Unpacking the Verdict

Summary

Deep Cover: Unpacking the Verdict – A Detailed Summary

Episode Release Date: July 29, 2024

Introduction

In this gripping episode of Deep Cover, host Jake Halpern delves deep into the complexities of a high-profile criminal trial that has left the public and legal experts alike questioning the intricacies of the American justice system. Titled "Unpacking the Verdict," the episode dissects the split verdict of a case involving conspiracy to commit murder, exploring the factors that led to this unprecedented outcome.

The "Nameless Man" Case

Season four of Deep Cover, dubbed "The Nameless Man," revolves around the harrowing investigation of a murder case that took place 15 years prior. Central to the story is a nameless black man who was brutally killed in the streets of Philadelphia, prompting a relentless pursuit by federal agents. The case intertwines two parallel storylines: the agents' quest for justice and the grieving family's yearning for answers.

Jeri Williams' Perspective

Jeri Williams, a former FBI agent with over two decades of experience, serves as a pivotal figure in uncovering the layers of this case. Transitioning from her role as an agent to hosting the podcast FBI Retired Case File Review, Williams brings a wealth of insider knowledge to the table.

At [00:36], Williams emphasizes the critical nature of the case, stating:

"I knew that this was a case that needed to be told, that people needed to remember."

Her deep emotional connection to the case is palpable as she reflects on the gravity of the crimes committed by high school students who boasted about their racist motives. Williams poignantly shares her reaction to discovering the true nature of the perpetrators:

"It was frightening. It made me angry. It made me sad."

The Role of FBI Agent Scott Duffy

Scott Duffy, an FBI agent instrumental in the investigation, provides firsthand insights into the complexities of the case. At [05:56], Duffy sets the stage by inviting listeners to visualize a high school prom night, drawing a stark contrast between the innocence of youth and the heinous crimes that unfolded years later.

"Imagine yourself as a senior at your prom... Eighteen years later, they would be confronted by an ATF agent and an FBI agent, asking them what they remember and the conversations they might have had that night."

Duffy's narrative underscores the long-term psychological impact such crimes have on both the victims' families and the investigators involved.

Insights from Beth Wilson Devlin on Jury Selection and Verdict

Beth Wilson Devlin, a renowned jury consultant and partner at Edge Litigation Consulting, joins the discussion to shed light on the jury dynamics that influenced the verdict. Despite not being a podcast listener herself, Devlin praises the episode for its depth and clarity.

At [17:16], Devlin explains the jury selection process:

"What you are doing is... you are deciding who do I not want on this panel for one reason or another."

She utilizes a vivid analogy to describe how prosecutors approach jury selection:

"I think about it like... you're looking at vampires. You have a group of individuals and you have so many people that are just your worst-case scenario and you want to try to identify who those individuals are and you have so many wooden stakes that you can use."

Devlin further discusses the challenges faced by both the prosecution and defense in identifying jurors who might sway the case's outcome. She highlights the importance of understanding jurors' backgrounds and biases, especially in a case with racial undertones.

The Split Verdict and Its Implications

The core of the episode revolves around the split verdict reached by the jury in this particularly sensitive case. Originally, in 2008, Thomas Gibson was found guilty on counts of conspiracy to commit murder and a weapon charge but was acquitted of murder and ethnic intimidation. This verdict was dubbed "bizarre" by the press at the time.

Devlin provides a nuanced analysis of why such a split verdict occurred. She emphasizes that while jurors may believe the defendant is guilty of wrongdoing, the legal burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" must be met for a conviction. This disconnect led to the controversial outcome where the defendant was not convicted of murder, leaving the victim's family without closure.

At [22:26], Devlin reflects on the jury's decision-making process:

"Jurors were essentially felt... felt very disappointed by the outcome. So that sort of lasts with them."

She stresses that while the verdict might seem flawed, the jurors acted within the constraints of the legal standards, balancing their personal beliefs with their judicial responsibilities.

Conclusion

"Unpacking the Verdict" offers a profound exploration of the intricate dance between law enforcement, legal proceedings, and the human emotions that intertwine within the courtroom. Through the combined expertise of Jeri Williams and Beth Wilson Devlin, listeners gain invaluable insights into the challenges of seeking justice in a system fraught with complexities. The episode serves as a compelling reminder of the enduring impact such cases have on all parties involved and underscores the perpetual quest for truth and accountability within the justice system.

Notable Quotes:

• Jeri Williams [00:36]: "I knew that this was a case that needed to be told, that people needed to remember."

• Scott Duffy [05:56]: "Imagine yourself as a senior at your prom... Eighteen years later, they would be confronted by an ATF agent and an FBI agent, asking them what they remember and the conversations they might have had that night."

• Beth Wilson Devlin [17:16]: "What you are doing is... you are deciding who do I not want on this panel for one reason or another."

• Beth Wilson Devlin [22:26]: "Jurors were essentially felt... felt very disappointed by the outcome. So that sort of lasts with them."

This episode of Deep Cover masterfully intertwines personal narratives with expert analysis, offering listeners a comprehensive understanding of a case that continues to resonate within the corridors of justice.

Transcript

[Jeri Williams]

Foreign.

[Amy Brown]

The last thing you want to do when you're sick is go to the pharmacy to pick up a prescription because then you're standing in a long line with a whole bunch of sick people and everyone is sick of being sick around other people who are sick. Amazon Pharmacy will deliver right to you fast so you can get meds without congregating among the contagious. Healthcare just got less painful. Amazon Pharmacy and now two pigeons who.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Can'T believe how good humans have it with DirecTV.

[Scott Duffy]

These humans are hopping from streaming apps to live sports without batting a wing.

[Jake Halpern]

All from the DirecTV home screen.

[Scott Duffy]

With just one click, you could be watching a baseball game, a movie on.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Netflix, or a critically acclaimed documentary.

[Scott Duffy]

You watch documentaries?

[Terry]

I love the ones that leave you with a question.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Why what exactly? DirecTV a better way to watch whatever you want to watch.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Visit directtv.com Internet connected Gemini device, separate Netflix membership and additional paid subscriptions required for third party apps.

[Bobby Bones]

Hey, it's Amy Brown from the Bobby Bones Show. Join me in supporting St. Jude Children's Research Hospital for a chance to win a trip to meet Megan Maroney at the 2025 I Heart Country Festival in Austin, Texas on May 3rd. Hosted by Bobby Bones, we're going to hook you up with tickets, flights, hotel, food credits, and a meet and greet with Megan Maroney. Take action now to support St. Jude and help cure childhood cancer. And you're gonna be entered for a chance to win. Visit iheartcountrytrip.com to learn more.

[Jeri Williams]

When Scott told me about this case, I just knew that we needed to highlight it, that we needed to share it. Because even before I knew all the details, even before I went down the rabbit hole, because I'm a person always going down the rabbit hole, pulling up news articles and videos or whatever I can find about FBI cases, even just hearing just a little bit about it, I knew that this was a case that needed to be told, that people needed to remember.

[Jake Halpern]

That's Jeri Williams. She worked for the FBI for over two decades, first as an agent and then as a spokesperson. Now she's the host of a podcast called FBI Retired Case File Review. Jerry has interviewed hundreds of FBI agents about cases they've worked. She's actually the person who first tipped me off about this story that we told in season four of Deep Cover. When it was done, I called Gerry up to discuss this case. I wanted to know what drew her to it in the first place and also get her impressions of of what we'd put together for the nameless Man. Later in this episode, you'll hear from Beth Wilson Devlin. She's a jury consultant. Her job is all about understanding the psychology of jurors. And she had some interesting takeaways about the split verdict that the jury reached in this case. But first, here's my conversation with Jerry.

[Jeri Williams]

I love telling these stories, and I would love all of them to become a podcast series, a documentary, a TV show.

[Terry]

Well, that's one of the things I love about you, Jerry. It seems like you really want the agents to get the recognition that they deserve for these cases. That seems like a driving force with you.

[Jeri Williams]

It absolutely is. I just need to tell the true stories.

[Terry]

Talk to me like I want to get an understanding of you're an FBI agent and now you're a podcaster who's doing these. I almost think of them as like oral histories because you're just letting the agents talk. Like, how does this happen? How do you go from carrying the badge to carrying the mic?

[Jeri Williams]

Well, it actually started before I retired, because my last four or five years in the FBI, I stepped away from investigations and became a full time spokesperson. But after I finished that job, I just wanted to continue telling the FBI story.

[Terry]

You know, you got me from the very beginning. I mean, just to give listeners a little bit of a backstory, I called Jerry, as I've done a few times, and asked, hey, do you have any ideas, like, what should be the basis for season four? And you said to me, hey, there's this story involving an agent named Scott Duffy.

[Jake Halpern]

If you could get the players to.

[Terry]

Talk in the story, it could be something. And then I immediately went and started. I remember where I was. I was actually in New York City. I was walking around. It was a spring day, and I put my earphones in and I hit play.

[Jeri Williams]

Where do you want to start?

[Scott Duffy]

If I could, Jerry, I'd like to start with creating a picture for the audience. Imagine yourself as a senior at your prom. Imagine wherever that may be, a hotel or some sort of venue. And picture yourself 17, 18 years old, enjoying the end years of your four years of high school. And the reason why I say that is because you'll see, as I talk about, towards the end of this case, this is where a lot of our, if you want to call it evidence or collaboration, bringing together witnesses who had never imagined, after sitting at a prom table together, which was located at the Dupont Hotel, where 18 years later, they would be confronted by an ATF agent and an FBI agent, asking them what they remember and the conversations they might have had. That night, the night of their prom.

[Terry]

This beginning really grabbed me because there's something about situating an impromp night that really helps help me understand just how young the alleged perpetrators of this crime were.

[Jeri Williams]

Absolutely. I just couldn't wrap my mind around high school students being so bold as to brag about killing somebody only based on the color of its skin. It was frightening. It made me angry. It made me sad. This case just grabbed me from the very beginning. Definitely in Scott telling this story. He just drew me in. And this is kind of corny to say, but I felt his heart. I felt his heart and how much he cared about this unknown black man that was shot in the streets of Philadelphia. And he drew me in. So it was not difficult at all. When you asked me, do I have a story that you might want to expand into a series? I knew exactly what I was gonna ask you about. I needed to hear the whole story.

[Terry]

When you originally get this interview with Scott and you think to yourself, wow, I'd like to hear kind of, I guess, more perspectives on this story, Kind of different players involved. Who are the other people that you're thinking, yeah, I'd like to know what their deal is.

[Jeri Williams]

Definitely the family. When I'm talking to Scott, always, always right in the back of my mind is this nameless man and who he is and his family and what they're wondering and feeling. That was always present because, you know, I'm thinking, if that was my son or my brother or uncle, I would have always wanted to know what happened. The thing that really got to me. And of course, a Ron Wood's mother had passed away before you did this. But I really, you know, it really that she did have the opportunity to learn about what happened to her son. And that had to be something that helped her to know the truth behind that. Because not knowing what happened to him, why he died, how he died, obviously was a hole in her life because it was so painful. She didn't want to speak about it, but she was able to find those answers through the trial. And that makes me feel good that, you know, an FBI agent, an ATF agent, was able to do that for this woman that they'd never met. That really meant a lot to me too.

[Terry]

Yeah. And it's interesting when I went down and interviewed them and realized that. That they were in this quest of their own to find the perpetrator who they didn't know, that's when I had this aha moment to call this series the Nameless Man. Because I had Talked to Scott and Terry and they are searching for this nameless man who is the victim and they need the victim to make the case. And then there's this parallel story where the family had a nameless man of their own they were searching for, which is who killed their brother and their son.

[Jeri Williams]

Wow. I never thought of that. That is pretty cool.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah.

[Terry]

Yeah. And it felt like it took a little bit of the pressure off Scott and Terry. This wasn't just their story. It was also the story of the Wood family and their quest.

[Jeri Williams]

The whole case just gives us hope. And I say that when we talk about Craig Peterson because his story about his background is also a kind of a story of self hate, wouldn't you say?

[Terry]

Yeah. So let's talk about Craig because this was. This was a shock to me. In fact, I'll just. There's a bit of tape we want to play here from Carmen Leinberger, who was the assistant da and she, when they're putting the case together, is meeting Craig for the first time.

[Carmen Leinberger]

I looked at him and felt, Peterson's a skinhead. He looks like he's mixed with black. I remember that he has an olive complexion. That causes me to believe I'm biracial. So I pay attention to those things. I. I always thought he was mixed somewhere in there. I don't know if he was adopted. Maybe he didn't realize it, maybe he did. But I always thought, and to this day I can remember and see his face. He looked like he could have been a relative.

[Terry]

What was your reaction when you heard.

[Jeri Williams]

That, Jerry Mine blowing? It's so sad to think that someone could be so confused about who they are and where they fit that they would choose to take a side where there is genuine hate and hostility to the other half of who they are. It's. I did not know this when I interviewed Scott. That just never came up.

[Terry]

Yeah, I mean, you know, sometimes, you know how this goes. There's a. There's a kind of burning question that you feel that you didn't get to the bottom of. That's my. That's my burning question with this series about this. Because if that is in fact true, if Craig is biracial, then the question of how he got involved in this white supremacist group and then in fact went on to commit murder based on its ideology, it raises a million question. So I'm hopeful that maybe Craig will somehow decide that he wants to talk. Just to be clear here, I never got Craig to go on the record and confirm for me whether or not he was biracial.

[Jeri Williams]

Well, all I had to say is that when I suggested that you look into this case, I needed the answers that I wasn't able to get from just interviewing Scott. And you delivered. I mean, you delivered. And if you could just now get that interview with Craig so we can find out more about him, then you would have hit it out of the park. So that's your challenge. I'm still hoping that Craig is going to have an opportunity to listen to this and to understand that we really do want to hear from him. Not in a judgmental way, but in a way that again, allows us to come full circle and to get understanding and hope that people who hate are able to recognize and resolve those feelings and move on to a better place. So, Craig, talk to Jake.

[Jake Halpern]

After the break, I discuss the jury and their verdict with Beth Wilson. Devlin.

[Amy Brown]

Have you ever gotten sick on a very expensive, very non refundable family trip? Amazon One Medical has 24. 7 virtual care so you can get help no matter where you are. And with Amazon Pharmacy, your meds can get delivered right to your hotel fast. It's kind of like the room service of medical care. Thanks to Amazon Healthcare just got less painful.

[Bobby Bones]

Hey, it's Amy Brown from the Bobbi Bones Show. Join me in supporting St. Jude Children's Research Hospital for a chance to win a trip to meet Megan Maroney at the 2025 I Heart Country Festival in Austin, Texas on May 3rd. Hosted by Bobby Bones. We're going to hook you up with tickets, flights, hotel, food credits, and a meet and greet with Megan Maroney. Take action now to support St. Jude and help cure childhood cancer. And you're going to be entered for a chance to win. Visit iheartcountrytrip.com to learn more. You know, when the world gets a little crazy and everything is moving too fast, don't you just wish you could get away from all of it for a while? Well, that's exactly what the all new 2025 Nissan Murano can do for you. And to be clear, you don't even have to go anywhere. The Murano is the getaway. It was designed from the ground up to be a refuge from the daily grind. I mean, it has a Bose premium sound system which can play your favorite, most relaxing music. And there's nothing like a world class audio system to just transport you to a better headspace. Then there's the Murano's massaging leather appointed seats. Yeah, massaging seats. Talk about melting away your stress. So could getting stuck in traffic Become your happy place. I don't know. It sounds like it could in the all new Murano. You should probably check one out for yourself. You gotta drive the all new 2025 Nissan Murano today. Bows and massaging leather. Appointed seats are optional features.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

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

[Scott Duffy]

Oh, wow.

[Terry]

You. That's great.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

I'm not a podcast person either, so I thought it was very good.

[Terry]

Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, usually I. You now fall into the same class as my family members, who I. Who I guilt into listening to my words.

[Jake Halpern]

Yes, that's Beth Wilson Devlin. She's a partner at Edge Litigation Consulting. She's a jury consultant and admittedly not a podcast listener, but I reached out to Beth to discuss the verdict in this case. Now, if you recall, back in 2008, Thomas Gibson was found guilty on two counts, conspiracy to commit murder and a weapon charge. He was acquitted on the murder and ethnic intimidation charges. The press at the time called this verdict, quote, bizarre. But I wanted Beth's take on all this. And we started off talking about the process of how a jury is even chosen in the first place.

[Terry]

There's a jury selection process in which you're going through potential jurors and weeding somehow. Can you just talk us through that a little bit about how that works?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

That varies dramatically from venue to venue. Sometimes it's just the judge asking questions of the jurors. Sometimes you get an opportunity as a lawyer to be able to ask questions of the jurors. Sometimes you have information in the form of a questionnaire that jurors have that they either fill out at the time or they fill out in advance of the jury selection process. So there's lots of different ways that you can get information, but what that information is and how much you have is really dependent, dependent upon the venue. So one thing I will just say, because I did, I listened to the podcast and, you know, you talk about it as being a jury selection process, which is what a lot of people think it is, because that's what it's called, jury selection. But it's actually a deselection process. So you're not actually picking the jurors that are going to be on the panel that are going to decide the case. What you are doing is you are of a group of people. You have to decide, who do I not want on this panel for one reason or another. You know, usually it's because you have a belief that this particular juror that you're going to strike off the panel is somebody who you know is not going to be open minded to your case.

[Terry]

So if you're Roger King, the prosecutor in this case, who, what are the types of jurors that you're looking to kind of weed out to maximize your chances of winning?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Right. So I think about it like, okay, so for example, when I talk to my clients, I talk to that as basically you're looking at vampires. Right. So it's like you have a group of individuals and you have so many people that are going to be the ones that are just, you know, your worst case scenario and you want to try to identify who those individuals are and you have so many wooden stakes that you can use. Right. So what you want to be looking for in the case of the prosecution, I think they actually have the advantage in this case because most of the jurors in the pool are likely going to be in favor of the prosecution based on the information in the case. So if it were me and I were advising the prosecution, I'd be looking for individuals who, for example, are what I would call critical thinkers. They're people who are, for example, they might be in professions where they're very, very detail oriented, very evidence based. People like accountants, people like engineers, people like people who have science backgrounds. Like for example, the juror Bob. He was one, He's a perfect example.

[Terry]

You're saying this and I'm like you're describing Bob, who is, who is not.

[Jake Halpern]

Entirely convinced by the prosecution.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah, that's exactly the kind of situation and I think he was absolutely well intentioned and taking his job very, very seriously. But that's an example of someone who is going to look, he's not going to be satisfied by eyewitness testimony, by circumstantial evidence like most jurors actually are in these sorts of situations. In these cases, most people are going to be satisfied by that. But someone like a Bob is going to be more interested in saying, I need to see the actual evidence in this case. I need to see the connection, the link between this piece of evidence and that piece of evidence.

[Terry]

By that same logic, is the prosecution in this case ideally looking for someone who's going to be motivated by the kind of emotionality of the case?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah, I mean, I think so Somebody like, if the prosecution had the opportunity to say who do I want on my jury? They're going to be looking for someone who is more emotionally, more sort of gut level. I have a gut reaction to the case and I'm more likely to say, I don't need, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt. I have enough here to say if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it must be a duck.

[Terry]

Okay, I want to ask you about something else which is kind of a sensitive question, but one that feels relevant and important, which is race. If you're coming into this situation as. As Roger King, and if I'm the prosecution and I ask you, and I'm saying, Beth, can I assume. Can I make assumptions based on race?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Well, so a couple things. You can't strike based just on race. So there's something called a Batson challenge that if there is a pattern of one side or another doing something like that, then they can raise a Batson challenge, because you can't strike just based on something like race. Gender is another example for Batson challenge. So you can do that, but you can strike somebody who is of a particular race or ethnicity if you have other reasons for doing that. The way I think about it in this case is, yes, there's certainly a racially motivated component to it. So to say that that isn't relevant would be ridiculous, really. But I think what we're talking about is a situation where you're looking for people who. Okay, is this somebody who has experienced racial discrimination? Is this somebody who's experienced being targeted because of the color of their skin? And so that's the sort of thing that you're looking for. So if I'm, for example, advising for the defendant, I'd be concerned about people who have had experiences like that, who have had experiences where they've been targeted because of the color of their skin, because of their ethnicity or racially targeted in some way. I'd be concerned about someone like that.

[Terry]

Yeah, you use the vampire analogy, which made me think, you know, what is it, the vampire? You break out the garlic or the crucifix and, you know, you got a vampire. But some people may just wear their biases on their sleeve, but most of us are fairly adept at hiding, particularly viewpoints that we. That we may rightly sense are going to be a liability or going to turn people off. So how do you ferret that out?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah, I mean, that's a situation where the questionnaire is really the better way to go, because that's a situation. People are going to be much more candid if they don't have to look someone else in the eye, where there's much more of a sense of being judged in that room.

[Terry]

Okay, so we talked a little bit through Roger King, and what he would want and you kind of addressed this. But I want to ask you, if you're Mike Farrell, the defense attorney, and you've got this client here who's being accused of murder, who at one point in his life was a skinhead and all the kind of baggage that brings with it, who are the people that you want and don't want on the jury from the defense perspective?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

If I'm the defense in this case, I have a hard job because as I said before, I think that if you look at the grand scheme of how many people, like all the prospective jurors, most of them are likely going to be prosecution oriented in this sort of a case. So I'm going to be concerned about somebody who is, you know, very much pro law and order type. Somebody who, you know, is interested in, you know, what the police say. They have very favorable viewpoints of the police. They trust the police. They trust, you know, prosecutors. They think that they do a good job. That's the sort of thing where I'd be concerned about someone like that. Somebody that I would like, if I'm the defendant, I'd be interested in, again, this sort of the. The Bobs. Right. The people that are going to really hold the prosecution to a standard, to that beyond a reasonable doubt standard, who probably are going to be concerned with the idea of circumstantial evidence or eyewitness testimony. Particularly when you're talking about eyewitness testimony that occurred, you know, you know, years and years ago, where memories fade. As you talked about in the podcast, that's exactly the kind of thing where some jurors are going to be really concerned about putting someone in prison for the rest of their life on that sort of evidence. I probably would also be interested in, you know, men who maybe don't hold super favorable views of women who, you know, have been scorned by women in the past who have been, you know, who have been betrayed, you know, by someone close to them. Someone like that who's going to somehow be able to make a personal connection to the defendant. Skinhead or not skinhead. There could be lots of ways that someone can personally identify with a defendant who would be willing to fight for that defendant.

[Terry]

That's interesting, but how do you. That's like a very personal thing. How do you. How would you suss that out?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah, so, I mean, it kind of depends on the process again. Right. So we go back to what kind of information are you likely to get? If you're not going to be able to ask the questions, then it doesn't really matter. You're not going to be able to suss that out. But if you have a situation where you could ask, you know, very point blank if they've ever been betrayed by a close friend or, you know, a situation where, you know, they've ever been wrongly accused, those are questions that you might be able to ask in the voir dire process. And that juror, you know, will, you know, they have to respond truthfully. That doesn't mean that they will. But just sometimes even their hesitations or the way they say things can help you understand how they're reacting and what they're likely to be thinking.

[Terry]

These lawyers did have a chance to ask the jurors questions. I know that the defense lawyer asked, would you be able to suspend judgments about someone who said they were a skinhead? Is anyone policing those questions?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

So if the judge is there, then they're going to be the ones policing that. There could also be a magistrate there. So it's not the judge, but it's a magistrate that's doing that. Somebody who's basically, you know, the umpire of those sorts of questions.

[Terry]

Yeah, because I'm thinking like, are you, would you ask a juror, sir, have you been divorced, sir, was it an acrimonious divorce where you had to fight over custody and trying to get at that issue? Is this someone who's going to kind of be angry at women?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Those are questions that could get at that. Right. You can start to make inferences from that, but that's farther removed from the actual question. So I might, if you're asking a more specific question that can help more pointedly get at the idea that you're trying to get at like something like, you know, have you ever had girlfriends, you know, or people that you've dated just lie about you and, and, you know, make things up and have you ever had a situation where, you know, they've, you know, said things about you and, and, and hurt your reputation, you know, you know, in your community? So that's a situation where someone like, who's had an experience like that, then they say yes, and then they start to kind of reveal some of the, you know, the, the inner workings of themselves, if you will.

[Terry]

One of the limited exit interviews that was done at the time with a juror, the one thing that he said.

[Jake Halpern]

To the, to the press was something.

[Terry]

The effect of one of the ex girlfriends was batty and just fixating on, you know, emotionality and the personality of one of these ex girlfriends, which seemed like an odd thing to base A desire to acquit on. But if I'm hearing you, if that's resonating with you on a personal level and you're the juror and you're thinking, oh, she reminds me of this person in my life who was a nightmare and who did these things to me and my God, like, I can't take her word for anything, then you could quickly see how that. Because it's not all logic, right?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

That's absolutely right. I mean, that's a situation where I. So that one holdout juror, I doubt he was a critical thinker, not like a Bob. Right. You talked about the different camps in this situation. This guy was probably more likely someone who did personally identify with the defendant. Maybe not necessarily from a racism level, although that might have been there too. It sounded like this particular juror didn't want to talk and really kind of go into detail to sort of reveal his thinking as to why he was so strongly for the defendant. And that can be an indicator of someone who isn't a critical thinker, but rather someone who's personally identified with the case, with. With a particular defendant and just no matter what, is going to stand by, you know, his position and doesn't want to be challenged, so doesn't want to get into the debate with other jurors. That can be incredibly frustrating for the other jurors because they don't have anything to work with, you know.

[Terry]

Yeah. When you talk about it that way and we think about it this way, it's funny because the idea of a trial by jury is such a underpinning of our sense of American democracy, and in so many ways it feels like it's wonderful. And yet you can have a situation where in theory some witness reminds him of his crazy ex girlfriend and on that basis he's the holdout that forces a decision. And when seen in that light, it seems like an absolutely crazy system.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah. I mean, but I will say this. I mean, that's true. And we are all a product of our own experiences and the worldviews that are formed from those experiences and the attitudes and beliefs that we have, everybody has them. No one is exempt from that. But I think the one thing about the jury system, I mean, I will say from my experience, I've been doing this for just a little over 25 years now. And I would say that there's not one jury that I've ever encountered that wasn't well intentioned, that wasn't trying to do the right thing. I think what happens is sometimes you have these kind of little hiccups. And I don't mean to minimize the situation because I think the verdict in this case was tragic. I think that people just by and large would agree that this guy, even if there wasn't enough to link him to this particular murder, and I think arguably there was, there certainly was enough to suggest that he had gone and done something pretty bad and, you know, that, that he killed somebody. The question is, is did they get the right one? So I think in that situation, I think that jurors, again, they're well intentioned, they're trying to do the right thing. But there can be in those, in some circumstances, particularly when you're talking about murder one, where you're talking about taking away someone's liberty forever, you know, some jurors are going to be, they're, they're just more likely, you're going to see that, that element that comes out where jurors are going to be more likely to say, look, I don't care what you say. I'm not changing my mind on this unless you give me a really good reason to. And if I haven't heard it, I'm going to stand my ground. You know, in those sort of situations where the stakes are really high, you get jurors like that. It doesn't happen in every case, but again, you can, you can have that. And that doesn't mean that it's a failure of the system at large. I think it's just that's, it's one of the, it's one of the flaws in our system. It's just the way the system is. It's an imperfect system.

[Jake Halpern]

More in just a minute.

[Amy Brown]

Have you ever gotten sick on a very expensive, very non refundable family trip? AmazonOne Medical has 247 virtual care so you can get help no matter where you are. And with Amazon Pharmacy, your meds can get delivered right to your hotel fast. It's kind of like the room service of medical care. Thanks to Amazon, healthcare just got less painful.

[Bobby Bones]

Hey, it's Amy Brown from the Bobbi Bones Show. Join me in supporting St. Jude Children's Research Hospital for a chance to win a trip to meet Megan Maroney at the 2025 I Heart Country Festival in Austin, Texas on May 3rd. Hosted by Bobby Bones. We're going to hook you up with tickets, flights, hotel, food credits and a meet and greet with Megan Maroney. Take action now to support St. Jude and help cure childhood cancer. And you're going to be entered for a chance to win visit iheartcountrytrip.com to learn more. You know, when the world gets a little crazy and everything is moving too fast, don't you just wish you could get away from all of it for a while? Well, that's exactly what the all new 2025 Nissan Murano can do for you. And to be clear, you don't even have to go anywhere. The Murano is the getaway. It was designed from the ground up to be a refuge from the daily grind. I mean, it has a Bose premium sound system which can play your favorite, most relaxing music. And there's nothing like a world class audio system to just transport you to a better headspace. Then there's the Murano's massaging leather appointed seats. Yeah, massaging seats. Talk about melting away your stress. So could getting stuck in traffic become your happy place? I don't know, it sounds like it could in the all new Murano. You should probably check one out for yourself. You gotta drive the all new 2025 Nissan Murano today. Bows and massaging leather appointed seats are optional features.

[Terry]

One of the things that struck me, that surprised me, and I'm wondering how you reacted to it, which was that here we are 15 years out and when I talked to both Bob and, and to Nick, who is the foreman, I was really amazed at how I guess fresh and lasting the memories and the experience of this trial were for them. And I'm wondering, does that surprise you or do you think that that is typical of these experiences have such a lasting effect on, on the jurors who sit through these trials?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah, I think it's a couple things. Jurors were essentially felt, at least it seemed to me, felt very disappointed by the outcome. I mean, so that sort of lasts with them. You know, it wasn't something that they wanted. They wanted to do it one way and they didn't get that outcome. And so, you know, I can see why it haunts them and why it sits with them to this day. I don't fault them. I get the sense that people feel like the jurors screwed up, they made a mistake, or they did something stupid. That's the easy way out. It's easy to say that jurors, you know, didn't get it right and they didn't understand what they were doing. And how can you make any sense of this? I mean, as I look at what they did, it makes, it actually made perfect sense to me. But if you listen to their rationale, it does make sense. There were a number of jurors in there who felt strongly that this did happen, that this man was murdered by this guy. But when pushed by or when questioned by some jurors who were sort of hung up on this idea of not just a belief, but beyond a reasonable doubt belief, and the fact that there really wasn't. I mean, if you look at what the prosecution brought, you know, there wasn't really a connection between, you know, what actually happened and this particular man. I mean, no one, at least my understanding, no one could actually identify that this was the man that was murdered by the defendant. And I mean, and remember that this case happened at a time when DNA evidence and physical evidence was something that was becoming very, very forefront. You saw it all over the news. It was a big. It was a big thing that was becoming a real thing for cases like this. And so, you know, it's not too shocking to me that there were some jurors who said, you know, I'm not seeing that. That physical evidence, that's where the jurors fall. So that's where the compromise happens, because that's the crack. Right.

[Terry]

Well, so, I mean, if I'm hearing you right, you're saying basically, like, the jury worked.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Yeah. I mean, again, I think that, you know, for conspiracy, it makes sense that they concluded what they concluded. I mean, the conspiracy charge doesn't require proof of an actual murder. It just requires proof that, you know, an individual and another individual, or more than that, know, decided this is what they were going to do and actually started to put that plan into motion. And I think that everybody could comfortably go there. I think when you're talking about the actual murder itself, though, without something making that connection. And again, I think if you're asking me or asking anyone, any of the jurors, do you think that this is what happened? I think the answer to that is clear. Everybody would be unanimous on that. But if you're asking beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to prove that this is the guy that was murdered by that guy. I think that's a harder question. Without that physical evidence there to connect it, how.

[Terry]

How common is it to have a compromise like this? I mean, the. The. The. The papers at the time called it a bizarre split verdict. But this idea of juries kind of making a compromise in order to avoid a mistrial, is this a pretty common thing?

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

I mean, the mistrial, that's an uncommon thing. So I think that jurors certainly will want to do what they can do to get the right outcome. So if people believe that he did something bad and did something wrong and they're convinced of that. They're not going to want him to just get off scot free. Right? So this is a situation where the conspiracy, the evidence is solid on that. The weapons charge, solid on that. You know, now at least we know that he can go away based on these charges.

[Terry]

On the one hand, I hear you saying that you felt that the jury did their job and it kind of worked in this case. But earlier, at one point, I heard you say that the verdict in this case was tragic. And I was just wondering what you meant by that.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

I think that if you didn't have a burden of proof and you just simply wanted to sit people down in a room and say, did this guy do it? I think that everybody would agree that he did. That's the tragic part of it, is that I know that the family was, you know, looking for justice. They believe with all their hearts that this is the guy that did it. And in all likelihood, he was that guy. The problem is, is that there's that burden of proof, and there are some jurors who will hold to that standard. Standard. And so I don't think even if people believe strongly that that's the case, if they don't have beyond a reasonable doubt in this case, some of those jurors are going to say that's. That's good enough for me to say that I'm not going to convict someone and put them away for the rest of their life. I mean, I feel like the jury in one sense was honorable, in the sense that they were not willing to hang and potentially not allow any consequence to be met to the defendant. Because, you know, that could have been what they did. They could have hung on murder one. But, you know, if that, if that was not going to get them to a conviction on a particular. On anything, then, you know, in a sense that's better than not getting anything at all. I mean, to me, the bigger travesty would have been that this guy walks away scot free. That would have been a huge, huge travesty.

[Terry]

Wow. Well, thank you so much for chatting with me. And I'll be calling you when I get called for my next jury.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Absolutely. I. I will be happy to talk.

[Jake Halpern]

This episode was produced by Amy Gaines McQuade. Our editor is Karen Shakurji. Our executive producer is Jacob Smith. Our show art was designed by Sean Carney. Original scoring and our theme was composed by Luis Guerra. This episode was mastered by Sarah Bruguer. Special thanks to Sarah Nix and Greta Cohn. I'm Jake Halpern.

[Bobby Bones]

Okay, so we all need to get away from the world sometimes. Well, in the all new 2025 Nissan Murano, you don't even have to go anywhere. The Murano is the getaway. Just picture it. The Bose Premium sound system plays your favorite music as the Murano's massaging leather appointed seats melt away your stress. Yeah, that's a real getaway. Drive the all new 2025 Nissan Murano today. Bose and massaging leather appointed seats are optional features.

[Beth Wilson Devlin]

Stop hitting snooze on new tech. Upgrade the whole [e-mail] Unlock AI experiences with the ThinkPad X1 carbon powered by Intel Core Ultra processors so you can work, create and boost productivity all on one device. Win the Tech Search for Business [e-mail].

[Jeri Williams]

Lenovo Lenovo.

[Ryan Seacrest]

Hey, it's Ryan Seacrest for Albertsons and Safeway with the Stock up sale at Safeway and Albertsons. Stock up and earn four times points at your local store when you purchase participating products. Save now on your favorite beverages from Red Bull to Coke, Monster 7Up body armor and Pepsi. Clip the offer in the app for event savings and look for participating items throughout the store. Shop in store or online. Plus you can even have your groceries delivered or use. Drive up and go to have your groceries brought to your car at the store. Restrictions and exclusions applied. Visit Albertsons or Safeway.com for more details.