Speaker 1: Push him. I'm lydigen Kott. It's the evening of November first,
Speaker 1: and today we had closing arguments. The prosecutor, Nicholas Rose,
Speaker 1: started by saying that Sam Bankman Freed used customer funds,
Speaker 1: that he knew it was wrong, and that he thought
Speaker 1: he could get away with it because he was smart.
Speaker 1: That ends with you, Rose told the members of the jury.
Speaker 1: Mark Cohen, Sam Bankman Freed's defense attorney, also focused on
Speaker 1: Sam's intent. He reminded the jury that quote good faith
Speaker 1: is a complete defense against all the charges, and he
Speaker 1: also cast out on the testimony of the cooperating witnesses
Speaker 1: if they were all in a criminal conspiracy together. He
Speaker 1: asked how come they all found out that Alanma was
Speaker 1: using customer funds at different times in different ways. As
Speaker 1: Cohen was finishing up, I noticed that for the first
Speaker 1: time in a while, Sam Bankman Freed wasn't typing on
Speaker 1: his laptop, and I could see his face. It looked
Speaker 1: like he was looking behind him a little bit, maybe
Speaker 1: towards his parents, and he was blinking rapidly like he
Speaker 1: was crying. So now we're in the next phase of
Speaker 1: the trial. A rebuttal from the prosecution, and then the
Speaker 1: judge will instruct the jury and then the jury is
Speaker 1: going to go off and begin deliberations. Though the rest
Speaker 1: of the trial happens in public. For deliberations, the twelve
Speaker 1: members of the jury will file into a back room
Speaker 1: away from the reporters and even the judge. I wanted
Speaker 1: to know more about what goes on in that room,
Speaker 1: So a week or so ago I called up Ellan Leggett.
Speaker 1: You might remember her from one of our first episodes.
Speaker 1: She's a trial consultant and a psychologist, and she specializes
Speaker 1: in helping lawyers select juries in cases. Ellen, welcome back
Speaker 1: to the show.
Speaker 2: Thank you well, Jake, glad to be here.
Speaker 1: What I want to know about is what happens during
Speaker 1: jury deliberations. So what I know is that the jury
Speaker 1: leaves the courtroom and then I think they go to
Speaker 1: another room and then what happens? What are they doing there?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's behind closed doors and no one gets to
Speaker 2: really be a fly on the wall and there, although
Speaker 2: we all wish we could be. My ability to see
Speaker 2: what goes on in that room is because I've done
Speaker 2: many many mock trials when seen jurors deliberate in mock settings.
Speaker 2: And I've also talked to many jurors after they've deliberated,
Speaker 2: and I've interviewed them extensively about what happened in the
Speaker 2: jury room. So what do they do? Well, Interestingly, one
Speaker 2: of the first things that they do is elect a
Speaker 2: four person and the process for that is interesting because
Speaker 2: there has been a bond developed during the time that
Speaker 2: these jurors have all been sitting together and having lunch
Speaker 2: together and taking breaks together. And someone has usually emerged
Speaker 2: as the person to recommend where they go to lunch
Speaker 2: that day or something, you know, but that person they
Speaker 2: might turn to as someone that could be the jury
Speaker 2: for person, and yet someone else may have really strong
Speaker 2: opinions and want to insert themselves as a candidate. But
Speaker 2: as they first get settled in, they are for the
Speaker 2: first time able to talk freely with each other, and
Speaker 2: there's kind of a breath of you know, taking a
Speaker 2: deep breath and saying, wow, what have we been through here?
Speaker 2: This has been something.
Speaker 1: Because up until now they haven't been allowed to talk
Speaker 1: about the case, not each other, not at all.
Speaker 2: And many people ask do I think jurors really maintain
Speaker 2: that distance? And I believe for the most part, jurors do,
Speaker 2: especially in a high profile case like this. They don't
Speaker 2: want to do anything that could create a mistrial or
Speaker 2: upset the apple cart when there has been so much
Speaker 2: publicity and so much time invested in this trial.
Speaker 1: So they're in this room, they vote for a four person.
Speaker 1: There's twelve of them, so what if it's a tie.
Speaker 2: There's no rule for how they pick a four person,
Speaker 2: and they sometimes will do a secret ballot and sometimes
Speaker 2: just somebody volunteers. Often it's a person who may have
Speaker 2: some expertise that everyone thinks, oh, you'll be the best
Speaker 2: four person. You've been a juror five times before, or
Speaker 2: you've had experience in banking or something that might yeah. Seen.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you say that, because, yeah, on this jury
Speaker 1: there's one person who has they used to work for
Speaker 1: Solomon Brothers. He has some experience in finance. So do
Speaker 1: you think there's no way to tell but he seems
Speaker 1: like he could.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it could be that jurors feel that they would
Speaker 2: have more trust someone that seems like they've got some
Speaker 2: industry experience or insight. So that could very well be
Speaker 2: instead of the person who's picked. Where they go to
Speaker 2: lunch every day.
Speaker 1: And then what happens they have their for a person,
Speaker 1: do they get all the transcripts?
Speaker 2: There will be boxes of exhibits in the room, no doubt,
Speaker 2: although electronic records are also available to them sometimes, but
Speaker 2: they have the ability to ask for anything that they
Speaker 2: want to see. But quite honestly, they will start by
Speaker 2: generally reading the first question on the verdict form if
Speaker 2: they're a good jury form, and they'll read the entire
Speaker 2: verdict form again. And what often happens, even though we think, oh,
Speaker 2: they're going to take their time, they often just take
Speaker 2: a show of hands right away. How many people think
Speaker 2: he's guilty? They do that in spite of the fact
Speaker 2: that they know they've got to answer all these questions
Speaker 2: on a verdict form. But they like often four persons
Speaker 2: want to take the temperature of the room, and this
Speaker 2: is the first time they will have an indication of
Speaker 2: how the people they've been with for all these weeks
Speaker 2: really thinks. So it's often a surprise when they do
Speaker 2: their very first show of hands vote. Sometimes it's surprise
Speaker 2: that people who perceive themselves to be friendly suddenly see
Speaker 2: that they're on opposite sides of the case. And dynamics
Speaker 2: within this group can change a lot, so I would
Speaker 2: predict that one of the first things they will do
Speaker 2: after they get a four person is probably take a
Speaker 2: show of hands vote how many people think he's guilty.
Speaker 1: If they all think he's guilty, are they done?
Speaker 2: Oh? Yeah, they think they might be, But no, they
Speaker 2: have questions. There are seven counts here, so they will
Speaker 2: need to go through each count and take a vote
Speaker 2: and eat one, and a good foreman will make sure
Speaker 2: that there is discussion about each one. And again I'm
Speaker 2: thinking that because this is such a high profile case,
Speaker 2: they will want to discuss, and the jury foreman will
Speaker 2: want to have people discuss, so that even if they
Speaker 2: were able to go through all seven questions right away
Speaker 2: and take votes right away, if they didn't discuss anything,
Speaker 2: I doubt they would feel good about their verdict because
Speaker 2: in my experienced, jurors want to do the right thing,
Speaker 2: especially on a case that's important. They're going to want
Speaker 2: to have the perception that they have worked hard and
Speaker 2: that they have done a good job judging.
Speaker 1: Sam will be right back. We're back. I wanted to
Speaker 1: talk to you about this jury specifically because now we
Speaker 1: know some things about them. Nine of the twelve are women.
Speaker 1: The oldest member of the jury is sixty nine and
Speaker 1: the youngest is thirty three, and the average age is
Speaker 1: about fifty one. What do you think about just that
Speaker 1: basic demographic data.
Speaker 2: I think that having the women is interesting because women
Speaker 2: are often stereotypically the more sympathetic to defendants. You know,
Speaker 2: that might have been something that the defense was trying
Speaker 2: to play towards. Women may also have less interest generally
Speaker 2: in this kind of investing, and maybe they were all
Speaker 2: thinking that women will bring less baggage to this case,
Speaker 2: which would explain why you know, a more majority of
Speaker 2: the jurors are women.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's interesting though, because after Caroline Allison testified, I
Speaker 1: overheard a lot of reporters saying, wow, Sam Magmond, Fred
Speaker 1: really reminds me of a bad boyfriend that I had.
Speaker 1: I wonder, Yeah, it seems like it could play the
Speaker 1: other way as well. Do you want to hear a
Speaker 1: little bit about some of their jobs. Yeah, we have
Speaker 1: a physician assistant who's pregnant. We have a nurse, a
Speaker 1: social worker, someone who used to work in nonprofits, a
Speaker 1: Metro North train conductor, a high school librarian, a corrections officer,
Speaker 1: postal service employee, someone from Ukraine who did it at Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: A special education teacher and the retired investment banker.
Speaker 2: Very interesting. So a lot of people in the medical
Speaker 2: and nonprofit area, which again is kind of I actually
Speaker 2: would have predicted that because they are so far removed
Speaker 2: from the type of content that this case is about.
Speaker 2: The postal worker and the metro train operator. Those are
Speaker 2: pretty typical folks on juris in criminal cases because they
Speaker 2: get to serve on long juries and get paid for
Speaker 2: their jury service.
Speaker 1: Those people and retired.
Speaker 2: People and retired people, Yeah, exactly. A special ed person
Speaker 2: is kind of interesting because certainly there have been many
Speaker 2: characterizations of Sam bankmin Freed as being somewhat off center
Speaker 2: in his style, whether it's emotionally, cognitively, interpersonally. So a
Speaker 2: special ed teacher may have a broader range of accepted
Speaker 2: behaviors and could be someone who would bring that to
Speaker 2: the jury in a way that could be helpful to him.
Speaker 1: I'm curious, as someone who has, you know, experienced with
Speaker 1: lots of different trials, do you have any sort of
Speaker 1: guess for how long we deliberations might last.
Speaker 2: I've played this through a couple of different ways. I
Speaker 2: think that as I've said, I don't think they will
Speaker 2: want to be forming a quick verdict and rendering it.
Speaker 2: There are seven counts. They will do a good job.
Speaker 2: They will take I think the better part of a
Speaker 2: day or two.
Speaker 1: The other thing I was wondering about is this case
Speaker 1: has a lot of different layers to it, right. It
Speaker 1: has a technical layer to it where we've talked a
Speaker 1: lot about, you know, how exactly trading works, where different
Speaker 1: money was and how it was held. And then it
Speaker 1: also has an interpersonal aspect to it about Sam Magmnfreed's
Speaker 1: relationship with his friends who worked at the company with
Speaker 1: his ex girlfriend. I mean, I know this is a
Speaker 1: hard question, but what do you think is most important
Speaker 1: to the jurors or what do you think that they're
Speaker 1: thinking about when they're in the in the jury room.
Speaker 2: I think they're trying to determine who told the truth,
Speaker 2: and therefore the relationships that all these people had with
Speaker 2: Sam megmun Freed becomes very relevant and their testimony is significant.
Speaker 2: So I think they're thinking, given these folks that knew
Speaker 2: him well, that knew him not just in this professional
Speaker 2: role but also in college in high school, what were
Speaker 2: their relationships and how believable was their testimony. I think
Speaker 2: they will be thinking a lot about intent, and that's
Speaker 2: a psychological variable. Really, it's not a technical one to
Speaker 2: determine intent. They're talking about what did he say, what
Speaker 2: did he do, who did he intend to harm, if anyone?
Speaker 2: And that's really trying to get inside his psychology, not
Speaker 2: inside the technology here.
Speaker 1: And what impact do you think it'll have that he
Speaker 1: actually took the stand, which is really rare in criminal cases.
Speaker 2: Very rare, and yet someone who is as oblivious to
Speaker 2: truth as he is, it lives on making a judgment there.
Speaker 2: But that's really how it has come across. Even Carolin
Speaker 2: Allison had said he seemed to have very little attachment
Speaker 2: to the mores that most people have and that she
Speaker 2: learned how to lie better by being in that environment.
Speaker 2: It was a culture.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you're saying that the fact that this idea
Speaker 1: has been kind of seated by the prosecution that he's
Speaker 1: not the most trustworthy person, is going to make the
Speaker 1: fact that he took the stand maybe not make that
Speaker 1: much of a difference to the jury when they're deliberating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that it will be definitely it will
Speaker 2: be talked about, and I know Michael had said he
Speaker 2: predicted jurors would feel different about him after they've heard
Speaker 2: him talk. That may very well be true. But will
Speaker 2: they feel different enough to overcome what appears to have
Speaker 2: been a very strong prosecution case with very convincing insider witnesses.
Speaker 1: And what happens if the jury isn't able to reach
Speaker 1: a decision.
Speaker 2: That is what everyone worries about, that the jury cannot
Speaker 2: be unanimous. Actually, who worries about that most the prosecution,
Speaker 2: because if the jury is not unanimous, Sam Megmanfried is
Speaker 2: not convicted, and that is a win for the defense.
Speaker 2: If they're not unanimous, one question that is interesting to
Speaker 2: think about is what do they do and what are
Speaker 2: the signs that they may not be unanimous? And I've
Speaker 2: said that they could take a day, if not longer,
Speaker 2: even if they are unanimous, because they're going through everything
Speaker 2: that they can. This is a case where they could
Speaker 2: be competed if they were to be on opposite sides.
Speaker 2: I think because there is so much at stake for
Speaker 2: him as a defendant. There's so much loss that was
Speaker 2: suffered by so many people. There are so many high
Speaker 2: profile individuals in the world that were taken in by
Speaker 2: him that I think all of that could create passion
Speaker 2: on both sides if there were a division of opinion.
Speaker 2: How they work it out. Often they may send out
Speaker 2: questions to the judge that they may want to see
Speaker 2: video deposition played again. They could also be wanting to
Speaker 2: see exhibits that maybe they can't find. They can ask
Speaker 2: specific questions about interpretation of instructions and the law. And
Speaker 2: whenever they send out a question, the judge will call
Speaker 2: the lawyers into the courtroom and they will have a
Speaker 2: conference about what the jury question is. They will discuss it,
Speaker 2: how they should handle it, how they should answer it,
Speaker 2: and the judge will decide how to answer it, and
Speaker 2: they will send an answer back in. But because they
Speaker 2: have different charges, they have to reach a verdict on
Speaker 2: each question. And they may be unanimous on question one,
Speaker 2: but then question two they're not unanimous, and they keep discussing,
Speaker 2: and they may say, you know what, let's skip this
Speaker 2: one and let's go to the next one. And they
Speaker 2: will make their way through the questions and then sort
Speaker 2: of see where it all nets out and go back
Speaker 2: to the ones that they maybe weren't unanimous on at
Speaker 2: the beginning.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in a minute with one last thing. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're back Ellen. I was told that there is this
Speaker 1: belief that when the jurors come back from deliberations, if
Speaker 1: they look at the judge, that means that they're going
Speaker 1: to convict, and if they look at the defendant, that
Speaker 1: means that they're going to acquit. Do you think they're
Speaker 1: any truth to that.
Speaker 2: I'm going to say no, I'm not a believer in
Speaker 2: that urban myth. I'm actually not too much of a
Speaker 2: believer that you can tell much from the jurors facial
Speaker 2: expressions ever in court. And the reason for that, although
Speaker 2: I love to watch the jurors in court like anyone else,
Speaker 2: but jurors know that they're in a fishbowl and that
Speaker 2: everyone is observing them, and they can deliberately put on
Speaker 2: a neutral face and agree before they walk into the
Speaker 2: courtroom let's not look at the defendant no matter what.
Speaker 2: And they can have little packs like that that are
Speaker 2: protecting them from the scrutiny that they feel they are under.
Speaker 2: So I wouldn't put a lot of stock in where
Speaker 2: they look when they walk out. And by the way,
Speaker 2: I know there was one other thing I wanted to mention.
Speaker 2: You had said at one point early on, you felt
Speaker 2: like sitting in the courtroom was like sitting in a
Speaker 2: church pew, very formal and so forth. And the jurors
Speaker 2: don't think that they think that this is their living room.
Speaker 2: They have been sitting in that courtroom for weeks and
Speaker 2: they're very familiar. Jury Service imposes upon them rules that
Speaker 2: are so different from their normal habits. They've been given
Speaker 2: permission to take a vacation from our sabbatical from their job.
Speaker 2: Jurors can sometimes find this experience to be very empowering,
Speaker 2: and by having that time away from their normal lives,
Speaker 2: it can change relationships with spouses, it can change relationships
Speaker 2: with jobs. And I've also had jurors decide they want
Speaker 2: to go to law school they've been so inspired by
Speaker 2: the process. So yes, many of the relationships can endure
Speaker 2: among the jurors. They may have a celebratory reunion after
Speaker 2: being through the trial together. Not always.
Speaker 1: Sometimes that's fascinating. So yeah, this trial has you know,
Speaker 1: it of course have a huge impact on sam maankman
Speaker 1: Fried's life, but also to some degree, it'll have a
Speaker 1: huge impact on the lives of the twelve men and
Speaker 1: women who are on the jury. Absolutely Ellan Leggett. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: You're very welcome.
Speaker 3: We'll be back in your feed soon with more expert
Speaker 3: analysis and news from Sam bankman Fried's trial. Thanks for listening.
Speaker 3: This episode of Judging Sam was hosted by Lydia jan Kott.
Speaker 3: Lydia Jancott is our court reporter. Katherine Girardeau and Nisha
Speaker 3: Venken produced this show. Sophie Crane is our editor. Our
Speaker 3: music was composed by Matthias Bossi and John Evans of
Speaker 3: stell Wagon Symphonette. Judging Sam is a production of Pushkin Industries.
Speaker 3: Got a question or comment for me, There's a website
Speaker 3: for that atr podcast dot com. That's atr podcast dot com.
Speaker 3: To find more Pushkin podcasts, listen on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 3: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your podcasts. If
Speaker 3: you'd like to access bonus episodes and listen ad free,
Speaker 3: don't forget to sign up for a Pushkin Plus subscription
Speaker 3: at pushkin dot fm, slash Plus, or on our Apple
Speaker 3: show page.