Speaker 1: Pushkin. Hey there, it's Michael Lewis. Before we get to
Speaker 1: this episode, I want to let you know that you
Speaker 1: can listen to each episode of Judging Sam The Trial
Speaker 1: of Sam Bankman Freed ad free by becoming a Pushkin
Speaker 1: Plus subscriber, and with your subscription you'll also get exclusive
Speaker 1: access to ad free and early bingeable podcasts like Paul
Speaker 1: McCartney's new podcast, McCartney A Life and Lyrics, Malcolm Gladwell's
Speaker 1: revisionist history, The Happiness Lab from Doctor Lorie Santos, and
Speaker 1: tons of other top shows from Pushkin. Sign up an
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts or at Pushkin, dot fm.
Speaker 2: Slash Plus.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Judging Sam The Trial of Sam Bankman Freed.
Speaker 1: I'm Michael Lewis. Bankman Freed was worth tens of billions
Speaker 1: of dollars before FTX his cryptocurrency exchange came apart at
Speaker 1: the seams, and now he's being tried for financial crimes.
Speaker 1: They could send him to prison for the rest of
Speaker 1: his life. Lydia Jean Cott host today. Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 3: I'm Lyddy jean Cott. The trial of Sam Bankman Freed
Speaker 3: is officially underway. I arrived at the courthouse for the
Speaker 3: Southern District of New York at six am Tuesday morning.
Speaker 3: It's this big, imposing building with revolving golden doors. Reporters
Speaker 3: though use a side entrance. When I got there, there
Speaker 3: was already a handful sitting on the ground. Someone even
Speaker 3: brought a folding chair.
Speaker 2: The mood was friendly and excited.
Speaker 3: It was kind of like we're all waiting for a
Speaker 3: flight together and we're friends. I spoke to a few
Speaker 3: people while waiting for the court doors to open, and
Speaker 3: why are you here this morning?
Speaker 4: Hi? My name is Nick Day. I'm a reporter and
Speaker 4: editor White coined USK. We are covering the trial of
Speaker 4: Sam Bankman freed. We broke the original balance sheet last year,
Speaker 4: ultimately led to the situation FTX found itself in when
Speaker 4: it filed for bankruptcy in November last year. And so
Speaker 4: what's your nat?
Speaker 5: Josh Blancy will pay you. We both work for The
Speaker 5: Times of London. I'm interested if they watched Michael Lewis
Speaker 5: in sixteen minutes, to be honest, because it's guy. I
Speaker 5: thought it was very interesting when he called his book
Speaker 5: a letter to the jury, so to interest see if
Speaker 5: that comes up, they're going to have to spend a
Speaker 5: lot of time explaining, Okay, here's a what is a cryptocurrency?
Speaker 5: What does in exchange?
Speaker 4: I don't fucking understand how well.
Speaker 3: Our goal is to help you understand at least half
Speaker 3: of it. When we were finally let inside, we waited
Speaker 3: in another long line to give up our electronics, and
Speaker 3: then we were ushered into overflow rooms where we could
Speaker 3: watch the proceedings on monitors. Even though the image was greeny,
Speaker 3: we could tell Sam had gotten a haircut. His famous
Speaker 3: curls were definitely more closely cropped. Once court was in session,
Speaker 3: the first order of business was selecting a jury. More specifically,
Speaker 3: their process known as voidir, which is when potential are
Speaker 3: questioned by a judge before a jury is selected. The
Speaker 3: legal teams for both the defense and the prosecution had
Speaker 3: submitted a list of proposed questions, which I was able
Speaker 3: to look through before the trial started. The questions ranged
Speaker 3: from what potential jurors did for a living, to whether
Speaker 3: they'd be able to vote to convict on this trial,
Speaker 3: and even if they had seen Michael Lewis's appearance on
Speaker 3: sixty Minutes this past Sunday. A lot of people seemed
Speaker 3: like they were trying to get out of participating. One
Speaker 3: dury said they had a wedding in a few weeks,
Speaker 3: another was applying for jobs. Others couldn't get the time
Speaker 3: off from jobs that they had. Someone else said they
Speaker 3: were scheduled to go to El Salvador for a Miss
Speaker 3: Universe pageant. One potential juror said he couldn't serve because
Speaker 3: he didn't understand crypto, but the judge didn't seem convinced.
Speaker 3: By the end of the day, there were fifty potential
Speaker 3: jurors left. On day two, each of them will introduce
Speaker 3: themselves for one minute so the lawyers can get a
Speaker 3: feel for who they are. Then twelve jurors and six
Speaker 3: alternates will be seated, and they will be the people
Speaker 3: who will ultimately decide Sam's fate. I wanted to understand
Speaker 3: more about how lawyers think about jury selection, like what
Speaker 3: are they looking for? How do they know who might
Speaker 3: be favorable to their side? Today on the show, a
Speaker 3: conversation with Ellen Leggett. Ellen's maybe the best person to
Speaker 3: talk to us about this. She's a trial consultant and
Speaker 3: she's been helping lawyers select juries and cases for over
Speaker 3: three decades. Ellen welcome to judging. Sam.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Old Jay, And I was wondering.
Speaker 3: If you could start by explaining what exactly a jury
Speaker 3: trial consultant does.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, as you said, I've been a jury consultant for
Speaker 2: three decades, which is to say that I've been doing
Speaker 2: this pretty much since the start of psychologists assisting lawyers
Speaker 2: in the courtroom. I am a psychologist by training. Not
Speaker 2: all jury consultants are, but clearly in many situations and
Speaker 2: having a person in the courtroom to assist the lawyers
Speaker 2: is not new, even though many people in the country
Speaker 2: haven't really understood what the role of a jury consultant is.
Speaker 2: We do many things that surprisingly don't involve a crystal ball.
Speaker 2: Many people think we can just walk into a courtroom,
Speaker 2: sit there and divine things about the jurors, and would
Speaker 2: that it were that easy. But no divine powers are
Speaker 2: necessary or brought into the courtroom. In fact, there's a
Speaker 2: lot of science that is behind usually what we are
Speaker 2: doing as we look at the jury during that vas
Speaker 2: der process and the selection process.
Speaker 3: And I'm curious that someone who spends a lot of
Speaker 3: time thinking about the jury, like, how do you think
Speaker 3: about the jury's role?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, the jury has a very very hard role.
Speaker 2: If one and thinks about entering a class in college
Speaker 2: for something that you never in a million years would
Speaker 2: want to take. That's how these jurors feel when they're
Speaker 2: walking into a trial, and usually it's a trial about
Speaker 2: which they will have very little technical information. So they
Speaker 2: have a very hard job because the rules really are
Speaker 2: set up so that they will not be able to
Speaker 2: stand too closely to the issues. But they know that
Speaker 2: they are, besides the judge, the most important people in
Speaker 2: that courtroom, and they want to do their job well
Speaker 2: and they want to render a fair verdict. There's nothing
Speaker 2: worse for a jury than to think the public will
Speaker 2: believe that they did the wrong thing.
Speaker 3: Usually in life, when you're making a big decision, you
Speaker 3: want to be like reading everything there is to read
Speaker 3: about it. You want to be talking to the people
Speaker 3: that you trust. And in Sam mekmund Fried's you Know
Speaker 3: is looking at the jury instructions and it specifically says,
Speaker 3: and I think it's always like this, you can't talk
Speaker 3: to anyone, you can't read anything, like why have we
Speaker 3: decided that that's the best way for a jury to
Speaker 3: reach a verdict?
Speaker 2: Our forefathers in their wisdom thought that they were doing
Speaker 2: the right thing to put limits on what jurors could
Speaker 2: do to gather information. And I don't think they were wrong.
Speaker 2: I think instructing the jurors to rely upon what they
Speaker 2: hear in the courtroom as well as their experiences in life,
Speaker 2: we can't tell them to pack those up in a
Speaker 2: suitcase and leave them all at home. But they are
Speaker 2: given parameters to focus them on the evidence because there
Speaker 2: are so many legal rules that govern what evidence they
Speaker 2: can and cannot hear.
Speaker 3: How much say the lawyers have over who ends up
Speaker 3: on the jury.
Speaker 2: That's a really good question. The lawyers are ultimately in
Speaker 2: charge of jury selection. But what is most daunt is
Speaker 2: the fact that although we talk about it as a
Speaker 2: jury selection, it truly is jury d selection. There are
Speaker 2: many rules about who can actually be excused, and that
Speaker 2: is all that lawyers can do is excuse jurors. And
Speaker 2: we can talk more about the different rules for excusing jurors,
Speaker 2: but it's really de selection, not selection.
Speaker 3: Yeah, for sure. And is there a limited amount of
Speaker 3: people you can excuse? Like is it three strikes or
Speaker 3: three people you can.
Speaker 2: Three strikes you're out? Well, there are a couple of
Speaker 2: ways that jurors can be excused, and some the judge
Speaker 2: is the ultimate arbiter of and he has the decision
Speaker 2: to make, and others are at the discretion of the lawyers.
Speaker 2: First of all, time availability is something that they all
Speaker 2: care about, and this is a six week trial, so
Speaker 2: they could be excused by the judge if they really
Speaker 2: don't get paid for jury duty and make a case
Speaker 2: that they will have financial hardship. The judge can move
Speaker 2: to excuse ors on that basis. Also if there are
Speaker 2: medical reasons or time other time interferences like being the
Speaker 2: sole caretaker for an elderly person, but other than time
Speaker 2: or financial qualifications. The next category is do you have
Speaker 2: a connection to the case, And you'll see that there
Speaker 2: are many questions asked by the judge and proposed by
Speaker 2: the lawyers that aim to find out whether there's a
Speaker 2: direct connection, because that would create the appearance of bias,
Speaker 2: and those people would be excused most likely. And usually
Speaker 2: the lawyers will propose that they would like to excuse
Speaker 2: someone for cause, but the judge decides and then, as
Speaker 2: you pointed out, three strikes, yes, those are freebies. The
Speaker 2: lawyers can choose to excuse. Usually three jurors each side,
Speaker 2: but again, under some circumstances, that number may be different,
Speaker 2: and judges can handle that process very differently.
Speaker 3: Interesting if you were working as a jury selection expert
Speaker 3: in this particular case, Let's say you're working for the prosecution,
Speaker 3: what would your dreamer look like? Could you describe them?
Speaker 2: Well, dream jurors are always going to be neutral jurors
Speaker 2: that have the ability to see the evidence. Clearly, I
Speaker 2: have to say that this crystal ball does not enable
Speaker 2: me to divine what I think an ideal juror would
Speaker 2: be for each side. We actually focus on who the
Speaker 2: dangerous jurors would be. For the very reason that I said,
Speaker 2: we can't go out and choose which ones are the
Speaker 2: ideal jers. All we can do is de select dangerous jures.
Speaker 2: So we're looking for, more likely, who are the jurors
Speaker 2: that can hurt either side. For Sam Bangman freed as
Speaker 2: the defendant being accused of fraud in a financial collapse,
Speaker 2: obviously having victims who have in some way been affected financially,
Speaker 2: whether it's from the cryptocurrency collapse or other kinds of
Speaker 2: financial fraud, those would be very dangerous jurors. Jurors who
Speaker 2: can identify with those that may have been victimized by
Speaker 2: this conduct.
Speaker 3: But would those people be disqualified or would they have
Speaker 3: to be used Would you have to use it one
Speaker 3: of your strikes to get someone out?
Speaker 2: They most likely would be stricken by the defense team. However,
Speaker 2: they will do their very best strategically if there's someone
Speaker 2: that they're worried about that they will make a case
Speaker 2: to the judge that the prior experiences that this juror
Speaker 2: may have had creates a bias that they would not
Speaker 2: be able to put aside, which is why ultimately it's
Speaker 2: the judge who makes the call as to whether there's
Speaker 2: a potential cause strike there. One of the things that
Speaker 2: is very interesting in this case is the extreme intelligence
Speaker 2: of Sam Bankman fried in a somewhat eccentric way that
Speaker 2: may create division among jurors as to whether he's a
Speaker 2: boy genius that we should all be admiring. And he
Speaker 2: didn't know a lot about what the official rules were.
Speaker 2: He was just really smart and managed to put this
Speaker 2: all together. But he's not some premeditated crook, and therefore
Speaker 2: he's somewhat of a sympathetic figure because as he had
Speaker 2: he didn't have knowledge really of the all the rules
Speaker 2: in the pond that he was playing in. So I
Speaker 2: think that's the beneficial juror for him. But the more
Speaker 2: likely ajor that he would be worried about is someone
Speaker 2: who is very suspicious of how a thirty year old
Speaker 2: can be one of the richest people in the world
Speaker 2: without having done something wrong. People who are I would say,
Speaker 2: actually older jurors, who are of the generation that has
Speaker 2: to work hard, would be more dangerous for him than
Speaker 2: younger jurors.
Speaker 3: See that's interesting. That's why maybe I should have it off,
Speaker 3: because I would think that maybe you would want boomers
Speaker 3: because they would be like, oh, Sam reminds me of
Speaker 3: my son. I think maybe the younger generation is more
Speaker 3: skeptical of billionaires in general, more liberal. We're believing that,
Speaker 3: you know, all money shouldn't be concentrated in the few.
Speaker 3: I mean, you have to be speaking. These are all
Speaker 3: vast generalizations, I guess.
Speaker 2: But you know, that's a really interesting point that you've
Speaker 2: just made LJ. Is that we are doing vast generalizations here,
Speaker 2: and a lot of what lawyers do in the absence
Speaker 2: of a jury consultant is basically rely upon stereotypes and
Speaker 2: their own experiences. With people, and that's the way the
Speaker 2: law has been for years and years and years. When
Speaker 2: psychologists or jury consultants start getting into the mix, it's
Speaker 2: just a check on those presuppositions. And often that is
Speaker 2: why we do the focus groups or the research in
Speaker 2: order to test them out for ourselves.
Speaker 3: And when you say you do these focus groups, like,
Speaker 3: how does that work? Do you have the lawyers give
Speaker 3: opening statements and you have twelve random people listen to
Speaker 3: the opening statements and then they say what they think
Speaker 3: about it?
Speaker 2: That's pretty close, LJ. You could have my job. You see,
Speaker 2: we're trying to provide a sample of what jurors in
Speaker 2: the trial venue might think. So we sample broadly. We
Speaker 2: may have many more people than that listen to the
Speaker 2: lawyers describe the case, and divide them into multiple groups,
Speaker 2: so we may have the ability to compare this group
Speaker 2: versus that group. This group found him guilty, this group didn't.
Speaker 2: What were the differences? And why?
Speaker 3: You know, you're a trend as a psychologist, and you
Speaker 3: start paying attention to the jurors as soon as when
Speaker 3: you're working on a case, right as soon as they
Speaker 3: walk into a courtroom. Could you describe what is it
Speaker 3: that you're looking for. What are you paying attention to?
Speaker 3: And specifically, let's pretend that it's Sam's case, what would
Speaker 3: you be watching out for.
Speaker 2: So it's a very tense day. Your adrenaline is definitely
Speaker 2: running and unusual sitting at council table with my clients,
Speaker 2: next to the lawyers, and in this case, if I
Speaker 2: were working for Sam bankmin Freed, which I'm not, I
Speaker 2: would be sitting next to him and his lawyers at
Speaker 2: council table. I immediately start looking at the demographic makeup
Speaker 2: of the group as they walk in, and this will
Speaker 2: be a courthouse filled with potential jurors. I'm immediately looking
Speaker 2: at how many men, how many women? Making mental tallies,
Speaker 2: trying to get a sense of the demographics. How many
Speaker 2: gray heads do I see, how many people carrying iPads
Speaker 2: and technology, whether they're dressed neatly, whether they're dressed in
Speaker 2: a business suit, whether they're treating the environment formally or informally.
Speaker 2: Looking for things that may be relevant in this matter,
Speaker 2: but looks are deceiving. I want to be very clear
Speaker 2: about that body language and appearances are not matter the
Speaker 2: most in jury selection, but you can get some assessments
Speaker 2: of personality.
Speaker 3: And as a psychologist, when you're listening to the jury speak,
Speaker 3: when they're answering the questions, how do you listen differently
Speaker 3: than your average person? How does your training help you
Speaker 3: with that?
Speaker 2: That is a great question because I could be sitting
Speaker 2: at council table with three other lawyers and none of
Speaker 2: them will have heard what I heard. It's not the
Speaker 2: content of what they say, it's how they say it.
Speaker 2: So I am looking at whether they are being truthful?
Speaker 2: In my eyes is how forthright are they being? Are
Speaker 2: they trying too hard to get on this jury by
Speaker 2: being very loquacious and talking a lot? Are they being
Speaker 2: more attentive to one lawyer or the other, But also
Speaker 2: they tipping their hand inadvertently because they may use the
Speaker 2: word rules, for example, in describing their job, and the
Speaker 2: word rules may come up.
Speaker 3: And Yeah, and I definitely think in the case of
Speaker 3: Sam Menkman Freed as the defense, if you're on the
Speaker 3: defense team, you probably wouldn't want someone who is very
Speaker 3: into rules.
Speaker 2: Same same.
Speaker 3: You know, this is such a high profile case. People
Speaker 3: are going to be coming in maybe having heard about Sam.
Speaker 3: What impact does that make on Dury's selection.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a really good question, and as I noted
Speaker 2: in these submitted questions for Vader, both sides are interested
Speaker 2: in what have you heard in the pre trial days?
Speaker 2: And then the publicity. First off, jurors will know that
Speaker 2: it's an important case because of the publicity, and that
Speaker 2: actually makes them sometimes really want to be on the jury,
Speaker 2: and it may also intimidate them and they feel like
Speaker 2: it's going to be too much in the glare of
Speaker 2: publicity and they don't want that responsibility. And sometimes that
Speaker 2: in itself gets brought out in jury selection when jurors
Speaker 2: start talking. But overall, I think that exposure is not
Speaker 2: necessarily what either side needs to worry about. It's whether
Speaker 2: jurors feel that they have been persuaded to one side
Speaker 2: or the other already, and then what have you heard
Speaker 2: and what opinions have you formed? Now that's the jackpot
Speaker 2: if you can get the judge to ask what opinions
Speaker 2: have you formed? If they say that they've formed an
Speaker 2: opinion already, the chances are they could be excused for cause,
Speaker 2: which is why I think it was on Sam bangman
Speaker 2: Fried's questions they actually asked, have you posted anything on
Speaker 2: social media about this case? About crypto currency? About FTX Alameda,
Speaker 2: have you posted anything, Because that's someone who has an
Speaker 2: opinion and they've shared it, so they're much more dangerous,
Speaker 2: much more dangerous.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So if you want to get out of jury duty,
Speaker 3: what you should say is, I've already made up my.
Speaker 2: Mind pretty much. That's the silver bullet. That's the magic
Speaker 2: bullet right there. Yeah, I've already made up my mind
Speaker 2: and nothing I hear in court is going to change me.
Speaker 2: But judges are not pushovers on this. The judges are
Speaker 2: pretty adept at winnowing out people who are trying to
Speaker 2: get off jury duty and people who are really troubled
Speaker 2: by something that has happened in their own experience or
Speaker 2: that has already made them form an opinion.
Speaker 3: Do you think in this case, if you're on the
Speaker 3: defense or on the prosecution, who do you think would
Speaker 3: be more concerned about the jurors coming in Having read
Speaker 3: a lot about Sam and who would want those types
Speaker 3: of jurors.
Speaker 2: I think Sam bangman Fried's side will probably be more
Speaker 2: interested in people who start out neutral and not having
Speaker 2: not knowing very much. Yeah, And the government may be
Speaker 2: they may not be as interested in finding people who
Speaker 2: are ignorant of everything, but they may have benefited from
Speaker 2: some of the preacher out publicity for sure.
Speaker 1: Stick around judging. Sam will be right back, welcome back.
Speaker 3: Are there any proposed, why, dear, questions that you found
Speaker 3: interesting that stood out to you.
Speaker 2: There is one question on the proposed by Sam Bangman
Speaker 2: Fried's side to ask about ADHD, but that's just the
Speaker 2: tip of the iceberg. They're going to want people who
Speaker 2: have familiarity with ADHD and may forgive him some things
Speaker 2: because of it. There is on I believe it's I
Speaker 2: believe it was on Sam Bankmin Freed side, the question
Speaker 2: about effective altruism, which I just find is an interesting
Speaker 2: area overall because people probably have never heard of it
Speaker 2: before until this trial, if they've heard of it at all.
Speaker 2: On the other hand, they've heard of billionaires giving away money.
Speaker 2: There are many other wealthy individuals who are prominent donors
Speaker 2: to social causes. But this political focus of Sam Bakmin
Speaker 2: Freed's giving under this philosophical umbrella of effective altruism is
Speaker 2: interesting to try to get at in VA, Dear.
Speaker 3: Yeah, hold on, let me see if I can find
Speaker 3: If I can find the questions here, I have got it.
Speaker 3: It's three of them. Do you have any negative opinion
Speaker 3: about amassing wealth to support causes to improve the world
Speaker 3: or help others? If so, what is your opinion and
Speaker 3: why have you heard or are you familiar with the
Speaker 3: philosophical movement called effective altruism or EA? And the last
Speaker 3: one is what you've been alluding to all along. Is
Speaker 3: there anything you have read, seen, or heard about effective
Speaker 3: altruism that would make it hard for you to be
Speaker 3: a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Speaker 2: So those questions are stand ins and what the judge,
Speaker 2: How far the judge opens the lid on that is
Speaker 2: anyone's guess, But quite honestly, it borders right, it walks
Speaker 2: right up to political political sentiments because so much of
Speaker 2: sam bankman Fried's giving was political in nature. And I
Speaker 2: think that there is a lot of political undertone here
Speaker 2: that won't be explored in court. And this question is
Speaker 2: the only way they're really trying to get at.
Speaker 3: It, because they can't say, like, are you a Republican?
Speaker 2: Can's not allowed? They're not going to be able to
Speaker 2: find that out. Now had there been prior jury research
Speaker 2: by either side with focus groups and they were able
Speaker 2: to develop of long Sam bankmin Fried's own inclinations, a
Speaker 2: statistical predictor of what Republicans versus Democrats might think about
Speaker 2: his case. You know, that would be useful. But how
Speaker 2: are you going to find the Republicans and the Democrats
Speaker 2: in this jury pool? It's very difficult.
Speaker 3: Oh and they also ask what newspapers and magazines and
Speaker 3: stuff do you read? So that's kind of a giveaway.
Speaker 2: So there's a triangulation happening looking for clues breadcrumbs in
Speaker 2: other areas that give insight into what their political leanings
Speaker 2: might be. If you watch certain television, if you watch FOXTV,
Speaker 2: if you watch CNN. I mean there are things that
Speaker 2: will be clues in that direction for sure. Now here's
Speaker 2: a very good question often asked jurors. Is there something
Speaker 2: I should know about you that hasn't come up yet
Speaker 2: in the questioning that you believe pertains to this court trial,
Speaker 2: to this trial or this matter. Often that's a question
Speaker 2: asked of jurors at the end because they may be
Speaker 2: sitting on something that nobody's quite asked them yet, and
Speaker 2: they you know, they know that their first cousin, once removed,
Speaker 2: dappled in cryptocurrency, but nobody asked.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and I can see if you're a juror and
Speaker 3: a judge asked you that it can make you sligh,
Speaker 3: and you just you feel like you have to say,
Speaker 3: like right, thinking right, right.
Speaker 2: And it is a very imposing environment. I've been in
Speaker 2: Southern District of New York and this courthouse and selected
Speaker 2: juris in that courthouse, and it is a courthouse that
Speaker 2: is awe inspiring. It's quite formal, and when the judge
Speaker 2: starts asking you questions specifically there from the bench, it's
Speaker 2: enough to make you not play games. Let's just put
Speaker 2: it that way.
Speaker 3: We'll be back in a minute. With one last thing, Ellen.
Speaker 3: One thing that you do as a jury trial expert
Speaker 3: is you also research how jury's respond to witness testimony,
Speaker 3: right absolutely, And in this case, there's going to be
Speaker 3: at least three former FTX officials who have pled guilty
Speaker 3: and they are going to testify against Sam in exchange
Speaker 3: for lesser sentences. What can you say about how jurors
Speaker 3: tend to think about testimony from cooperating witnesses.
Speaker 2: Well, I think in this case there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2: Mss Ellison is going to be a very important witness
Speaker 2: and jurors are going to be looking forward to her testimony.
Speaker 3: That's Caroline Ellison, Sam's former on and off again romantic partner.
Speaker 2: Yeah, romantic partner and head of Almida. Yes, she's pled
Speaker 2: guilty and she has agreed to cooperate with the government
Speaker 2: from what I understand. So you're asking whether jurors will
Speaker 2: discount her testimony because she has this deal, right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: Jurors will be very attentive to assessing her credibility independent
Speaker 2: of that, I believe because she's got so much information,
Speaker 2: I think they will be attending more to her than
Speaker 2: many other witnesses and looking for is she telling the
Speaker 2: truth or is she not telling the truth based on
Speaker 2: what they see with their own eyes, and I think
Speaker 2: that that will carry in some way more weight for
Speaker 2: them in this trial than knowing that she had a
Speaker 2: plead deal. Often people are somewhat They approach the witness
Speaker 2: who has cooperated, and they approach them with some caution,
Speaker 2: but they will give that witness the chance to persuade
Speaker 2: them that they're telling the truth. Because jurors do think
Speaker 2: that their main job is to determine whether witnesses are
Speaker 2: telling the truth. They really think it's their job to
Speaker 2: determine that, and they think that they are very good
Speaker 2: at it, so they will be using their own eyes
Speaker 2: and ears and coming up with their own judgment of
Speaker 2: whether she's telling the truth or not. And someone will
Speaker 2: bring up, of course, that this could all be made
Speaker 2: up because she's just trying to save herself. But others
Speaker 2: will say, yeah, but I believed her. If she does
Speaker 2: not convince the jury, it's you know, that's a different
Speaker 2: story than that they won't give her a chance because
Speaker 2: she has already pled guilty and is cooperating with the government.
Speaker 3: What is it that makes someone seem credible to a jury?
Speaker 3: Like I've heard Caroline speak. I know, I relate to
Speaker 3: her also as a courage woman who's relatively fetite, who
Speaker 3: tends to of talk like is that something that's going
Speaker 3: to work against her? Like sometimes you know, people have
Speaker 3: criticized me for not always founding super certain, and I
Speaker 3: I think people have said that about Karrolyne Elison. Do
Speaker 3: you think how do you think the jury is going
Speaker 3: to respond to her specifically?
Speaker 2: I think that it will depend upon the makeup of
Speaker 2: the jury, for sure. I think that women on the
Speaker 2: jury will be more sympathetic to everything you just said
Speaker 2: about her, But there will be cynics for sure that
Speaker 2: she is where she is because she was the girlfriend
Speaker 2: that they were in the same hotel room, luxury penthouse
Speaker 2: and the Bahamas running these two supposedly separate companies, but
Speaker 2: they're really one and the same person. They're Ying and Yang,
Speaker 2: you know, two parents as university professors. I mean, the
Speaker 2: coincidences in their relationship are eerie. The end result will
Speaker 2: be she has to be presenting herself as confident in
Speaker 2: what she says, and jurors will be quick to judge
Speaker 2: if she is hesitant, if she contradicts herself, but she
Speaker 2: has a chance to really bring him down if jurors
Speaker 2: believe her, and it's up to her. I think she's
Speaker 2: a very very important witness.
Speaker 4: Allan like it.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much. This was a fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me. It will be a trial
Speaker 2: to watch, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in your feed soon with more expert
Speaker 1: analysis and news from Sam Bankman Freed's trial. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: This episode of Judging Sam was hosted by Lydia, Jean Kott,
Speaker 1: Catherine Girardeau and Nisha Venken produced this show Lydia Jeancott
Speaker 1: is our court reporter. Sophie Crane is our editor. Our
Speaker 1: music was composed by Matthias Bossi and John Evans of
Speaker 1: stell Wagons. Symphonette Judging Sam is a production of Pushkin Industries.
Speaker 1: Got a question or comment for me, There's a website
Speaker 1: for that atr podcast dot com. That's atr podcast dot com.
Speaker 1: To find more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If
Speaker 1: you'd like to access bonus episodes and listen ad free,
Speaker 1: don't forget to sign up for a Pushkin Plus subscription
Speaker 1: at pushkin dot fm, slash plus, or on our Apple
Speaker 1: show page.