0:15

Pushkin.

0:20

When Scott told me about this case,

0:24

I just knew that we needed

0:26

to highlight it, that we needed to share it.

0:28

Because even before I knew all the details,

0:31

even before I went down the rabbit hole, because

0:34

I'm a person always going down the rabbit

0:36

hole, pulling up news articles and

0:39

videos or whatever I can find about FBI

0:41

cases, even just hearing

0:43

just a little bit about it, I knew

0:46

that this was a case that needed

0:48

to be told, that

0:51

people needed to remember.

0:53

That's Jerry Williams. She worked

0:56

for the FBI for over two decades,

0:58

first as an agent and then as a spokesperson.

1:02

Now she's the host of a podcast called

1:05

FBI Retired Case File Review.

1:08

Jerry's interviewed hundreds of FBI

1:10

agents about cases they've worked. She's

1:12

actually the person who first tipped me off

1:14

about this story that we told in season

1:17

four of Deep Cover. When it was

1:19

done, I called Jerry up to discuss

1:21

this case. I wanted to know what

1:23

drew her to it in the first place, and also

1:26

get her impressions of what we'd put together

1:28

for the Nameless Man. Later

1:30

in this episode, you'll hear from Beth Wilson

1:33

Devlyn. She's a jury consultant.

1:35

Her job is all about understanding the

1:37

psychology of jurors, and she

1:39

had some interesting takeaways about the split

1:42

verdict that the jury reached in this case.

1:45

But first, here's my conversation

1:47

with Jerry.

1:54

I love telling these stories, and

1:57

I would love all of them to become

1:59

a podcast series, a documentary,

2:02

a TV show.

2:03

Well, that's one of the things I love about you, Jerry. It

2:05

seems like you really want the agents to get

2:08

the recognition that they deserve

2:10

for these cases. It seems like a driving force

2:12

with you.

2:13

It absolutely is. I

2:15

just need to tell the true stories.

2:18

Talk to me like, I want to get an understanding

2:21

of you're an FBI agent

2:25

and now you're a podcaster who's doing

2:27

these I almost think of them as like oral

2:29

histories because you're just letting the agents talk

2:31

like how does this happen? How do you go from

2:35

from carrying the badge to you know, carrying

2:37

the mic.

2:38

Well, it actually started before I

2:40

retired, because my last

2:42

four or five years in the FBI, I

2:45

stepped away from investigations and

2:48

became a full time

2:51

spokesperson. But after I

2:54

finished that job, I just wanted

2:56

to continue telling

2:59

the FBI story.

3:00

You know, you got me from the very beginning.

3:02

I mean, just to give listeners a little

3:04

bit of a back story. I called Jerry, as I've

3:06

done a few times, and

3:09

asked, hey, do you have any

3:11

ideas like what should be the basis for season

3:13

four? And you said to

3:15

me, Hey, there's this story

3:17

involving an agent named Scott Duffy. If

3:20

you could get the

3:22

players to talk in the story, it could be something.

3:26

And then I immediately

3:29

went and started. I remember where I was. I was actually

3:31

in New York City. I was walking around. It was a spring

3:33

day, and I put my earphones in and I hit

3:36

play.

3:38

Where do you want to start?

3:40

If I could share, I'd like to start with

3:42

creating a picture for the audience. Imagine

3:45

yourself as a senior

3:48

at your prompt. Imagine wherever

3:50

that may be, a hotel or some

3:52

sort of venue, and picture

3:55

yourself seventeen eighteen

3:57

years old, enjoying

4:00

the end years of your four years

4:02

of high school. And the reason why I say

4:04

that is because you'll see, as

4:07

I talk about towards the end of this case,

4:10

this is where a lot

4:12

of our if

4:14

you want to call it evidence or collaboration,

4:18

bringing together witnesses who had

4:20

never imagined after sitting

4:22

at a prom table together, which

4:24

was located at the DuPont Hotel, where

4:28

eighteen years later, they

4:30

would be confronted by an ATF agent

4:33

and an FBI agent asking

4:36

them what they remember

4:38

and the conversations they might have had

4:41

that night, the night of the prompt.

4:44

This beginning really grabbed me because

4:48

there's something about situating it in prom night

4:51

that really helps help me

4:54

understand just how young the

4:58

alleged perpetrators of this crime

5:00

were.

5:01

Absolutely, I just couldn't

5:05

wrap my mind around

5:08

high schools students being

5:11

so bold as to brag

5:14

about killing somebody only

5:18

based on the color of its skin. It

5:20

was frightening. It made me angry,

5:23

It made me sad.

5:25

This case just grabbed

5:28

me from the very beginning. Definitely,

5:30

in Scott telling this story,

5:34

he just drew me in. And

5:36

this is kind of corny to say, but I

5:38

felt his heart. I felt his heart

5:42

and how much he cared

5:44

about this unknown

5:47

black man that was

5:49

shot in the streets of Philadelphia, and

5:53

he drew me in. So it was

5:55

not difficult at all. When you

5:57

asked me, do I have a story

6:00

that you might want to

6:02

expand into a series? I knew

6:05

exactly what I was going to ask

6:07

you about. I needed to hear the

6:09

whole story.

6:10

When you originally get this interview with Scott

6:13

and you think to yourself, Wow,

6:16

I'd like to hear kind of I guess,

6:18

more perspectives on this story, kind of different

6:21

players involved. Who are the other people

6:23

that you're thinking, Yeah, I'd

6:25

like to know what their deal is.

6:27

Definitely the family when I'm

6:29

talking to Scott, always,

6:32

always right in the

6:34

back of my mind is this

6:37

nameless man and who he

6:40

is and his family and

6:43

what they're wondering and feeling.

6:46

That was always present because

6:49

you know, I'm thinking if that was my son

6:52

or my brother or

6:54

uncle, I would have always

6:56

wanted to know what happened. The

6:59

thing that really got to me, And of course

7:02

Aaron Wood's mother had passed

7:04

away before you did this, but I

7:07

really, you

7:10

know, it really got to

7:12

me that she did have the opportunity

7:15

to learn about what happened to

7:17

her son, and that

7:20

had to be something that

7:22

helped her to know the

7:25

truth behind that, because not

7:28

knowing what happened to him, why he died,

7:30

how he died what

7:32

obviously was a hole in her life because

7:35

it was so painful, she didn't want to

7:37

speak about it, but she

7:40

was able to find those answers through

7:43

the trial. And

7:46

that makes me feel good that, you know,

7:48

an FBI agent, you

7:51

know, and an ATF agent was

7:53

able to do that for this woman that

7:55

you know, they'd never met. That that really

7:57

meant a lot to me too.

7:59

Yeah, And it's interesting when I went down and

8:01

interviewed them and

8:04

realized that that they

8:07

were in this question of their

8:09

own to find the perpetrator who

8:11

they didn't know. That's when

8:13

I had this aha moment to

8:16

call this series the Nameless

8:18

Man, because I had talked to Scott

8:21

and Terry and they were searching for this nameless

8:23

man who is the victim, and they need the victim

8:25

to make the case. And then there's this parallel

8:28

story where the family had

8:30

a nameless man of their own they were searching for,

8:32

which is who killed their brother and

8:34

their son.

8:35

Wow. I never thought of that.

8:38

Yeah, that is pretty cool.

8:39

Yeah, yeah, and it it

8:41

felt like it took a little bit of the pressure off Scott

8:44

and Terry. This wasn't just their

8:46

story, it was also the story

8:48

of the Wood family and their quest.

8:51

The whole case just

8:55

gives us hope,

8:57

And I say, that when

9:00

we talk about Craig

9:03

Peterson, because his story

9:05

about his background is also

9:08

a kind of a story of self

9:10

hate.

9:11

Wouldn't you say, yeah, so let's talk about

9:13

Craig because this was this

9:16

was a shock to me. In

9:18

fact, I'll just there's

9:20

a bit of tabe you want to play here from Carmen

9:22

Weinberger, who was thesis and Da

9:24

and she when they're putting

9:26

the case together, is meeting

9:29

Craig for the first time.

9:32

I looked at him and felt

9:35

Peterson's a skinhead. He looks like he's

9:37

mixed with black. I

9:40

remember that he has

9:42

an olive complexion that

9:47

causes me to believe I'm biracial,

9:50

So I pay attention to those

9:52

things. I

9:56

always thought he was mixed somewhere

9:58

in there. I don't know if he was adopted.

10:01

Maybe he didn't realize it, maybe he did,

10:04

but I always thought, and to

10:06

this day I can remember and

10:10

see his faith. He looked like he

10:12

could have been relative.

10:14

What was your reaction when you heard that.

10:16

Jerry Mine blowing.

10:20

It's so sad to think that someone

10:22

could be so confused

10:25

about who they are and where they

10:28

fit that they would choose

10:30

to take a side where

10:33

there is genuine hate

10:35

and hostility to the

10:38

other half of who they are. It's

10:42

I did not know this when I interviewed

10:44

Scott. That just never came up.

10:47

Yeah, I mean, you know, sometimes you know how this

10:49

goes, there's

10:52

there's a kind of burning question that you

10:54

feel that you didn't get to

10:56

the bottom of. That's my that's

10:58

my burning question with this series about

11:00

this because if that is in fact

11:03

true, if Craig is biracial,

11:05

then the question of how

11:08

he got involve this white

11:10

supremacist group and then in fact went on to commit

11:13

murder based on its ideology, it

11:15

raises a million questions. So I'm

11:18

hopeful that maybe Craig will somehow

11:20

decide that he wants to talk. Just to

11:22

be clear here, I never got

11:24

Craig to go on the record and confirm

11:27

for me whether or not he was biracial.

11:30

Well, all I have to say is that when

11:32

I suggested that you look

11:36

into this case, I

11:38

needed the answers

11:41

that I wasn't able to get from just interviewing

11:43

Scott, and you delivered. I

11:46

mean you delivered. And

11:50

if you could just now get that interview

11:52

with Craig so we can find out

11:54

more about him, then

11:58

you would have hit it out of the park. So that's

12:01

your challenge. I'm still hoping that

12:03

Craig is going to have an opportunity to

12:05

listen to this and to understand

12:08

that we really do want

12:10

to hear from him, not in

12:13

a judgmental way, but

12:15

in a way that again allows

12:17

us to come full circle and

12:19

to get understanding and

12:22

hope that people

12:25

who hate are

12:27

able to recognize and resolve

12:30

those feelings and

12:33

move on to a better

12:35

place. So Craig talk

12:39

to Jake.

12:42

After the break, I discussed the jury

12:44

and their verdict with Beth Wilson

12:46

Devlin.

12:56

I listened to the whole thing. Actually, I thought it was very

12:58

interesting.

12:59

Wow, that's great.

13:01

Yeah.

13:02

I'm not a.

13:02

Podcast person either, so I thought it was

13:04

very good.

13:06

Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah.

13:08

You you now fall

13:11

into the same class as my family members

13:13

who I guilt into listening to my work.

13:16

That's Beth Wilson Devlin. She's

13:18

a partner at Edge Litigation Consulting.

13:21

She's a jury consultant and admittedly

13:24

not a podcast listener. But I

13:26

reached out to Beth to discuss the verdict

13:29

in this case. And if you recall

13:31

back in two thousand and eight, Thomas

13:34

Guybison was found guilty on two

13:36

counts conspiracy to commit murder

13:39

and a weapon charge. He was acquitted

13:41

on the murder and ethnic intimidation charges.

13:44

The press at the time called this verdict

13:47

quote bizarre. But I

13:49

wanted Beth's take on all of this, and

13:52

we started off talking about the process

13:55

of how a jury is even chosen. In the first

13:57

place. There's a

13:59

jury selection process in which you're

14:03

going through potential jurors and weeding

14:05

some ow can you can you just

14:07

talk us through that a little bit about how that works.

14:11

That varies dramatically from

14:13

venue to venue. Sometimes it's just the judge

14:16

asking questions of the jurors. Sometimes

14:19

you get an opportunity as a lawyer to be

14:21

able to ask questions of the jurors. Sometimes

14:23

you have information in the form of a questionnaire

14:26

that jurors have that they either fill out at

14:28

the time or they fill out in advance of the

14:31

jury selection process. So there's lots of different

14:33

ways that you can get information. But what that information

14:35

is and how much you have is really

14:37

depend dependent upon the venue. So

14:40

one thing I will just say, because

14:42

I did I listened to the podcasts and

14:45

uh, you know, you talk about it as being a jury

14:47

selection process, which is what a lot of people think it

14:49

is because that's what it's called jury selection. But

14:51

it's actually a de selection process. So

14:54

you're not actually picking the jurors

14:56

that are going to be on the panel that are going to

14:58

decide the case. What you are doing is

15:00

you are of a group of people. You

15:03

have to decide who do I not want

15:05

on this panel for one reason

15:07

or another. You know, usually it's because you

15:10

have a belief that this particular juror that you're

15:12

going to strike off the panel is somebody who

15:14

you know is not going to be open minded to your

15:16

case.

15:18

So if you're Roger King, the prosecutor

15:20

in this case, who what

15:22

are the types of jurors that you're looking to kind of weed

15:24

out to maximize your chances of winning?

15:27

Right? So I think about it like,

15:29

okay, So for example, when

15:31

I talk to my clients, I talk to that as basically

15:34

you're looking at vampires. Right. So it's like you

15:36

have a group of individuals

15:39

and you have so many people

15:41

that are going to be the ones that are just you know,

15:43

your worst case scenario, and you want to

15:45

try to identify who those individuals are, and you have so

15:47

many wooden stakes that you can use, right,

15:50

so what you want to be looking for in

15:52

the case of the prosecution.

15:55

I think they actually have the advantage

15:58

in this case because most of the

16:00

jurors in the pool are likely

16:02

going to be in favor of

16:04

the prosecution based on the information

16:07

in the case. So if it were and

16:09

I were advising the prosecution, I'd be looking

16:11

for individuals who, for example,

16:14

are what I would call critical

16:16

thinkers. They're people who are,

16:18

for example, they might be in professions where they're very

16:21

very detail oriented, very evidence

16:23

based, people like accountants, people

16:26

like engineers, people like people

16:29

who have science backgrounds, like,

16:31

for example, the juror Bob, he was one. He's

16:33

a perfect example of thing.

16:36

You're saying this, and I'm like, you're describing

16:38

Bob, who is who is not entirely

16:40

convinced by the prosecution.

16:42

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of situation. And I think

16:44

he was absolutely well intentioned and taking

16:46

his job very very seriously. But

16:48

that's an example of someone who is going

16:50

to look he's not going to be satisfied

16:53

by eyewitness testimony, by circumstantial

16:55

evidence, like most jurors actually are

16:58

in these sorts of situations. In these cases,

17:00

most people are going to be satisfied by that, but someone

17:03

like a Bob is going to be more interested

17:05

in saying, I need to see the

17:07

actual evidence in this case.

17:09

I need to see the connection, the link between

17:11

this piece of evidence and that piece of evidence.

17:14

By that same logic, is the prosecution

17:16

in this case I do looking

17:18

for someone who's going to be motivated by

17:21

the kind of emotionality of the case.

17:22

Yeah, I mean I think so. Somebody like

17:25

if the prosecution had the opportunity to say,

17:27

who do I want on my jury, They're

17:29

going to be looking for someone who is more emotionally,

17:31

more sort of gut level. I have

17:34

a gut reaction to the case, and I'm more likely to

17:36

say I don't need you know, beyond

17:38

a reasonable doubt, I have enough here

17:40

to say if it looks like a duck and it walks

17:42

like a duck, it must be a duck.

17:44

Okay. I want to ask you about something else, which is

17:46

kind of a sensitive question, but

17:48

one that feels relevant and important, which

17:50

is race. If you're

17:52

coming into this this situation as

17:55

Roger King, and if I'm the prosecution,

17:58

and I ask you, and I'm saying, Beth,

18:01

can I assume can I make assumptions

18:04

based on race?

18:06

Well, so a couple things. You can't strike

18:09

based just on race. So there's

18:12

something called a bats In challenge that if

18:14

there is a pattern of one side

18:16

or another doing something like that, then

18:18

they can raise the bats In challenge because you can't

18:20

strike just based on something like race.

18:23

Gender is another example for bats In challenge.

18:26

So you can't do that, but you can strike

18:29

somebody who is of, you

18:31

know, a particular race or ethnicity

18:33

if you have other reasons for doing that.

18:36

The way I think about it in this case is, you know,

18:38

yes, there's certainly a racially motivated

18:41

component to it, So to say that that isn't

18:43

relevant would be ridiculous

18:45

really, But I think what we're

18:48

talking about is a situation where you're

18:50

looking for people who, Okay, is this

18:52

somebody who has experienced

18:54

racial discrimination? Is this somebody who's experience

18:57

being targeted because of the color

18:59

of their skin, And so that's the sort

19:01

of thing that you're looking for. So if I'm, for

19:03

example, you know, advising

19:05

for the defendant, I'd

19:07

be concerned about people who have had experiences

19:10

like that, who have had experiences where they've been targeted

19:13

because of the color of their skin, because of their

19:15

ethnicity, or racially targeted

19:17

in some way. I'd be concerned about someone like

19:20

that.

19:20

Yeah, you use the vampire analogy, which made

19:22

me think, you know, what is it the vampire? You break out

19:24

the garlick or the crucifix, and you know you've got a

19:27

vampire. But some people may just

19:29

wear their biases on their sleeve,

19:31

but most of us are fairly adept

19:33

at hiding, particularly viewpoints

19:36

that we may rightly sense

19:39

are going to be a liability. You're going to turn people

19:41

off. So how do you ferret that out?

19:42

Yeah, I mean that's a situation where the questionnaire

19:45

is really the better way to go, because that's a situation where

19:47

people are going to be much more candid if

19:49

they don't have to look someone else in the

19:51

eye, where there's a much more

19:53

of a sense of being judged in that room.

19:56

Okay, So we talked a little bit through Roger

19:58

King and what he would want, and you kind of address this. But

20:00

I want to ask you, if you're Mike Ferrell,

20:02

the defense attorney, and you've got this client

20:05

here, who is being accused of murder who

20:07

at one point in his life was is a

20:10

skinhead, and all the kind of baggage

20:13

that brings with it. Who

20:15

are the people that you want

20:18

and don't want on the jury

20:20

From the defense perspective.

20:23

If I'm the defense in this

20:25

case, I have a

20:27

hard job because, as I said before, I think

20:30

that if you look at the grand scheme of how many

20:32

people like all the perspective jurors, most

20:34

of them are likely going to be prosecution oriented

20:36

in this sort of a case. So I'm

20:39

going to be concerned about somebody

20:41

who is, you know, very much

20:43

pro law and order type. Somebody who

20:46

you know is interested in, you know what

20:49

the police say. They have very favorable viewpoints

20:51

of the police. They trust

20:53

the police, they trust you know,

20:55

prosecutors, they think that they do a good job.

20:58

That's the sort of thing where I'd be concerned about someone

21:00

like that, somebody that I would like if

21:02

I'm the defendant, I'd be interested

21:04

in again the sort of the bobs,

21:07

right, the people that are going to really hold

21:10

the prosecution to a standard, to that

21:12

beyond a reasonable doubt standard, who

21:14

probably are going to be concerned

21:17

with the idea of circumstantial evidence or

21:19

eyewitness testimony, particularly when

21:21

you're talking about eyewitness testimony that occurred

21:24

you know, you know, years and years

21:26

ago where memories fade as

21:28

as you talked about in the podcast, that's exactly the kind

21:30

of thing where some jurors are going to be really concerned

21:33

about putting someone in

21:35

prison for the rest of their life on

21:37

that sort of evidence. I

21:40

probably would also be interested

21:42

in, you know, men who maybe

21:45

don't hold super favorable views of women,

21:47

who you know, have been scorned

21:49

by women in the past, who have been you

21:52

know, who have been betrayed,

21:55

you know, by someone close

21:57

to them, someone like that, who's going to somehow be able

21:59

to make a personal connection to the defendant,

22:03

skinhead or not skinhead. There could be lots of ways

22:06

that someone can personally identify with

22:08

a defendant who would be willing to fight

22:10

for that defendant.

22:12

That's interesting. But how do you that's like a very

22:14

personal thing. How do you how would

22:16

you suss that out?

22:18

Yeah, so, I mean it kind of depends on

22:20

the process again, right, So we go back to what

22:22

kind of information are you likely to get. If

22:25

you're not going to be able to ask the questions, then it doesn't

22:27

really matter. You're not gonna be able to ssess that out. But

22:29

if you have a situation where you could ask, you know, very

22:31

point blank, if they've ever been betrayed by

22:33

a close friend, or you know, a situation

22:36

where you know they've ever been wrongly accused. Those

22:38

are questions that you might be able to ask in

22:40

the Vais deir process, and that juror,

22:43

you know, will you know, they have to

22:45

respond truthfully. That doesn't mean that they will,

22:48

but just sometimes even their hesitations or the way

22:50

they say things can help you understand

22:52

how they're reacting and what they're likely to

22:54

be thinking.

22:56

These lawyers did have a chance to ask the jurors

22:58

questions. I know that the defense lawyer asked,

23:00

would you be able to suspend judgments about someone who

23:02

said they were a skinhead? Is anyone policing

23:05

those questions?

23:06

So if the judge is there, then they're going to be the ones

23:08

policing that. There could also be a magistrate

23:10

there, so it's not the judge, but it's a magistrate

23:12

that's doing that, somebody who's basically,

23:15

you know, the umpire of those sorts of questions.

23:17

Yeah, because I'm thinking like you would you ask

23:19

a juror, sir, have you been divorced?

23:22

Sir?

23:22

Has was it an acrimonious divorce

23:24

where you had to fight over custody? And

23:28

trying to get at that issue is is this someone

23:30

who's going to kind of be you

23:32

know, angry at women.

23:34

Those are questions that could get at that, right

23:37

you can start to make inferences from that, but

23:39

that's farther removed from

23:41

the actual question. So I might you

23:43

know, if you're asking a more specific question

23:46

that can help more pointedly get at the

23:49

the idea that you're trying to get at, Like something like,

23:51

you know, have you ever had girlfriends,

23:54

you know, or people that you've dated just lie about

23:56

you and and you know, make things up? And have

23:58

you ever had a situation where you know they've

24:01

you know, said things about you and and hurt

24:03

your reputation you know,

24:05

you know, in your community. So that's

24:08

a situation where someone like who's had an

24:10

experience like that, then they say yes,

24:12

and then they start to kind of reveal some

24:14

of the you know, the the inner workings

24:16

of themselves, if you will.

24:18

One of the limited exit

24:20

interviews that has done at the time with a juror, the

24:22

one thing that he said to

24:24

the to the press was something of the effect

24:26

of one of the ex girl friends was baddie

24:29

and just fixating on, you

24:31

know, emotionality and

24:33

the personality of one of these ex girlfriends,

24:36

which seemed like

24:38

an odd thing to

24:41

base a desire to quit on. But

24:44

I'm hearing you.

24:44

It's if that's resonating with you on a personal

24:47

level, and you're the jur and you're thinking, oh,

24:49

she reminds me of of this person

24:51

in my life who was a nightmare and did these

24:53

things to me and my god, like I can't

24:55

take her word for anything, then you could quickly

24:57

see how that like, because it's not all

24:59

logic.

25:00

Right, that's absolutely right. I mean, that's a

25:02

situation where I so that one holdout

25:04

dur I doubt he was a critical

25:07

thinker, not like a Bob right you talked of

25:09

the different camps in this situation.

25:11

This guy was probably more likely someone

25:13

who did personally identify with the defendant,

25:16

maybe not necessarily from a

25:18

you know, racism level, although that might have been

25:20

there too. It sounded like this particular

25:22

jur didn't want to talk and really

25:25

kind of go into detail to sort of

25:28

reveal his thinking. As to why he

25:30

was so strongly for the defendant, and

25:33

that can be an indicator of someone

25:35

who you know, isn't a critical thinker, but rather as

25:37

someone who's personally identified with the case, with

25:39

a particular defendant and just no matter

25:41

what, is going to stand by, you know, his

25:44

position and doesn't want to

25:46

be challenged. It doesn't want to get into the debate with

25:48

other jurors, and that can be incredibly frustrating

25:51

for the other jurors because they don't have anything

25:53

to work with, you know.

25:56

Yeah, when you talk about it that way and we think

25:58

about it this way, it's

26:00

funny because the idea of a trial by

26:03

jury is such an underpinning

26:05

of our sense of American democracy

26:07

and in so many ways it feels.

26:10

Like it's it's it's wonderful.

26:13

And yet you can have a situation where

26:15

in theory, some witness

26:17

reminds him of his crazy ex girlfriend, and

26:19

on that basis, he's the holdout that forces

26:22

a decision, and when seen in that light,

26:24

it seems like an absolutely crazy system.

26:26

Yeah, I mean, but I will say this, I

26:28

mean, that's true, and we are all

26:31

a product of our own you know, experiences

26:34

and the world views that are

26:36

formed from those experiences in the adagies and beliefs

26:38

that we have. Everybody has them, no one is exempt

26:40

from that. But I think the one

26:42

thing about the jury system, I mean, I will

26:45

say from my experience, I've been doing this for

26:47

just a little over twenty five years now, and

26:51

I would say that there's

26:53

not one jury that I've ever encountered

26:57

that wasn't well intentioned,

26:59

that wasn't trying to do the right thing.

27:02

I think what happens is sometimes you have these

27:04

kind of little, you know, hiccups.

27:06

And I don't mean to minimize

27:09

the situation, because I think the verdict

27:11

in this case was was tragic. I

27:14

think that you know, people just buy

27:16

and large would agree that this guy, even

27:19

if there wasn't enough to link

27:21

him to this particular murder, and

27:23

I think arguably there was, there

27:25

certainly was enough to suggest that he had

27:28

gone and done something pretty bad, and

27:31

you know that that he killed somebody.

27:33

The question is is did they get the right one? So

27:36

I think in that situation, I think that jurors,

27:38

again they're well intentioned, they're trying to do the right

27:40

thing, but there can be in those in

27:42

some circumstances, particularly when you're talking

27:45

about murder one where

27:47

you're talking about taking away someone's liberty

27:49

forever. You know, some

27:51

jurors are going to be they're they're

27:54

just more likely you're going to see that that element

27:56

that comes out where jurors are going to be more like to say,

27:58

look, I don't care what you say. I'm not changing my

28:00

mind on this unless you give me a really

28:02

good reason to and if I haven't

28:04

heard it, I'm going to stand my ground. You

28:07

know, in those sort of situations where the state are

28:09

really high, you get jurors like that. It

28:12

doesn't happen in every case, but again, you

28:14

can have that, and that doesn't mean that

28:17

it's a failure of the system at large. I think it's

28:19

just that's one of the it's

28:21

one of the flaws in our system. It's just the way

28:23

the system is. It's an imperfect system.

28:27

More in just a minute.

28:37

One of the things that struck me, that surprised

28:40

me, and I'm wondering how you reacted to it, which

28:42

was that here we are, you

28:44

know, fifteen years out, and

28:48

when I talked to both Bob and

28:51

to Nick, who is the foreman, I

28:53

was really amazed at how I

28:58

guess fresh

29:01

and lasting the

29:04

memories and the experience of this

29:07

trial were for them. Wondering

29:10

does that surprise you or do you

29:12

think that that is typical

29:15

of these experiences have such a lasting

29:17

effect on the jurors who

29:20

said to these trials.

29:22

Yeah, I mean, I think it's a couple of things. Jurors were essentially

29:24

felt, at least it seemed to me, felt

29:27

very disappointed by the outcome. I mean, so

29:29

that that sort of lasts with them. You

29:32

know, it wasn't something that they wanted. They wanted

29:34

to do it one way, and they didn't get that

29:36

outcome, and so you

29:38

know, I can see why it haunts them and why

29:40

it sits with them to this day. I don't

29:42

fault them. I get the sense that people feel

29:45

like the jurors screwed up, they

29:47

made a mistake, or they did something stupid.

29:49

That's the easy way out. It's easy

29:52

to say that jurors, you know, didn't get it right, and

29:54

they didn't understand what they were doing. And how

29:56

can you make any sense of this? I mean, as I

29:58

look at what they did, it makes it actually

30:01

made perfect sense to me. But if you listen to their rationale,

30:04

it does make sense, there were a number

30:06

of jurors in there who felt strongly that this

30:08

did happen and that this man was

30:10

murdered by this guy. But

30:13

when pushed by or when questioned

30:15

by some jers who were sort of hung

30:17

up on this idea of not just a belief,

30:19

but beyond a reasonable doubt belief and

30:22

the fact that there really wasn't I mean, if

30:24

you look at what the prosecution brought,

30:26

you know, there wasn't really a connection

30:29

between you know, what actually

30:32

happened and this particular man.

30:34

I mean, no one, at least my understanding, no one

30:36

could actually identify that this was the man

30:39

that was murdered by the defendant.

30:42

And I mean, and remember that this case happened

30:44

at a time when DNA evidence and physical

30:47

evidence was something that was becoming very

30:49

very forefront. You saw it all over the news. It

30:51

was a big it was a big thing that was becoming

30:54

a real thing for cases like this, and

30:56

so you know, it's not

30:59

too shocking to me that there were some jurors who

31:01

said, you know, I'm not seeing that

31:03

that physical evidence. That's where

31:05

the jurors fall. So that's where the compromise

31:07

happens, because that's the crack right.

31:09

Well, so, I mean, if I'm hearing you're right, you're saying

31:12

basically like the

31:14

dury worked. Yeah.

31:16

I mean again, I think that, you know, for

31:18

conspiracy, it makes sense that they concluded

31:20

what they concluded. I mean, the conspiracy

31:23

charge doesn't require proof

31:25

of an actual murder. It just requires proof

31:28

that you know an individual

31:30

and another individual or more than that, you

31:32

know, decide this is what they were going to do and

31:35

actually started to put that plan into

31:37

motion. And I think that everybody

31:39

could comfortably go there. I think when

31:41

you're talking about the actual murder itself

31:43

though, without something making that

31:45

connection. And again, I think if you're asking

31:48

me, or asking anyone any

31:50

of the jurors, do you think that this

31:52

is what happened? I think the answer to that

31:54

is clear. Everybody would be unanimous on that. But

31:56

if you're asking beyond a reasonable doubt,

31:59

you have to prove that this is the guy

32:01

that was murdered by that guy, I

32:03

think that's a harder question without

32:06

that physical evidence there to connect it.

32:08

How common is it to have a compromise

32:10

like this. I mean the papers

32:13

at the time called it a bizarre split verdict,

32:15

But this idea of juries. Kind

32:17

of making a compromise in order

32:20

to avoid a mistrial. Is this a pretty

32:22

common thing?

32:23

I mean, the mistrial,

32:25

that's an uncommon thing. So I think

32:28

that jurors certainly will want to do what

32:30

they can do to get

32:32

the right outcome. So if people believe

32:34

that he did something bad and did something

32:36

wrong, and they're convinced of that, you

32:38

know, they're not going to want him to just get

32:40

off scot free. Right. So this

32:43

is a situation where the conspiracy,

32:45

the evidence is solid on that, the

32:47

weapons charge solid on that. You

32:50

know, now at least we know that he can go away

32:52

based on these charges.

32:54

And the one hand, I

32:56

hear you saying that you felt that the jury

32:59

did their job and it kind of worked in this case.

33:02

But earlier, at one point I heard

33:04

you say that the verdict in this case was tragic,

33:06

and I was just wondering what you meant by

33:08

that.

33:10

I think that if you

33:12

didn't have a

33:15

burden of proof and you just simply

33:17

wanted to sit people down in a room and say,

33:20

did this guy do it? I think

33:22

that everybody would agree that

33:24

he did. That's the tragic part

33:26

of it is that I know that the family was

33:29

looking for justice. They believe with

33:32

all their hearts that this is the guy that did it, and

33:34

in all likelihood he

33:36

was that guy. The problem is

33:38

is that there's that burden of proof, and there are

33:40

some jurors who will hold to that standard.

33:43

And so I don't think even

33:45

if people believe strongly that

33:47

that's the case, if they don't have beyond

33:49

a reasonable doubt in this case,

33:52

some of those jurors are going to say, that's

33:54

good enough for me to say that I'm not going to

33:56

convict someone and put them away for the rest of their life.

33:59

I mean, I feel like

34:01

the jury in one sense was

34:04

honorable in the sense that they were not willing

34:07

to hang and put potentially

34:09

not allow any consequence to be met

34:12

to the defendant, because you know that could

34:14

have been what they did. They could have hung on murder

34:17

one. But you know that

34:19

if that was not going to get them to a

34:21

conviction on a particular on anything,

34:24

then you know, in a sense, that's

34:26

better than not getting anything at all. I mean, to me,

34:28

the bigger travesty would have been that

34:30

this guy walks away scott free.

34:33

That would have been a huge travesty.

34:37

Well, well, thank

34:39

you so much for chatting with me, and

34:42

I'll be calling you when I get called for my next jury.

34:44

Absolutely, I will

34:47

be happy to talk.

34:52

This episode was produced by Amy Gains

34:55

McQuaid. Our editor is Karen Chakerjee.

34:58

Our executive producer is Jacob Smith.

35:01

Our show art was designed by Sean Carney.

35:03

Original scoring and our theme was composed

35:06

by Luis Gara. This episode

35:08

was mass sired by Sarah Bruguier. Special

35:11

thanks to Sarah Nix and Greta Cone.

35:14

I'm Jake Calpert.