In this episode, the podcast explores the jury deliberation process and dynamics, highlighting the composition and occupations of the jury. The chapter discusses the jurors' focus on determining the defendant's intent and speculates on the length of deliberations. It also questions the reliability of interpreting jurors' facial expressions as indicators of their verdict.
The jury's initial discussions focus on determining the truth and assessing the credibility of testimonies, rather than technical aspects of the case.
A hung jury, resulting in a mistrial, is the worst-case scenario for the prosecution, favoring the defendant and preventing retrial for the same offense.
Deep dives
Deliberations begin with jury electing a foreperson
During jury deliberations, the first order of business is for the jury to elect a foreperson. This person may be someone who has developed a rapport with the other jurors throughout the trial. Once settled in the deliberation room, the jurors are finally able to freely discuss the case, taking a deep breath after being prohibited from talking about it during the trial. They typically start by reading the first question on the verdict form and may immediately take a show of hands to gauge how many jurors think the defendant is guilty. These initial discussions allow the jurors to get a sense of where everyone stands and how the dynamics within the group might play out.
Jurors consider witness testimony and intent
Jurors primarily focus on determining who told the truth and consider the relationships between witnesses and the defendant. They assess the credibility of the testimonies, especially those from individuals who knew the defendant well at different stages of his life. The jurors delve into the defendant's intent, attempting to understand his actions, what he said, and who he intended to harm, if anyone. This psychological aspect is central to their deliberations rather than technical aspects of the case. While the defendant's decision to take the stand may be discussed, it might not significantly impact the jurors' overall perception, as the strong prosecution case and the credibility of insider witnesses likely carry more weight.
Hung jury and the process of reaching a unanimous verdict
The worst-case scenario for the prosecution is a hung jury, meaning the jurors cannot come to a unanimous decision. A hung jury favors the defendant as it results in a mistrial, and he cannot be retried for the same offense due to double jeopardy. The deliberation process involves going through each count and taking votes on each one. Even if they reach a unanimous verdict on one count quickly, it is common for jurors to thoroughly discuss each count and ensure they have worked diligently to arrive at a just decision. They can ask questions, revisit exhibits, seek clarification on instructions, and take their time to ensure they have fulfilled their duty. A good foreperson ensures discussion on each count, even if a quick agreement is initially reached, as they strive to do the right thing and feel that they have done a thorough job.
CORRECTION: In an earlier version of this episode, our guest incorrectly stated that in the case of a hung jury, a defendant cannot be retried without risking double jeopardy. This is incorrect. If the jury hangs, then the defendant can be retried. We have edited the episode to remove this and apologize for the error.
It’s nearly time for the jury to begin their deliberations. They’ll file into a backroom at the courthouse, and SBF’s fate will be in their hands. But what goes on behind those doors? How will the jury get to its verdict? Trial consultant Ellen Leggett returns to the show to talk through the process with Lidia Jean Kott.
This conversation was recorded on October 27 and updated on November 1.
Questions for Michael? Submit them by clicking the link in our show notes or visiting atrpodcast.com
To access bonus episodes, and to listen to all of our coverage ad-free, sign up for Pushkin plus on the Against The Rules show page in Apple Podcasts or at Pushkin.fm/plus.