July 29, 2024 • 35 mins
Jake Halpern speaks with Jerri Williams, former FBI agent and host of the podcast, FBI Retired Case File Review about the case at the center of our series, The Nameless Man. Then, Beth Wilson Devlin, a founding partner at Edge Litigation Consulting, joins the show to analyze the verdict and discuss what prosecutors and defense attorneys look for when choosing a jury.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Pushkin.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
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
(00:41):
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.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
That's Jerry 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's interviewed hundreds of FBI agents about
cases they've worked. She's actually the person who first tipped
(01:14):
me off about this story that we told in season
four of Deep Cover. When it was done, I called
Jerry up to discuss this case. I wanted to know
what drew her to it in the first place, and
also get her impressions of what we'd put together for
the Nameless Man. Later in this episode, you'll hear from
Beth Wilson Devlyn. She's a jury consultant. Her job is
(01:36):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
I love telling these stories, and I would love all
of them to become a podcast series, a documentary, a
TV show.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
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. It seems
like a driving force with you.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
It absolutely is. I just need to tell the true stories.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
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 from
carrying the badge to you know, carrying the mic.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
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
(02:59):
the FBI story.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
You know, you got me from the very beginning. I mean,
just to give listeners a little bit of a back story.
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. If
you could get the players to talk in the story,
(03:23):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Where do you want to start?
Speaker 3 (03:40):
If I could share, I'd like to start with creating
a picture for the audience. Imagine yourself as a senior
at your prompt. Imagine wherever that may be, a hotel
or some sort of venue, and picture yourself seventeen eighteen
years old, enjoying the end years of your four years
(04:02):
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
(04:22):
a prom table together, which was located at the DuPont Hotel,
where 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,
the night of the prompt.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
This beginning really grabbed me because there's something about situating
it in prom night that really helps help me understand
just how young the alleged perpetrators of this crime were.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Absolutely, I just couldn't wrap my mind around high schools
students being so bold as to brag about killing somebody
only based on the color of its skin. It was frightening.
(05:21):
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
(05:45):
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 going to
(06:06):
ask you about. I needed to hear the whole story.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
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,
(06:49):
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
Aaron Wood's mother had passed away before you did this,
but I really, you know, it really got to me
(07:12):
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 what obviously was a hole in her life
(07:34):
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, you know, and an ATF
agent was able to do that for this woman that
(07:55):
you know, they'd never met. That that really meant a
lot to me too.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Yeah, And it's interesting when I went down and interviewed
them and realized that that they were in this question
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
(08:21):
and Terry and they were 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.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Wow. I never thought of that. Yeah, that is pretty cool.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Yeah, yeah, and it 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.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Wouldn't you say, 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 tabe you want to
play here from Carmen Weinberger, who was thesis and Da
and she when they're putting the case together, is meeting
Craig for the first time.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
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 always thought
(09:56):
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 faith. He looked like he could
have been relative.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
What was your reaction when you heard that.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
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
(10:38):
half of who they are. It's I did not know
this when I interviewed Scott. That just never came up.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah, I mean, you know, sometimes you know how this goes,
there's 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 involve this white
(11:10):
supremacist group and then in fact went on to commit
murder based on its ideology, it raises a million questions.
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.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Well, all I have 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
(11:53):
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
(12:18):
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.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
After the break, I discussed the jury and their verdict
with Beth Wilson Devlin.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
I listened to the whole thing. Actually, I thought it
was very interesting.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Wow, that's great. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I'm not a.
Speaker 5 (13:02):
Podcast person either, so I thought it was very good.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. You you now
fall into the same class as my family members who
I guilt into listening to my work. 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
(13:27):
out to Beth to discuss the verdict in this case.
And if you recall back in two thousand and eight,
Thomas Guybison 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
(13:50):
take on all of this, and we started off talking
about the process of how a jury is even chosen.
In the first place. There's a jury selection process in
which you're going through potential jurors and weeding some ow
can you can you just talk us through that a
little bit about how that works.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
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
(14:32):
different ways that you can get information. But what that
information is and how much you have is really depend
dependent upon the venue. So one thing I will just say,
because I did I listened to the podcasts and uh,
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 de selection process. So you're not actually
(14:55):
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
(15:16):
to your case.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
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?
Speaker 5 (15:27):
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
(15:47):
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
(16:08):
if it were 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
(16:32):
juror Bob, he was one. He's a perfect example of thing.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
You're saying this, and I'm like, you're describing Bob, who
is who is not entirely convinced by the prosecution.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
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
(17:03):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
By that same logic, is the prosecution in this case
I do looking for someone who's going to be motivated
by the kind of emotionality of the case.
Speaker 5 (17:22):
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,
(17:43):
it must be a duck.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
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 this situation 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?
Speaker 5 (18:06):
Well, so a couple things. You can't strike based just
on race. So there's something called a bats In challenge
that if there is a pattern of one side or
another doing something like that, then they can raise the
bats In challenge because you can't strike just based on
something like race. Gender is another example for bats In challenge.
(18:26):
So you can't do that, but you can strike somebody
who is of, you know, a particular race or ethnicity
if you have other reasons for doing that. The way
I think about it in this case is, you know, yes,
there's certainly a racially motivated component to it, So to
say that that isn't relevant would be ridiculous really, But
(18:47):
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 experience 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, you know, advising for the defendant,
(19:07):
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.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, you use the vampire analogy, which made me think,
you know, what is it the vampire? You break out
the garlick or the crucifix, and you know you've 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 may rightly sense are
going to be a liability. You're going to turn people off.
(19:41):
So how do you ferret that out?
Speaker 5 (19:42):
Yeah, I mean that's a situation where the questionnaire is
really the better way to go, because that's a situation
where people are going to be much more candid if
they don't have to look someone else in the eye,
where there's a much more of a sense of being
judged in that room.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Okay, So we talked a little bit through Roger King
and what he would want, and you kind of address this.
But I want to ask you, if you're Mike Ferrell,
the defense attorney, and you've got this client here, who
is being accused of murder who at one point in
his life was is a skinhead, and all the kind
of baggage that brings with it. Who are the people
(20:16):
that you want and don't want on the jury From
the defense perspective.
Speaker 5 (20:23):
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 perspective 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.
(20:45):
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 the sort of the bobs, right,
(21:07):
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 as you talked
(21:29):
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
(21:49):
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
(22:10):
for that defendant.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
That's interesting. But how do you that's like a very
personal thing. How do you how would you suss that out?
Speaker 5 (22:18):
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 gonna be able to ssess
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
(22:38):
are questions that you might be able to ask in
the Vais deir 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.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
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?
Speaker 5 (23:06):
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.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Yeah, because I'm thinking like you would you ask a juror, sir,
have you been divorced?
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Sir?
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Has was it an acrimonious divorce where you had to
fight over custody? And trying to get at that issue
is is this someone who's going to kind of be
you know, angry at women.
Speaker 5 (23:34):
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 you know,
if you're asking a more specific question that can help
more pointedly get at the 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
(23:55):
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 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.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
One of the limited exit interviews that has done at
the time with a juror, the one thing that he
said to the to the press was something of the
effect of one of the ex girl friends was baddie
and just fixating on, you know, emotionality and the personality
of one of these ex girlfriends, which seemed like an
(24:38):
odd thing to base a desire to quit on. But
I'm hearing you.
Speaker 6 (24:44):
It's if that's resonating with you on a personal level,
and you're the jur and you're thinking, oh, she reminds
me of of this person in my life who was
a nightmare and did these things to me and my god,
like I can't take her word for anything, then you
could quickly see how that like, because it's not all logic.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
Right, that's absolutely right. I mean, that's a situation where
I so that one holdout dur I doubt he was
a critical thinker, not like a Bob right you talked
of 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 you know, racism level, although
that might have been there too. It sounded like this
(25:22):
particular jur 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 you know,
isn't a critical thinker, but rather as someone who's personally
identified with the case, with a particular defendant and just
no matter what, is going to stand by, you know,
(25:43):
his position and doesn't want to be challenged. It doesn't
want to get into the debate with other jurors, and
that can be incredibly frustrating for the other jurors because
they don't have anything to work with, you know.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
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 an underpinning of
our sense of American democracy and in so many ways
it feels.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
Like it's it's it's wonderful.
Speaker 6 (26:13):
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.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
Yeah, I mean, but I will say this, I mean,
that's true, and we are all a product of our
own you know, experiences and the world views that are
formed from those experiences in the adagies 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 twenty five years now,
(26:50):
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, you know, hiccups.
And I don't mean to minimize the situation, because I
(27:10):
think the verdict in this case was was tragic. I
think that you know, people just buy 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
(27:32):
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
(27:54):
just more likely you're going to see that that element
that comes out where jurors are going to be more
like 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 state are really high,
you get jurors like that. It doesn't happen in every case,
but again, you can have that, and that doesn't mean
(28:17):
that it's a failure of the system at large. I
think it's just that'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.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
More in just a minute. 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, you know,
fifteen years out, and when I talked to both Bob
(28:50):
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. Wondering
does that surprise you or do you think that that
(29:13):
is typical of these experiences have such a lasting effect
on the jurors who said to these trials.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a couple of things.
Jurors were essentially felt, at least it seemed to me,
felt very disappointed by the outcome. I mean, so that
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.
(29:43):
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,
(30:05):
there were a number of jurors in there who felt
strongly that this did happen and that this man was
murdered by this guy. But when pushed by or when
questioned by some jers 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,
(30:26):
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
(30:48):
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
(31:08):
the crack right.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Well, so, I mean, if I'm hearing you're right, you're
saying basically like the dury worked. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
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, you know, decide this
is what they were going to do and actually started
to put that plan into motion. And I think that
(31:39):
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
(32:00):
is the guy that was murdered by that guy, I
think that's a harder question without that physical evidence there
to connect it.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
How common is it to have a compromise like this.
I mean 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?
Speaker 5 (32:23):
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, you know, they're not going
to want him to just get off scot free. Right.
So this is a situation where the conspiracy, the evidence
(32:46):
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.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
And 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.
Speaker 5 (33:10):
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 looking for justice. They believe with all
(33:32):
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. 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
(33:53):
to say, 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 put
potentially not allow any consequence to be met to the defendant,
because you know that could have been what they did.
(34:15):
They could have hung on murder one. But you know
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 scott free. That would have
been a huge travesty.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Well, well, thank you so much for chatting with me,
and I'll be calling you when I get called for
my next jury.
Speaker 5 (34:44):
Absolutely, I will be happy to talk.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
This episode was produced by Amy Gains McQuaid. Our editor
is Karen Chakerjee. Our executive producer is Jacob Smith. Our
show art was designed by Sean Carney. Original scoring and
our theme was composed by Luis Gara. This episode was
mass sired by Sarah Bruguier. Special thanks to Sarah Nix
(35:12):
and Greta Cone. I'm Jake Calpert.
Pushkin.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
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
(00:41):
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.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
That's Jerry 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's interviewed hundreds of FBI agents about
cases they've worked. She's actually the person who first tipped
(01:14):
me off about this story that we told in season
four of Deep Cover. When it was done, I called
Jerry up to discuss this case. I wanted to know
what drew her to it in the first place, and
also get her impressions of what we'd put together for
the Nameless Man. Later in this episode, you'll hear from
Beth Wilson Devlyn. She's a jury consultant. Her job is
(01:36):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:54):
I love telling these stories, and I would love all
of them to become a podcast series, a documentary, a
TV show.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
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. It seems
like a driving force with you.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
It absolutely is. I just need to tell the true stories.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
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 from
carrying the badge to you know, carrying the mic.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
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
(02:59):
the FBI story.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
You know, you got me from the very beginning. I mean,
just to give listeners a little bit of a back story.
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. If
you could get the players to talk in the story,
(03:23):
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.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Where do you want to start?
Speaker 3 (03:40):
If I could share, I'd like to start with creating
a picture for the audience. Imagine yourself as a senior
at your prompt. Imagine wherever that may be, a hotel
or some sort of venue, and picture yourself seventeen eighteen
years old, enjoying the end years of your four years
(04:02):
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
(04:22):
a prom table together, which was located at the DuPont Hotel,
where 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,
the night of the prompt.
Speaker 1 (04:44):
This beginning really grabbed me because there's something about situating
it in prom night that really helps help me understand
just how young the alleged perpetrators of this crime were.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Absolutely, I just couldn't wrap my mind around high schools
students being so bold as to brag about killing somebody
only based on the color of its skin. It was frightening.
(05:21):
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
(05:45):
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 going to
(06:06):
ask you about. I needed to hear the whole story.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
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.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
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,
(06:49):
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
Aaron Wood's mother had passed away before you did this,
but I really, you know, it really got to me
(07:12):
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 what obviously was a hole in her life
(07:34):
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, you know, and an ATF
agent was able to do that for this woman that
(07:55):
you know, they'd never met. That that really meant a
lot to me too.
Speaker 1 (07:59):
Yeah, And it's interesting when I went down and interviewed
them and realized that that they were in this question
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
(08:21):
and Terry and they were 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.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
Wow. I never thought of that. Yeah, that is pretty cool.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
Yeah, yeah, and it 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.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
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.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Wouldn't you say, 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 tabe you want to
play here from Carmen Weinberger, who was thesis and Da
and she when they're putting the case together, is meeting
Craig for the first time.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
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 always thought
(09:56):
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 faith. He looked like he could
have been relative.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
What was your reaction when you heard that.
Speaker 2 (10:16):
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
(10:38):
half of who they are. It's I did not know
this when I interviewed Scott. That just never came up.
Speaker 1 (10:47):
Yeah, I mean, you know, sometimes you know how this goes,
there's 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 involve this white
(11:10):
supremacist group and then in fact went on to commit
murder based on its ideology, it raises a million questions.
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.
Speaker 2 (11:30):
Well, all I have 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
(11:53):
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
(12:18):
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.
Speaker 1 (12:42):
After the break, I discussed the jury and their verdict
with Beth Wilson Devlin.
Speaker 5 (12:56):
I listened to the whole thing. Actually, I thought it
was very interesting.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
Wow, that's great. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:02):
I'm not a.
Speaker 5 (13:02):
Podcast person either, so I thought it was very good.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah. You you now
fall into the same class as my family members who
I guilt into listening to my work. 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
(13:27):
out to Beth to discuss the verdict in this case.
And if you recall back in two thousand and eight,
Thomas Guybison 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
(13:50):
take on all of this, and we started off talking
about the process of how a jury is even chosen.
In the first place. There's a jury selection process in
which you're going through potential jurors and weeding some ow
can you can you just talk us through that a
little bit about how that works.
Speaker 5 (14:11):
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
(14:32):
different ways that you can get information. But what that
information is and how much you have is really depend
dependent upon the venue. So one thing I will just say,
because I did I listened to the podcasts and uh,
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 de selection process. So you're not actually
(14:55):
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
(15:16):
to your case.
Speaker 1 (15:18):
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?
Speaker 5 (15:27):
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
(15:47):
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
(16:08):
if it were 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
(16:32):
juror Bob, he was one. He's a perfect example of thing.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
You're saying this, and I'm like, you're describing Bob, who
is who is not entirely convinced by the prosecution.
Speaker 5 (16:42):
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
(17:03):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:14):
By that same logic, is the prosecution in this case
I do looking for someone who's going to be motivated
by the kind of emotionality of the case.
Speaker 5 (17:22):
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,
(17:43):
it must be a duck.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
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 this situation 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?
Speaker 5 (18:06):
Well, so a couple things. You can't strike based just
on race. So there's something called a bats In challenge
that if there is a pattern of one side or
another doing something like that, then they can raise the
bats In challenge because you can't strike just based on
something like race. Gender is another example for bats In challenge.
(18:26):
So you can't do that, but you can strike somebody
who is of, you know, a particular race or ethnicity
if you have other reasons for doing that. The way
I think about it in this case is, you know, yes,
there's certainly a racially motivated component to it, So to
say that that isn't relevant would be ridiculous really, But
(18:47):
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 experience 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, you know, advising for the defendant,
(19:07):
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.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, you use the vampire analogy, which made me think,
you know, what is it the vampire? You break out
the garlick or the crucifix, and you know you've 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 may rightly sense are
going to be a liability. You're going to turn people off.
(19:41):
So how do you ferret that out?
Speaker 5 (19:42):
Yeah, I mean that's a situation where the questionnaire is
really the better way to go, because that's a situation
where people are going to be much more candid if
they don't have to look someone else in the eye,
where there's a much more of a sense of being
judged in that room.
Speaker 1 (19:56):
Okay, So we talked a little bit through Roger King
and what he would want, and you kind of address this.
But I want to ask you, if you're Mike Ferrell,
the defense attorney, and you've got this client here, who
is being accused of murder who at one point in
his life was is a skinhead, and all the kind
of baggage that brings with it. Who are the people
(20:16):
that you want and don't want on the jury From
the defense perspective.
Speaker 5 (20:23):
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 perspective 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.
(20:45):
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 the sort of the bobs, right,
(21:07):
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 as you talked
(21:29):
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
(21:49):
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
(22:10):
for that defendant.
Speaker 1 (22:12):
That's interesting. But how do you that's like a very
personal thing. How do you how would you suss that out?
Speaker 5 (22:18):
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 gonna be able to ssess
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
(22:38):
are questions that you might be able to ask in
the Vais deir 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.
Speaker 1 (22:56):
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?
Speaker 5 (23:06):
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.
Speaker 1 (23:17):
Yeah, because I'm thinking like you would you ask a juror, sir,
have you been divorced?
Speaker 3 (23:22):
Sir?
Speaker 1 (23:22):
Has was it an acrimonious divorce where you had to
fight over custody? And trying to get at that issue
is is this someone who's going to kind of be
you know, angry at women.
Speaker 5 (23:34):
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 you know,
if you're asking a more specific question that can help
more pointedly get at the 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
(23:55):
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 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.
Speaker 1 (24:18):
One of the limited exit interviews that has done at
the time with a juror, the one thing that he
said to the to the press was something of the
effect of one of the ex girl friends was baddie
and just fixating on, you know, emotionality and the personality
of one of these ex girlfriends, which seemed like an
(24:38):
odd thing to base a desire to quit on. But
I'm hearing you.
Speaker 6 (24:44):
It's if that's resonating with you on a personal level,
and you're the jur and you're thinking, oh, she reminds
me of of this person in my life who was
a nightmare and did these things to me and my god,
like I can't take her word for anything, then you
could quickly see how that like, because it's not all logic.
Speaker 5 (25:00):
Right, that's absolutely right. I mean, that's a situation where
I so that one holdout dur I doubt he was
a critical thinker, not like a Bob right you talked
of 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 you know, racism level, although
that might have been there too. It sounded like this
(25:22):
particular jur 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 you know,
isn't a critical thinker, but rather as someone who's personally
identified with the case, with a particular defendant and just
no matter what, is going to stand by, you know,
(25:43):
his position and doesn't want to be challenged. It doesn't
want to get into the debate with other jurors, and
that can be incredibly frustrating for the other jurors because
they don't have anything to work with, you know.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
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 an underpinning of
our sense of American democracy and in so many ways
it feels.
Speaker 5 (26:10):
Like it's it's it's wonderful.
Speaker 6 (26:13):
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.
Speaker 5 (26:26):
Yeah, I mean, but I will say this, I mean,
that's true, and we are all a product of our
own you know, experiences and the world views that are
formed from those experiences in the adagies 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 twenty five years now,
(26:50):
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, you know, hiccups.
And I don't mean to minimize the situation, because I
(27:10):
think the verdict in this case was was tragic. I
think that you know, people just buy 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
(27:32):
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
(27:54):
just more likely you're going to see that that element
that comes out where jurors are going to be more
like 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 state are really high,
you get jurors like that. It doesn't happen in every case,
but again, you can have that, and that doesn't mean
(28:17):
that it's a failure of the system at large. I
think it's just that'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.
Speaker 1 (28:27):
More in just a minute. 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, you know,
fifteen years out, and when I talked to both Bob
(28:50):
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. Wondering
does that surprise you or do you think that that
(29:13):
is typical of these experiences have such a lasting effect
on the jurors who said to these trials.
Speaker 5 (29:22):
Yeah, I mean, I think it's a couple of things.
Jurors were essentially felt, at least it seemed to me,
felt very disappointed by the outcome. I mean, so that
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.
(29:43):
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,
(30:05):
there were a number of jurors in there who felt
strongly that this did happen and that this man was
murdered by this guy. But when pushed by or when
questioned by some jers 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,
(30:26):
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
(30:48):
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
(31:08):
the crack right.
Speaker 1 (31:09):
Well, so, I mean, if I'm hearing you're right, you're
saying basically like the dury worked. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
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, you know, decide this
is what they were going to do and actually started
to put that plan into motion. And I think that
(31:39):
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
(32:00):
is the guy that was murdered by that guy, I
think that's a harder question without that physical evidence there
to connect it.
Speaker 1 (32:08):
How common is it to have a compromise like this.
I mean 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?
Speaker 5 (32:23):
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, you know, they're not going
to want him to just get off scot free. Right.
So this is a situation where the conspiracy, the evidence
(32:46):
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.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
And 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.
Speaker 5 (33:10):
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 looking for justice. They believe with all
(33:32):
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. 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
(33:53):
to say, 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 put
potentially not allow any consequence to be met to the defendant,
because you know that could have been what they did.
(34:15):
They could have hung on murder one. But you know
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 scott free. That would have
been a huge travesty.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
Well, well, thank you so much for chatting with me,
and I'll be calling you when I get called for
my next jury.
Speaker 5 (34:44):
Absolutely, I will be happy to talk.
Speaker 1 (34:52):
This episode was produced by Amy Gains McQuaid. Our editor
is Karen Chakerjee. Our executive producer is Jacob Smith. Our
show art was designed by Sean Carney. Original scoring and
our theme was composed by Luis Gara. This episode was
mass sired by Sarah Bruguier. Special thanks to Sarah Nix
(35:12):
and Greta Cone. I'm Jake Calpert.
Host
Jake Halpern
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!