 00:20:39,396 Speaker 2: But judges are not pushovers on this. The judges are 332 00:20:39,476 --> 00:20:45,596 Speaker 2: pretty adept at winnowing out people who are trying to 333 00:20:45,636 --> 00:20:49,516 Speaker 2: get off jury duty and people who are really troubled 334 00:20:49,596 --> 00:20:53,276 Speaker 2: by something that has happened in their own experience or 335 00:20:53,316 --> 00:20:56,076 Speaker 2: that has already made them form an opinion. 336 00:20:56,356 --> 00:20:59,436 Speaker 3: Do you think in this case, if you're on the 337 00:20:59,476 --> 00:21:03,276 Speaker 3: defense or on the prosecution, who do you think would 338 00:21:03,276 --> 00:21:06,316 Speaker 3: be more concerned about the jurors coming in Having read 339 00:21:06,316 --> 00:21:08,516 Speaker 3: a lot about Sam and who would want those types 340 00:21:08,556 --> 00:21:09,076 Speaker 3: of jurors. 341 00:21:10,236 --> 00:21:15,156 Speaker 2: I think Sam bangman Fried's side will probably be more 342 00:21:17,196 --> 00:21:19,836 Speaker 2: interested in people who start out neutral and not having 343 00:21:20,156 --> 00:21:24,156 Speaker 2: not knowing very much. Yeah, And the government may be 344 00:21:25,996 --> 00:21:30,676 Speaker 2: they may not be as interested in finding people who 345 00:21:30,716 --> 00:21:34,876 Speaker 2: are ignorant of everything, but they may have benefited from 346 00:21:34,876 --> 00:21:36,676 Speaker 2: some of the preacher out publicity for sure. 347 00:21:39,036 --> 00:21:47,836 Speaker 1: Stick around judging. Sam will be right back, welcome back. 348 00:21:48,516 --> 00:21:51,036 Speaker 3: Are there any proposed, why, dear, questions that you found 349 00:21:51,116 --> 00:21:52,236 Speaker 3: interesting that stood out to you. 350 00:21:53,396 --> 00:21:57,716 Speaker 2: There is one question on the proposed by Sam Bangman 351 00:21:57,756 --> 00:22:00,996 Speaker 2: Fried's side to ask about ADHD, but that's just the 352 00:22:01,036 --> 00:22:04,316 Speaker 2: tip of the iceberg. They're going to want people who 353 00:22:04,436 --> 00:22:08,356 Speaker 2: have familiarity with ADHD and may forgive him some things 354 00:22:08,476 --> 00:22:13,756 Speaker 2: because of it. There is on I believe it's I 355 00:22:13,836 --> 00:22:16,076 Speaker 2: believe it was on Sam Bankmin Freed side, the question 356 00:22:16,156 --> 00:22:21,516 Speaker 2: about effective altruism, which I just find is an interesting 357 00:22:21,836 --> 00:22:26,876 Speaker 2: area overall because people probably have never heard of it 358 00:22:26,956 --> 00:22:30,836 Speaker 2: before until this trial, if they've heard of it at all. 359 00:22:31,396 --> 00:22:35,036 Speaker 2: On the other hand, they've heard of billionaires giving away money. 360 00:22:36,476 --> 00:22:43,036 Speaker 2: There are many other wealthy individuals who are prominent donors 361 00:22:43,156 --> 00:22:48,636 Speaker 2: to social causes. But this political focus of Sam Bakmin 362 00:22:48,716 --> 00:22:54,756 Speaker 2: Freed's giving under this philosophical umbrella of effective altruism is 363 00:22:54,916 --> 00:22:58,116 Speaker 2: interesting to try to get at in VA, Dear. 364 00:22:59,396 --> 00:23:01,236 Speaker 3: Yeah, hold on, let me see if I can find 365 00:23:01,556 --> 00:23:05,916 Speaker 3: If I can find the questions here, I have got it. 366 00:23:05,916 --> 00:23:08,156 Speaker 3: It's three of them. Do you have any negative opinion 367 00:23:08,156 --> 00:23:11,116 Speaker 3: about amassing wealth to support causes to improve the world 368 00:23:11,236 --> 00:23:13,276 Speaker 3: or help others? If so, what is your opinion and 369 00:23:13,316 --> 00:23:15,556 Speaker 3: why have you heard or are you familiar with the 370 00:23:15,556 --> 00:23:19,636 Speaker 3: philosophical movement called effective altruism or EA? And the last 371 00:23:19,636 --> 00:23:22,636 Speaker 3: one is what you've been alluding to all along. Is 372 00:23:22,636 --> 00:23:25,076 Speaker 3: there anything you have read, seen, or heard about effective 373 00:23:25,076 --> 00:23:27,196 Speaker 3: altruism that would make it hard for you to be 374 00:23:27,236 --> 00:23:29,156 Speaker 3: a fair and impartial juror in this case? 375 00:23:29,756 --> 00:23:33,316 Speaker 2: So those questions are stand ins and what the judge, 376 00:23:33,436 --> 00:23:37,796 Speaker 2: How far the judge opens the lid on that is 377 00:23:38,036 --> 00:23:43,356 Speaker 2: anyone's guess, But quite honestly, it borders right, it walks 378 00:23:43,516 --> 00:23:49,276 Speaker 2: right up to political political sentiments because so much of 379 00:23:49,316 --> 00:23:55,436 Speaker 2: sam bankman Fried's giving was political in nature. And I 380 00:23:55,516 --> 00:23:59,316 Speaker 2: think that there is a lot of political undertone here 381 00:23:59,356 --> 00:24:03,676 Speaker 2: that won't be explored in court. And this question is 382 00:24:03,756 --> 00:24:06,356 Speaker 2: the only way they're really trying to get at. 383 00:24:06,236 --> 00:24:10,756 Speaker 3: It, because they can't say, like, are you a Republican? 384 00:24:10,996 --> 00:24:13,516 Speaker 2: Can's not allowed? They're not going to be able to 385 00:24:13,556 --> 00:24:17,636 Speaker 2: find that out. Now had there been prior jury research 386 00:24:17,716 --> 00:24:21,156 Speaker 2: by either side with focus groups and they were able 387 00:24:21,236 --> 00:24:26,516 Speaker 2: to develop of long Sam bankmin Fried's own inclinations, a 388 00:24:26,596 --> 00:24:33,436 Speaker 2: statistical predictor of what Republicans versus Democrats might think about 389 00:24:33,476 --> 00:24:36,436 Speaker 2: his case. You know, that would be useful. But how 390 00:24:36,436 --> 00:24:39,636 Speaker 2: are you going to find the Republicans and the Democrats 391 00:24:39,796 --> 00:24:42,596 Speaker 2: in this jury pool? It's very difficult. 392 00:24:42,756 --> 00:24:45,556 Speaker 3: Oh and they also ask what newspapers and magazines and 393 00:24:45,596 --> 00:24:47,916 Speaker 3: stuff do you read? So that's kind of a giveaway. 394 00:24:48,276 --> 00:24:52,796 Speaker 2: So there's a triangulation happening looking for clues breadcrumbs in 395 00:24:52,916 --> 00:24:56,836 Speaker 2: other areas that give insight into what their political leanings 396 00:24:56,916 --> 00:25:01,236 Speaker 2: might be. If you watch certain television, if you watch FOXTV, 397 00:25:01,396 --> 00:25:03,676 Speaker 2: if you watch CNN. I mean there are things that 398 00:25:03,756 --> 00:25:07,396 Speaker 2: will be clues in that direction for sure. Now here's 399 00:25:07,436 --> 00:25:10,676 Speaker 2: a very good question often asked jurors. Is there something 400 00:25:10,716 --> 00:25:13,996 Speaker 2: I should know about you that hasn't come up yet 401 00:25:14,036 --> 00:25:18,116 Speaker 2: in the questioning that you believe pertains to this court trial, 402 00:25:18,436 --> 00:25:21,316 Speaker 2: to this trial or this matter. Often that's a question 403 00:25:21,436 --> 00:25:23,236 Speaker 2: asked of jurors at the end because they may be 404 00:25:23,316 --> 00:25:26,876 Speaker 2: sitting on something that nobody's quite asked them yet, and 405 00:25:26,996 --> 00:25:32,716 Speaker 2: they you know, they know that their first cousin, once removed, 406 00:25:33,116 --> 00:25:35,796 Speaker 2: dappled in cryptocurrency, but nobody asked. 407 00:25:36,596 --> 00:25:38,276 Speaker 3: Yeah, and I can see if you're a juror and 408 00:25:38,316 --> 00:25:40,036 Speaker 3: a judge asked you that it can make you sligh, 409 00:25:40,076 --> 00:25:41,956 Speaker 3: and you just you feel like you have to say, 410 00:25:42,036 --> 00:25:43,276 Speaker 3: like right, thinking right, right. 411 00:25:43,276 --> 00:25:47,916 Speaker 2: And it is a very imposing environment. I've been in 412 00:25:47,996 --> 00:25:52,756 Speaker 2: Southern District of New York and this courthouse and selected 413 00:25:52,836 --> 00:25:56,436 Speaker 2: juris in that courthouse, and it is a courthouse that 414 00:25:56,716 --> 00:26:02,036 Speaker 2: is awe inspiring. It's quite formal, and when the judge 415 00:26:02,036 --> 00:26:06,156 Speaker 2: starts asking you questions specifically there from the bench, it's 416 00:26:06,756 --> 00:26:10,116 Speaker 2: enough to make you not play games. Let's just put 417 00:26:10,116 --> 00:26:10,676 Speaker 2: it that way. 418 00:26:11,916 --> 00:26:18,356 Speaker 3: We'll be back in a minute. With one last thing, Ellen. 419 00:26:18,676 --> 00:26:22,436 Speaker 3: One thing that you do as a jury trial expert 420 00:26:22,516 --> 00:26:26,916 Speaker 3: is you also research how jury's respond to witness testimony, 421 00:26:26,996 --> 00:26:30,116 Speaker 3: right absolutely, And in this case, there's going to be 422 00:26:30,236 --> 00:26:35,676 Speaker 3: at least three former FTX officials who have pled guilty 423 00:26:36,356 --> 00:26:39,636 Speaker 3: and they are going to testify against Sam in exchange 424 00:26:39,636 --> 00:26:43,156 Speaker 3: for lesser sentences. What can you say about how jurors 425 00:26:43,276 --> 00:26:45,796 Speaker 3: tend to think about testimony from cooperating witnesses. 426 00:26:46,316 --> 00:26:48,676 Speaker 2: Well, I think in this case there's no doubt about it. 427 00:26:48,836 --> 00:26:52,996 Speaker 2: Mss Ellison is going to be a very important witness 428 00:26:53,036 --> 00:26:56,356 Speaker 2: and jurors are going to be looking forward to her testimony. 429 00:26:56,476 --> 00:27:01,396 Speaker 3: That's Caroline Ellison, Sam's former on and off again romantic partner. 430 00:27:02,596 --> 00:27:09,956 Speaker 2: Yeah, romantic partner and head of Almida. Yes, she's pled 431 00:27:09,996 --> 00:27:14,476 Speaker 2: guilty and she has agreed to cooperate with the government 432 00:27:14,876 --> 00:27:18,996 Speaker 2: from what I understand. So you're asking whether jurors will 433 00:27:19,036 --> 00:27:23,716 Speaker 2: discount her testimony because she has this deal, right. 434 00:27:23,556 --> 00:27:24,316 Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. 435 00:27:26,276 --> 00:27:34,436 Speaker 2: Jurors will be very attentive to assessing her credibility independent 436 00:27:34,556 --> 00:27:38,756 Speaker 2: of that, I believe because she's got so much information, 437 00:27:39,396 --> 00:27:44,636 Speaker 2: I think they will be attending more to her than 438 00:27:44,676 --> 00:27:48,116 Speaker 2: many other witnesses and looking for is she telling the 439 00:27:48,156 --> 00:27:50,516 Speaker 2: truth or is she not telling the truth based on 440 00:27:50,596 --> 00:27:53,516 Speaker 2: what they see with their own eyes, and I think 441 00:27:53,556 --> 00:27:57,596 Speaker 2: that that will carry in some way more weight for 442 00:27:57,676 --> 00:28:00,316 Speaker 2: them in this trial than knowing that she had a 443 00:28:00,316 --> 00:28:06,316 Speaker 2: plead deal. Often people are somewhat They approach the witness 444 00:28:06,396 --> 00:28:10,796 Speaker 2: who has cooperated, and they approach them with some caution, 445 00:28:11,476 --> 00:28:15,836 Speaker 2: but they will give that witness the chance to persuade 446 00:28:15,876 --> 00:28:19,716 Speaker 2: them that they're telling the truth. Because jurors do think 447 00:28:19,796 --> 00:28:22,956 Speaker 2: that their main job is to determine whether witnesses are 448 00:28:22,956 --> 00:28:26,156 Speaker 2: telling the truth. They really think it's their job to 449 00:28:26,236 --> 00:28:29,356 Speaker 2: determine that, and they think that they are very good 450 00:28:29,396 --> 00:28:33,236 Speaker 2: at it, so they will be using their own eyes 451 00:28:33,276 --> 00:28:36,276 Speaker 2: and ears and coming up with their own judgment of 452 00:28:36,316 --> 00:28:39,756 Speaker 2: whether she's telling the truth or not. And someone will 453 00:28:39,756 --> 00:28:42,996 Speaker 2: bring up, of course, that this could all be made 454 00:28:43,036 --> 00:28:47,516 Speaker 2: up because she's just trying to save herself. But others 455 00:28:47,556 --> 00:28:49,956 Speaker 2: will say, yeah, but I believed her. If she does 456 00:28:50,036 --> 00:28:53,836 Speaker 2: not convince the jury, it's you know, that's a different 457 00:28:53,916 --> 00:28:56,956 Speaker 2: story than that they won't give her a chance because 458 00:28:58,116 --> 00:29:01,316 Speaker 2: she has already pled guilty and is cooperating with the government. 459 00:29:01,756 --> 00:29:04,716 Speaker 3: What is it that makes someone seem credible to a jury? 460 00:29:04,756 --> 00:29:07,236 Speaker 3: Like I've heard Caroline speak. I know, I relate to 461 00:29:07,276 --> 00:29:11,596 Speaker 3: her also as a courage woman who's relatively fetite, who 462 00:29:11,636 --> 00:29:13,796 Speaker 3: tends to of talk like is that something that's going 463 00:29:13,836 --> 00:29:15,836 Speaker 3: to work against her? Like sometimes you know, people have 464 00:29:15,876 --> 00:29:19,196 Speaker 3: criticized me for not always founding super certain, and I 465 00:29:19,476 --> 00:29:21,316 Speaker 3: I think people have said that about Karrolyne Elison. Do 466 00:29:21,396 --> 00:29:22,876 Speaker 3: you think how do you think the jury is going 467 00:29:22,916 --> 00:29:24,236 Speaker 3: to respond to her specifically? 468 00:29:24,916 --> 00:29:27,876 Speaker 2: I think that it will depend upon the makeup of 469 00:29:27,916 --> 00:29:31,236 Speaker 2: the jury, for sure. I think that women on the 470 00:29:31,316 --> 00:29:35,676 Speaker 2: jury will be more sympathetic to everything you just said 471 00:29:35,796 --> 00:29:40,436 Speaker 2: about her, But there will be cynics for sure that 472 00:29:41,116 --> 00:29:44,516 Speaker 2: she is where she is because she was the girlfriend 473 00:29:44,796 --> 00:29:49,476 Speaker 2: that they were in the same hotel room, luxury penthouse 474 00:29:49,516 --> 00:29:53,796 Speaker 2: and the Bahamas running these two supposedly separate companies, but 475 00:29:54,156 --> 00:29:57,036 Speaker 2: they're really one and the same person. They're Ying and Yang, 476 00:29:57,556 --> 00:30:01,596 Speaker 2: you know, two parents as university professors. I mean, the 477 00:30:02,516 --> 00:30:08,636 Speaker 2: coincidences in their relationship are eerie. The end result will 478 00:30:08,676 --> 00:30:15,596 Speaker 2: be she has to be presenting herself as confident in 479 00:30:15,636 --> 00:30:19,516 Speaker 2: what she says, and jurors will be quick to judge 480 00:30:19,596 --> 00:30:26,476 Speaker 2: if she is hesitant, if she contradicts herself, but she 481 00:30:26,596 --> 00:30:32,956 Speaker 2: has a chance to really bring him down if jurors 482 00:30:32,996 --> 00:30:36,476 Speaker 2: believe her, and it's up to her. I think she's 483 00:30:36,476 --> 00:30:38,676 Speaker 2: a very very important witness. 484 00:30:40,676 --> 00:30:41,356 Speaker 4: Allan like it. 485 00:30:41,436 --> 00:30:44,036 Speaker 3: Thank you so much. This was a fascinating conversation. 486 00:30:45,076 --> 00:30:47,756 Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. It will be a trial 487 00:30:47,836 --> 00:30:49,116 Speaker 2: to watch, that's for sure. 488 00:30:50,996 --> 00:30:53,196 Speaker 1: We'll be back in your feed soon with more expert 489 00:30:53,236 --> 00:30:57,156 Speaker 1: analysis and news from Sam Bankman Freed's trial. Thanks for listening. 490 00:30:59,156 --> 00:31:02,116 Speaker 1: This episode of Judging Sam was hosted by Lydia, Jean Kott, 491 00:31:03,356 --> 00:31:07,716 Speaker 1: Catherine Girardeau and Nisha Venken produced this show Lydia Jeancott 492 00:31:07,716 --> 00:31:10,996 Speaker 1: is our court reporter. Sophie Crane is our editor. Our 493 00:31:11,076 --> 00:31:14,396 Speaker 1: music was composed by Matthias Bossi and John Evans of 494 00:31:14,476 --> 00:31:18,876 Speaker 1: stell Wagons. Symphonette Judging Sam is a production of Pushkin Industries. 495 00:31:19,316 --> 00:31:21,796 Speaker 1: Got a question or comment for me, There's a website 496 00:31:21,796 --> 00:31:29,036 Speaker 1: for that atr podcast dot com. That's atr podcast dot com. 497 00:31:29,156 --> 00:31:32,196 Speaker 1: To find more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the iHeartRadio app, 498 00:31:32,396 --> 00:31:36,556 Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If 499 00:31:36,556 --> 00:31:39,876 Speaker 1: you'd like to access bonus episodes and listen ad free, 500 00:31:40,276 --> 00:31:42,636 Speaker 1: don't forget to sign up for a Pushkin Plus subscription 501 00:31:42,996 --> 00:31:46,476 Speaker 1: at pushkin dot fm, slash plus, or on our Apple 502 00:31:46,556 --> 00:31:51,596 Speaker 1: show page.