Speaker 1: Pushkin.
Speaker 2: When Scott told me about this case, I just knew
Speaker 2: that we needed to highlight it, that we needed to
Speaker 2: share it. Because even before I knew all the details,
Speaker 2: even before I went down the rabbit hole, because I'm
Speaker 2: a person always going down the rabbit hole, pulling up
Speaker 2: news articles and videos or whatever I can find about
Speaker 2: FBI cases, even just hearing just a little bit about it,
Speaker 2: I knew that this was a case that needed to
Speaker 2: be told, that people needed to remember.
Speaker 1: That's Jerry Williams. She worked for the FBI for over
Speaker 1: two decades, first as an agent and then as a spokesperson.
Speaker 1: Now she's the host of a podcast called FBI Retired
Speaker 1: Case File Review. Jerry's interviewed hundreds of FBI agents about
Speaker 1: cases they've worked. She's actually the person who first tipped
Speaker 1: me off about this story that we told in season
Speaker 1: four of Deep Cover. When it was done, I called
Speaker 1: Jerry up to discuss this case. I wanted to know
Speaker 1: what drew her to it in the first place, and
Speaker 1: also get her impressions of what we'd put together for
Speaker 1: the Nameless Man. Later in this episode, you'll hear from
Speaker 1: Beth Wilson Devlyn. She's a jury consultant. Her job is
Speaker 1: all about understanding the psychology of jurors, and she had
Speaker 1: some interesting takeaways about the split verdict that the jury
Speaker 1: reached in this case. But first, here's my conversation with Jerry.
Speaker 2: I love telling these stories, and I would love all
Speaker 2: of them to become a podcast series, a documentary, a
Speaker 2: TV show.
Speaker 1: Well, that's one of the things I love about you, Jerry.
Speaker 1: It seems like you really want the agents to get
Speaker 1: the recognition that they deserve for these cases. It seems
Speaker 1: like a driving force with you.
Speaker 2: It absolutely is. I just need to tell the true stories.
Speaker 1: Talk to me like, I want to get an understanding
Speaker 1: of you're an FBI agent and now you're a podcaster
Speaker 1: who's doing these I almost think of them as like
Speaker 1: oral histories because you're just letting the agents talk like
Speaker 1: how does this happen? How do you go from from
Speaker 1: carrying the badge to you know, carrying the mic.
Speaker 2: Well, it actually started before I retired, because my last
Speaker 2: four or five years in the FBI, I stepped away
Speaker 2: from investigations and became a full time spokesperson. But after
Speaker 2: I finished that job, I just wanted to continue telling
Speaker 2: the FBI story.
Speaker 1: You know, you got me from the very beginning. I mean,
Speaker 1: just to give listeners a little bit of a back story.
Speaker 1: I called Jerry, as I've done a few times, and asked, hey,
Speaker 1: do you have any ideas like what should be the
Speaker 1: basis for season four? And you said to me, Hey,
Speaker 1: there's this story involving an agent named Scott Duffy. If
Speaker 1: you could get the players to talk in the story,
Speaker 1: it could be something. And then I immediately went and started.
Speaker 1: I remember where I was. I was actually in New
Speaker 1: York City. I was walking around. It was a spring day,
Speaker 1: and I put my earphones in and I hit play.
Speaker 2: Where do you want to start?
Speaker 3: If I could share, I'd like to start with creating
Speaker 3: a picture for the audience. Imagine yourself as a senior
Speaker 3: at your prompt. Imagine wherever that may be, a hotel
Speaker 3: or some sort of venue, and picture yourself seventeen eighteen
Speaker 3: years old, enjoying the end years of your four years
Speaker 3: of high school. And the reason why I say that
Speaker 3: is because you'll see, as I talk about towards the
Speaker 3: end of this case, this is where a lot of
Speaker 3: our if you want to call it evidence or collaboration,
Speaker 3: bringing together witnesses who had never imagined after sitting at
Speaker 3: a prom table together, which was located at the DuPont Hotel,
Speaker 3: where eighteen years later, they would be confronted by an
Speaker 3: ATF agent and an FBI agent asking them what they
Speaker 3: remember and the conversations they might have had that night,
Speaker 3: the night of the prompt.
Speaker 1: This beginning really grabbed me because there's something about situating
Speaker 1: it in prom night that really helps help me understand
Speaker 1: just how young the alleged perpetrators of this crime were.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I just couldn't wrap my mind around high schools
Speaker 2: students being so bold as to brag about killing somebody
Speaker 2: only based on the color of its skin. It was frightening.
Speaker 2: It made me angry, It made me sad. This case
Speaker 2: just grabbed me from the very beginning. Definitely, in Scott
Speaker 2: telling this story, he just drew me in. And this
Speaker 2: is kind of corny to say, but I felt his heart.
Speaker 2: I felt his heart and how much he cared about
Speaker 2: this unknown black man that was shot in the streets
Speaker 2: of Philadelphia, and he drew me in. So it was
Speaker 2: not difficult at all. When you asked me, do I
Speaker 2: have a story that you might want to expand into
Speaker 2: a series? I knew exactly what I was going to
Speaker 2: ask you about. I needed to hear the whole story.
Speaker 1: When you originally get this interview with Scott and you
Speaker 1: think to yourself, Wow, I'd like to hear kind of
Speaker 1: I guess, more perspectives on this story, kind of different
Speaker 1: players involved. Who are the other people that you're thinking, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'd like to know what their deal is.
Speaker 2: Definitely the family when I'm talking to Scott, always, always
Speaker 2: right in the back of my mind is this nameless
Speaker 2: man and who he is and his family and what
Speaker 2: they're wondering and feeling. That was always present because you know,
Speaker 2: I'm thinking if that was my son or my brother
Speaker 2: or uncle, I would have always wanted to know what happened.
Speaker 2: The thing that really got to me, And of course
Speaker 2: Aaron Wood's mother had passed away before you did this,
Speaker 2: but I really, you know, it really got to me
Speaker 2: that she did have the opportunity to learn about what
Speaker 2: happened to her son, and that had to be something
Speaker 2: that helped her to know the truth behind that, because
Speaker 2: not knowing what happened to him, why he died, how
Speaker 2: he died what obviously was a hole in her life
Speaker 2: because it was so painful, she didn't want to speak
Speaker 2: about it, but she was able to find those answers
Speaker 2: through the trial. And that makes me feel good that,
Speaker 2: you know, an FBI agent, you know, and an ATF
Speaker 2: agent was able to do that for this woman that
Speaker 2: you know, they'd never met. That that really meant a
Speaker 2: lot to me too.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And it's interesting when I went down and interviewed
Speaker 1: them and realized that that they were in this question
Speaker 1: of their own to find the perpetrator who they didn't know.
Speaker 1: That's when I had this aha moment to call this
Speaker 1: series the Nameless Man, because I had talked to Scott
Speaker 1: and Terry and they were searching for this nameless man
Speaker 1: who is the victim, and they need the victim to
Speaker 1: make the case. And then there's this parallel story where
Speaker 1: the family had a nameless man of their own they
Speaker 1: were searching for, which is who killed their brother and
Speaker 1: their son.
Speaker 2: Wow. I never thought of that. Yeah, that is pretty cool.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, and it it felt like it took a
Speaker 1: little bit of the pressure off Scott and Terry. This
Speaker 1: wasn't just their story, it was also the story of
Speaker 1: the Wood family and their quest.
Speaker 2: The whole case just gives us hope, And I say,
Speaker 2: that when we talk about Craig Peterson, because his story
Speaker 2: about his background is also a kind of a story
Speaker 2: of self hate.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't you say, yeah, so let's talk about Craig because
Speaker 1: this was this was a shock to me. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'll just there's a bit of tabe you want to
Speaker 1: play here from Carmen Weinberger, who was thesis and Da
Speaker 1: and she when they're putting the case together, is meeting
Speaker 1: Craig for the first time.
Speaker 4: I looked at him and felt Peterson's a skinhead. He
Speaker 4: looks like he's mixed with black. I remember that he
Speaker 4: has an olive complexion that causes me to believe I'm biracial,
Speaker 4: So I pay attention to those things. I always thought
Speaker 4: he was mixed somewhere in there. I don't know if
Speaker 4: he was adopted. Maybe he didn't realize it, maybe he did,
Speaker 4: but I always thought, and to this day I can
Speaker 4: remember and see his faith. He looked like he could
Speaker 4: have been relative.
Speaker 1: What was your reaction when you heard that.
Speaker 2: Jerry Mine blowing. It's so sad to think that someone
Speaker 2: could be so confused about who they are and where
Speaker 2: they fit that they would choose to take a side
Speaker 2: where there is genuine hate and hostility to the other
Speaker 2: half of who they are. It's I did not know
Speaker 2: this when I interviewed Scott. That just never came up.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you know, sometimes you know how this goes,
Speaker 1: there's there's a kind of burning question that you feel
Speaker 1: that you didn't get to the bottom of. That's my
Speaker 1: that's my burning question with this series about this because
Speaker 1: if that is in fact true, if Craig is biracial,
Speaker 1: then the question of how he got involve this white
Speaker 1: supremacist group and then in fact went on to commit
Speaker 1: murder based on its ideology, it raises a million questions.
Speaker 1: So I'm hopeful that maybe Craig will somehow decide that
Speaker 1: he wants to talk. Just to be clear here, I
Speaker 1: never got Craig to go on the record and confirm
Speaker 1: for me whether or not he was biracial.
Speaker 2: Well, all I have to say is that when I
Speaker 2: suggested that you look into this case, I needed the
Speaker 2: answers that I wasn't able to get from just interviewing Scott,
Speaker 2: and you delivered. I mean you delivered. And if you
Speaker 2: could just now get that interview with Craig so we
Speaker 2: can find out more about him, then you would have
Speaker 2: hit it out of the park. So that's your challenge.
Speaker 2: I'm still hoping that Craig is going to have an
Speaker 2: opportunity to listen to this and to understand that we
Speaker 2: really do want to hear from him, not in a
Speaker 2: judgmental way, but in a way that again allows us
Speaker 2: to come full circle and to get understanding and hope
Speaker 2: that people who hate are able to recognize and resolve
Speaker 2: those feelings and move on to a better place. So
Speaker 2: Craig talk to Jake.
Speaker 1: After the break, I discussed the jury and their verdict
Speaker 1: with Beth Wilson Devlin.
Speaker 5: I listened to the whole thing. Actually, I thought it
Speaker 5: was very interesting.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's great. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'm not a.
Speaker 5: Podcast person either, so I thought it was very good.
Speaker 1: Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. You you now
Speaker 1: fall into the same class as my family members who
Speaker 1: I guilt into listening to my work. That's Beth Wilson Devlin.
Speaker 1: She's a partner at Edge Litigation Consulting. She's a jury
Speaker 1: consultant and admittedly not a podcast listener. But I reached
Speaker 1: out to Beth to discuss the verdict in this case.
Speaker 1: And if you recall back in two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: Thomas Guybison was found guilty on two counts conspiracy to
Speaker 1: commit murder and a weapon charge. He was acquitted on
Speaker 1: the murder and ethnic intimidation charges. The press at the
Speaker 1: time called this verdict quote bizarre. But I wanted Beth's
Speaker 1: take on all of this, and we started off talking
Speaker 1: about the process of how a jury is even chosen.
Speaker 1: In the first place. There's a jury selection process in
Speaker 1: which you're going through potential jurors and weeding some ow
Speaker 1: can you can you just talk us through that a
Speaker 1: little bit about how that works.
Speaker 5: That varies dramatically from venue to venue. Sometimes it's just
Speaker 5: the judge asking questions of the jurors. Sometimes you get
Speaker 5: an opportunity as a lawyer to be able to ask
Speaker 5: questions of the jurors. Sometimes you have information in the
Speaker 5: form of a questionnaire that jurors have that they either
Speaker 5: fill out at the time or they fill out in
Speaker 5: advance of the jury selection process. So there's lots of
Speaker 5: different ways that you can get information. But what that
Speaker 5: information is and how much you have is really depend
Speaker 5: dependent upon the venue. So one thing I will just say,
Speaker 5: because I did I listened to the podcasts and uh,
Speaker 5: you know, you talk about it as being a jury
Speaker 5: selection process, which is what a lot of people think
Speaker 5: it is because that's what it's called jury selection. But
Speaker 5: it's actually a de selection process. So you're not actually
Speaker 5: picking the jurors that are going to be on the
Speaker 5: panel that are going to decide the case. What you
Speaker 5: are doing is you are of a group of people.
Speaker 5: You have to decide who do I not want on
Speaker 5: this panel for one reason or another. You know, usually
Speaker 5: it's because you have a belief that this particular juror
Speaker 5: that you're going to strike off the panel is somebody
Speaker 5: who you know is not going to be open minded
Speaker 5: to your case.
Speaker 1: So if you're Roger King, the prosecutor in this case,
Speaker 1: who what are the types of jurors that you're looking
Speaker 1: to kind of weed out to maximize your chances of winning?
Speaker 5: Right? So I think about it like, okay, So for example,
Speaker 5: when I talk to my clients, I talk to that
Speaker 5: as basically you're looking at vampires. Right. So it's like
Speaker 5: you have a group of individuals and you have so
Speaker 5: many people that are going to be the ones that
Speaker 5: are just you know, your worst case scenario, and you
Speaker 5: want to try to identify who those individuals are, and
Speaker 5: you have so many wooden stakes that you can use, right,
Speaker 5: so what you want to be looking for in the
Speaker 5: case of the prosecution. I think they actually have the
Speaker 5: advantage in this case because most of the jurors in
Speaker 5: the pool are likely going to be in favor of
Speaker 5: the prosecution based on the information in the case. So
Speaker 5: if it were and I were advising the prosecution, I'd
Speaker 5: be looking for individuals who, for example, are what I
Speaker 5: would call critical thinkers. They're people who are, for example,
Speaker 5: they might be in professions where they're very very detail oriented,
Speaker 5: very evidence based, people like accountants, people like engineers, people
Speaker 5: like people who have science backgrounds, like, for example, the
Speaker 5: juror Bob, he was one. He's a perfect example of thing.
Speaker 1: You're saying this, and I'm like, you're describing Bob, who
Speaker 1: is who is not entirely convinced by the prosecution.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's exactly the kind of situation. And I think
Speaker 5: he was absolutely well intentioned and taking his job very
Speaker 5: very seriously. But that's an example of someone who is
Speaker 5: going to look he's not going to be satisfied by
Speaker 5: eyewitness testimony, by circumstantial evidence, like most jurors actually are
Speaker 5: in these sorts of situations. In these cases, most people
Speaker 5: are going to be satisfied by that, but someone like
Speaker 5: a Bob is going to be more interested in saying,
Speaker 5: I need to see the actual evidence in this case.
Speaker 5: I need to see the connection, the link between this
Speaker 5: piece of evidence and that piece of evidence.
Speaker 1: By that same logic, is the prosecution in this case
Speaker 1: I do looking for someone who's going to be motivated
Speaker 1: by the kind of emotionality of the case.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean I think so. Somebody like if the
Speaker 5: prosecution had the opportunity to say, who do I want
Speaker 5: on my jury, They're going to be looking for someone
Speaker 5: who is more emotionally, more sort of gut level. I
Speaker 5: have a gut reaction to the case, and I'm more
Speaker 5: likely to say I don't need you know, beyond a
Speaker 5: reasonable doubt, I have enough here to say if it
Speaker 5: looks like a duck and it walks like a duck,
Speaker 5: it must be a duck.
Speaker 1: Okay. I want to ask you about something else, which
Speaker 1: is kind of a sensitive question, but one that feels
Speaker 1: relevant and important, which is race. If you're coming into
Speaker 1: this this situation as Roger King, and if I'm the prosecution,
Speaker 1: and I ask you, and I'm saying, Beth, can I
Speaker 1: assume can I make assumptions based on race?
Speaker 5: Well, so a couple things. You can't strike based just
Speaker 5: on race. So there's something called a bats In challenge
Speaker 5: that if there is a pattern of one side or
Speaker 5: another doing something like that, then they can raise the
Speaker 5: bats In challenge because you can't strike just based on
Speaker 5: something like race. Gender is another example for bats In challenge.
Speaker 5: So you can't do that, but you can strike somebody
Speaker 5: who is of, you know, a particular race or ethnicity
Speaker 5: if you have other reasons for doing that. The way
Speaker 5: I think about it in this case is, you know, yes,
Speaker 5: there's certainly a racially motivated component to it, So to
Speaker 5: say that that isn't relevant would be ridiculous really, But
Speaker 5: I think what we're talking about is a situation where
Speaker 5: you're looking for people who, Okay, is this somebody who
Speaker 5: has experienced racial discrimination? Is this somebody who's experience being
Speaker 5: targeted because of the color of their skin, And so
Speaker 5: that's the sort of thing that you're looking for. So
Speaker 5: if I'm, for example, you know, advising for the defendant,
Speaker 5: I'd be concerned about people who have had experiences like that,
Speaker 5: who have had experiences where they've been targeted because of
Speaker 5: the color of their skin, because of their ethnicity, or
Speaker 5: racially targeted in some way. I'd be concerned about someone
Speaker 5: like that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you use the vampire analogy, which made me think,
Speaker 1: you know, what is it the vampire? You break out
Speaker 1: the garlick or the crucifix, and you know you've got
Speaker 1: a vampire. But some people may just wear their biases
Speaker 1: on their sleeve, but most of us are fairly adept
Speaker 1: at hiding, particularly viewpoints that we may rightly sense are
Speaker 1: going to be a liability. You're going to turn people off.
Speaker 1: So how do you ferret that out?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean that's a situation where the questionnaire is
Speaker 5: really the better way to go, because that's a situation
Speaker 5: where people are going to be much more candid if
Speaker 5: they don't have to look someone else in the eye,
Speaker 5: where there's a much more of a sense of being
Speaker 5: judged in that room.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we talked a little bit through Roger King
Speaker 1: and what he would want, and you kind of address this.
Speaker 1: But I want to ask you, if you're Mike Ferrell,
Speaker 1: the defense attorney, and you've got this client here, who
Speaker 1: is being accused of murder who at one point in
Speaker 1: his life was is a skinhead, and all the kind
Speaker 1: of baggage that brings with it. Who are the people
Speaker 1: that you want and don't want on the jury From
Speaker 1: the defense perspective.
Speaker 5: If I'm the defense in this case, I have a
Speaker 5: hard job because, as I said before, I think that
Speaker 5: if you look at the grand scheme of how many
Speaker 5: people like all the perspective jurors, most of them are
Speaker 5: likely going to be prosecution oriented in this sort of
Speaker 5: a case. So I'm going to be concerned about somebody
Speaker 5: who is, you know, very much pro law and order type.
Speaker 5: Somebody who you know is interested in, you know what
Speaker 5: the police say. They have very favorable viewpoints of the police.
Speaker 5: They trust the police, they trust you know, prosecutors, they
Speaker 5: think that they do a good job. That's the sort
Speaker 5: of thing where I'd be concerned about someone like that,
Speaker 5: somebody that I would like if I'm the defendant, I'd
Speaker 5: be interested in again the sort of the bobs, right,
Speaker 5: the people that are going to really hold the prosecution
Speaker 5: to a standard, to that beyond a reasonable doubt standard,
Speaker 5: who probably are going to be concerned with the idea
Speaker 5: of circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony, particularly when you're talking
Speaker 5: about eyewitness testimony that occurred you know, you know, years
Speaker 5: and years ago where memories fade as as you talked
Speaker 5: about in the podcast, that's exactly the kind of thing
Speaker 5: where some jurors are going to be really concerned about
Speaker 5: putting someone in prison for the rest of their life
Speaker 5: on that sort of evidence. I probably would also be
Speaker 5: interested in, you know, men who maybe don't hold super
Speaker 5: favorable views of women, who you know, have been scorned
Speaker 5: by women in the past, who have been you know,
Speaker 5: who have been betrayed, you know, by someone close to them,
Speaker 5: someone like that, who's going to somehow be able to
Speaker 5: make a personal connection to the defendant, skinhead or not skinhead.
Speaker 5: There could be lots of ways that someone can personally
Speaker 5: identify with a defendant who would be willing to fight
Speaker 5: for that defendant.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. But how do you that's like a very
Speaker 1: personal thing. How do you how would you suss that out?
Speaker 5: Yeah, so, I mean it kind of depends on the
Speaker 5: process again, right, So we go back to what kind
Speaker 5: of information are you likely to get. If you're not
Speaker 5: going to be able to ask the questions, then it
Speaker 5: doesn't really matter. You're not gonna be able to ssess
Speaker 5: that out. But if you have a situation where you
Speaker 5: could ask, you know, very point blank, if they've ever
Speaker 5: been betrayed by a close friend, or you know, a
Speaker 5: situation where you know they've ever been wrongly accused. Those
Speaker 5: are questions that you might be able to ask in
Speaker 5: the Vais deir process, and that juror, you know, will
Speaker 5: you know, they have to respond truthfully. That doesn't mean
Speaker 5: that they will, but just sometimes even their hesitations or
Speaker 5: the way they say things can help you understand how
Speaker 5: they're reacting and what they're likely to be thinking.
Speaker 1: These lawyers did have a chance to ask the jurors questions.
Speaker 1: I know that the defense lawyer asked, would you be
Speaker 1: able to suspend judgments about someone who said they were
Speaker 1: a skinhead? Is anyone policing those questions?
Speaker 5: So if the judge is there, then they're going to
Speaker 5: be the ones policing that. There could also be a
Speaker 5: magistrate there, so it's not the judge, but it's a
Speaker 5: magistrate that's doing that, somebody who's basically, you know, the
Speaker 5: umpire of those sorts of questions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because I'm thinking like you would you ask a juror, sir,
Speaker 1: have you been divorced?
Speaker 3: Sir?
Speaker 1: Has was it an acrimonious divorce where you had to
Speaker 1: fight over custody? And trying to get at that issue
Speaker 1: is is this someone who's going to kind of be
Speaker 1: you know, angry at women.
Speaker 5: Those are questions that could get at that, right you
Speaker 5: can start to make inferences from that, but that's farther
Speaker 5: removed from the actual question. So I might you know,
Speaker 5: if you're asking a more specific question that can help
Speaker 5: more pointedly get at the the idea that you're trying
Speaker 5: to get at, Like something like, you know, have you
Speaker 5: ever had girlfriends, you know, or people that you've dated
Speaker 5: just lie about you and and you know, make things up?
Speaker 5: And have you ever had a situation where you know
Speaker 5: they've you know, said things about you and and hurt
Speaker 5: your reputation you know, you know, in your community. So
Speaker 5: that's a situation where someone like who's had an experience
Speaker 5: like that, then they say yes, and then they start
Speaker 5: to kind of reveal some of the you know, the
Speaker 5: the inner workings of themselves, if you will.
Speaker 1: One of the limited exit interviews that has done at
Speaker 1: the time with a juror, the one thing that he
Speaker 1: said to the to the press was something of the
Speaker 1: effect of one of the ex girl friends was baddie
Speaker 1: and just fixating on, you know, emotionality and the personality
Speaker 1: of one of these ex girlfriends, which seemed like an
Speaker 1: odd thing to base a desire to quit on. But
Speaker 1: I'm hearing you.
Speaker 6: It's if that's resonating with you on a personal level,
Speaker 6: and you're the jur and you're thinking, oh, she reminds
Speaker 6: me of of this person in my life who was
Speaker 6: a nightmare and did these things to me and my god,
Speaker 6: like I can't take her word for anything, then you
Speaker 6: could quickly see how that like, because it's not all logic.
Speaker 5: Right, that's absolutely right. I mean, that's a situation where
Speaker 5: I so that one holdout dur I doubt he was
Speaker 5: a critical thinker, not like a Bob right you talked
Speaker 5: of the different camps in this situation. This guy was
Speaker 5: probably more likely someone who did personally identify with the defendant,
Speaker 5: maybe not necessarily from a you know, racism level, although
Speaker 5: that might have been there too. It sounded like this
Speaker 5: particular jur didn't want to talk and really kind of
Speaker 5: go into detail to sort of reveal his thinking. As
Speaker 5: to why he was so strongly for the defendant, and
Speaker 5: that can be an indicator of someone who you know,
Speaker 5: isn't a critical thinker, but rather as someone who's personally
Speaker 5: identified with the case, with a particular defendant and just
Speaker 5: no matter what, is going to stand by, you know,
Speaker 5: his position and doesn't want to be challenged. It doesn't
Speaker 5: want to get into the debate with other jurors, and
Speaker 5: that can be incredibly frustrating for the other jurors because
Speaker 5: they don't have anything to work with, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, when you talk about it that way and we
Speaker 1: think about it this way, it's funny because the idea
Speaker 1: of a trial by jury is such an underpinning of
Speaker 1: our sense of American democracy and in so many ways
Speaker 1: it feels.
Speaker 5: Like it's it's it's wonderful.
Speaker 6: And yet you can have a situation where in theory,
Speaker 6: some witness reminds him of his crazy ex girlfriend, and
Speaker 6: on that basis, he's the holdout that forces a decision,
Speaker 6: and when seen in that light, it seems like an
Speaker 6: absolutely crazy system.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, but I will say this, I mean,
Speaker 5: that's true, and we are all a product of our
Speaker 5: own you know, experiences and the world views that are
Speaker 5: formed from those experiences in the adagies and beliefs that
Speaker 5: we have. Everybody has them, no one is exempt from that.
Speaker 5: But I think the one thing about the jury system,
Speaker 5: I mean, I will say from my experience, I've been
Speaker 5: doing this for just a little over twenty five years now,
Speaker 5: and I would say that there's not one jury that
Speaker 5: I've ever encountered that wasn't well intentioned, that wasn't trying
Speaker 5: to do the right thing. I think what happens is
Speaker 5: sometimes you have these kind of little, you know, hiccups.
Speaker 5: And I don't mean to minimize the situation, because I
Speaker 5: think the verdict in this case was was tragic. I
Speaker 5: think that you know, people just buy and large would
Speaker 5: agree that this guy, even if there wasn't enough to
Speaker 5: link him to this particular murder, and I think arguably
Speaker 5: there was, there certainly was enough to suggest that he
Speaker 5: had gone and done something pretty bad, and you know
Speaker 5: that that he killed somebody. The question is is did
Speaker 5: they get the right one? So I think in that situation,
Speaker 5: I think that jurors, again they're well intentioned, they're trying
Speaker 5: to do the right thing, but there can be in
Speaker 5: those in some circumstances, particularly when you're talking about murder
Speaker 5: one where you're talking about taking away someone's liberty forever.
Speaker 5: You know, some jurors are going to be they're they're
Speaker 5: just more likely you're going to see that that element
Speaker 5: that comes out where jurors are going to be more
Speaker 5: like to say, look, I don't care what you say.
Speaker 5: I'm not changing my mind on this unless you give
Speaker 5: me a really good reason to and if I haven't
Speaker 5: heard it, I'm going to stand my ground. You know,
Speaker 5: in those sort of situations where the state are really high,
Speaker 5: you get jurors like that. It doesn't happen in every case,
Speaker 5: but again, you can have that, and that doesn't mean
Speaker 5: that it's a failure of the system at large. I
Speaker 5: think it's just that's one of the it's one of
Speaker 5: the flaws in our system. It's just the way the
Speaker 5: system is. It's an imperfect system.
Speaker 1: More in just a minute. One of the things that
Speaker 1: struck me, that surprised me, and I'm wondering how you
Speaker 1: reacted to it, which was that here we are, you know,
Speaker 1: fifteen years out, and when I talked to both Bob
Speaker 1: and to Nick, who is the foreman, I was really
Speaker 1: amazed at how I guess fresh and lasting the memories
Speaker 1: and the experience of this trial were for them. Wondering
Speaker 1: does that surprise you or do you think that that
Speaker 1: is typical of these experiences have such a lasting effect
Speaker 1: on the jurors who said to these trials.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a couple of things.
Speaker 5: Jurors were essentially felt, at least it seemed to me,
Speaker 5: felt very disappointed by the outcome. I mean, so that
Speaker 5: that sort of lasts with them. You know, it wasn't
Speaker 5: something that they wanted. They wanted to do it one way,
Speaker 5: and they didn't get that outcome, and so you know,
Speaker 5: I can see why it haunts them and why it
Speaker 5: sits with them to this day. I don't fault them.
Speaker 5: I get the sense that people feel like the jurors
Speaker 5: screwed up, they made a mistake, or they did something stupid.
Speaker 5: That's the easy way out. It's easy to say that jurors,
Speaker 5: you know, didn't get it right, and they didn't understand
Speaker 5: what they were doing. And how can you make any
Speaker 5: sense of this? I mean, as I look at what
Speaker 5: they did, it makes it actually made perfect sense to me.
Speaker 5: But if you listen to their rationale, it does make sense,
Speaker 5: there were a number of jurors in there who felt
Speaker 5: strongly that this did happen and that this man was
Speaker 5: murdered by this guy. But when pushed by or when
Speaker 5: questioned by some jers who were sort of hung up
Speaker 5: on this idea of not just a belief, but beyond
Speaker 5: a reasonable doubt belief and the fact that there really
Speaker 5: wasn't I mean, if you look at what the prosecution brought,
Speaker 5: you know, there wasn't really a connection between you know,
Speaker 5: what actually happened and this particular man. I mean, no one,
Speaker 5: at least my understanding, no one could actually identify that
Speaker 5: this was the man that was murdered by the defendant.
Speaker 5: And I mean, and remember that this case happened at
Speaker 5: a time when DNA evidence and physical evidence was something
Speaker 5: that was becoming very very forefront. You saw it all
Speaker 5: over the news. It was a big it was a
Speaker 5: big thing that was becoming a real thing for cases
Speaker 5: like this, and so you know, it's not too shocking
Speaker 5: to me that there were some jurors who said, you know,
Speaker 5: I'm not seeing that that physical evidence. That's where the
Speaker 5: jurors fall. So that's where the compromise happens, because that's
Speaker 5: the crack right.
Speaker 1: Well, so, I mean, if I'm hearing you're right, you're
Speaker 1: saying basically like the dury worked. Yeah.
Speaker 5: I mean again, I think that, you know, for conspiracy,
Speaker 5: it makes sense that they concluded what they concluded. I mean,
Speaker 5: the conspiracy charge doesn't require proof of an actual murder.
Speaker 5: It just requires proof that you know an individual and
Speaker 5: another individual or more than that, you know, decide this
Speaker 5: is what they were going to do and actually started
Speaker 5: to put that plan into motion. And I think that
Speaker 5: everybody could comfortably go there. I think when you're talking
Speaker 5: about the actual murder itself though, without something making that connection.
Speaker 5: And again, I think if you're asking me, or asking
Speaker 5: anyone any of the jurors, do you think that this
Speaker 5: is what happened? I think the answer to that is clear.
Speaker 5: Everybody would be unanimous on that. But if you're asking
Speaker 5: beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to prove that this
Speaker 5: is the guy that was murdered by that guy, I
Speaker 5: think that's a harder question without that physical evidence there
Speaker 5: to connect it.
Speaker 1: How common is it to have a compromise like this.
Speaker 1: I mean the papers at the time called it a
Speaker 1: bizarre split verdict, But this idea of juries. Kind of
Speaker 1: making a compromise in order to avoid a mistrial. Is
Speaker 1: this a pretty common thing?
Speaker 5: I mean, the mistrial, that's an uncommon thing. So I
Speaker 5: think that jurors certainly will want to do what they
Speaker 5: can do to get the right outcome. So if people
Speaker 5: believe that he did something bad and did something wrong,
Speaker 5: and they're convinced of that, you know, they're not going
Speaker 5: to want him to just get off scot free. Right.
Speaker 5: So this is a situation where the conspiracy, the evidence
Speaker 5: is solid on that, the weapons charge solid on that.
Speaker 5: You know, now at least we know that he can
Speaker 5: go away based on these charges.
Speaker 1: And the one hand, I hear you saying that you
Speaker 1: felt that the jury did their job and it kind
Speaker 1: of worked in this case. But earlier, at one point
Speaker 1: I heard you say that the verdict in this case
Speaker 1: was tragic, and I was just wondering what you meant
Speaker 1: by that.
Speaker 5: I think that if you didn't have a burden of
Speaker 5: proof and you just simply wanted to sit people down
Speaker 5: in a room and say, did this guy do it?
Speaker 5: I think that everybody would agree that he did. That's
Speaker 5: the tragic part of it is that I know that
Speaker 5: the family was looking for justice. They believe with all
Speaker 5: their hearts that this is the guy that did it,
Speaker 5: and in all likelihood he was that guy. The problem
Speaker 5: is is that there's that burden of proof, and there
Speaker 5: are some jurors who will hold to that standard. And
Speaker 5: so I don't think even if people believe strongly that
Speaker 5: that's the case, if they don't have beyond a reasonable
Speaker 5: doubt in this case, some of those jurors are going
Speaker 5: to say, that's good enough for me to say that
Speaker 5: I'm not going to convict someone and put them away
Speaker 5: for the rest of their life. I mean, I feel
Speaker 5: like the jury in one sense was honorable in the
Speaker 5: sense that they were not willing to hang and put
Speaker 5: potentially not allow any consequence to be met to the defendant,
Speaker 5: because you know that could have been what they did.
Speaker 5: They could have hung on murder one. But you know
Speaker 5: that if that was not going to get them to
Speaker 5: a conviction on a particular on anything, then you know,
Speaker 5: in a sense, that's better than not getting anything at all.
Speaker 5: I mean, to me, the bigger travesty would have been
Speaker 5: that this guy walks away scott free. That would have
Speaker 5: been a huge travesty.
Speaker 1: Well, well, thank you so much for chatting with me,
Speaker 1: and I'll be calling you when I get called for
Speaker 1: my next jury.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, I will be happy to talk.
Speaker 1: This episode was produced by Amy Gains McQuaid. Our editor
Speaker 1: is Karen Chakerjee. Our executive producer is Jacob Smith. Our
Speaker 1: show art was designed by Sean Carney. Original scoring and
Speaker 1: our theme was composed by Luis Gara. This episode was
Speaker 1: mass sired by Sarah Bruguier. Special thanks to Sarah Nix
Speaker 1: and Greta Cone. I'm Jake Calpert.