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