Criminal - "Did we get it right?"

Episode Date: May 12, 2023

“What we ask jurors to do is to just absorb all this trauma and just to keep on absorbing it and not process it with anyone. Just hold it in and hold it in and hold it in.” A look at what happens during and after a trial – and how some courts are trying to help jurors. Say hello on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Sign up for our occasional newsletter, The Accomplice. Follow the show and review us on Apple Podcasts: iTunes.com/CriminalShow. Listen back through our archives at youtube.com/criminalpodcast.  We also make This is Love and Phoebe Reads a Mystery. Artwork by Julienne Alexander. Episode transcripts are posted on our website. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Criminal comes from Apple Podcasts. Each month, Apple Podcasts highlights one series worth your attention, and they call these series essentials. This month, they recommend Wondery's Ghost Story, a seven-part series that follows journalist Tristan Redman as he tries to get to the bottom of a ghostly presence in his childhood home. His investigation takes him on a journey involving homicide detectives, ghost hunters, and even psychic mediums,

and leads him to a dark secret about his own family. Check out Ghost Story, a series essential pick, completely ad-free on Apple Podcasts. Botox Cosmetic, Adabotulinum Toxin A, FDA approved for over 20 years. So, talk to your specialist to see if Botox Cosmetic is right for you. For full prescribing information, including boxed warning, visit BotoxCosmetic.com or call 877-351-0300. Remember to ask for Botox Cosmetic by name. To see for yourself and learn more, visit BotoxCosmetic.com.

That's BotoxCosmetic.com. That's BotoxCosmetic.com. This episode contains descriptions of violence. Please use discretion. What happens if I get a jury summons and I say, I'm not going? I don't want to do this. I'm busy. In North Carolina, I don't know what happens. In many jurisdictions, quite possibly nobody, nothing will happen. In Massachusetts, we will pursue you and we will prosecute you criminally if we can't get you to either show us that you're disqualified or get you to do your service. So, and that's very well known that we do this. That's very well known within Massachusetts.

So, I will get calls from frantic people saying, I was on my way to the courthouse and I got a flat tire and I didn't make it and I don't want to be arrested. You know, please don't arrest me. And we're like, calm down. You know, you're a long, long, long way from anything like that happening. So if you just miss it or if you say, I don't want to go, 10 days after you don't show up, you're going to get a failure to appear notice. And at that point, you may be like, oh, these people aren't going away. You know, you're going to have to go in one way or another. You're not going to be able to avoid us.

I'm Phoebe Judge. This is Criminal. Pamela Wood is the jury commissioner for the state of Massachusetts. I had never heard of a jury commissioner. I hadn't either until I became the jury commissioner. The jury commissioner is the head of the office that's responsible for, primarily, for creating diverse and representative summonsing lists, making sure to include everybody who might be eligible to serve and sending out the summonses and making sure that the right number of people show up in the right courts on the right days.

I've never been called for jury duty. That's just wrong. I don't, and I'm confused by it. annual municipal census. So every year, the 351 cities and towns submit the names and addresses the contact information of all their residents, including college students and military and things like that. Most jurisdictions use voter registration lists and driver registration lists, and they may dip into things like, you know, hunting licenses and permits that you've pulled for construction and anywhere they can get that kind of information. So we don't use those lists because they're not inclusive. So not everybody registers to vote.

Not everybody has a car. You know, people who are marginalized or lowincome may be more likely to be left off the list. So that's why we're very happy to have the census to create our juror lists from. And how do you determine who will get a summons for jury duty? Well, I don't. It's all random. It's computerized. And in the same way that the selection is random, what cases those who've been selected will hear is also completely random. You're not trying to match. Absolutely not. Nope. We're just sending what our goal is to send a representative and diverse

group of people to every court on the days that they need jurors. And what that means, much to some people's consternation, is you might live at one end of a very large county down the street from a courthouse and we send you a summons saying we want you to go to jury service at the other end of the county and it may be a long drive through rush hour traffic and people say, why can't I just walk down the street? And the answer to that is that we want a random distribution of the population of that county to appear at every courthouse. So we don't have all, you know, farmers appearing in the rural counties and all urban dwellers appearing in the cities. So that's how they've defined a jury of your peers, is a random selection of people who live in your county. In Massachusetts, if you're called for jury duty, you'll be shown a video that explains what's expected of you. It also tells you a little bit about the history of jury

duty in the state. The video notes that women couldn't serve on juries until 1950. As recently as the 1980s, whole categories of citizens were exempted from service, including legislators, parents of young children, clergy, teachers, firefighters, lawyers, and many others. As a result, juries were not necessarily very representative of the community. They'll show the video. That's the orientation video. It's required to be shown to jurors before they serve. A judge will come and greet them, and that's really up to the judge. And judges make their own greetings. They can do something about the history of juries or their own personal feelings about the jury system, which of course are always positive. Or it can be very sort of practical about we'll get you out of here as soon as we can. We've got a very important case today, you know, whatever they want to say. And then when they actually go to an impanelment, they'll get a lot more detail about the case they're going to sit on. What type of case is it

they'll be asked to look at the defendant or parties, plaintiff and defendant, if it's a civil case, and the attorneys to see if they know them. They'll be asked if they've heard anything about the case. They'll be read a list of witnesses and asked if they recognize any of those names. And then they'll be asked a series of questions. Do you know any of these people? Do you have any interest in the outcome of the case? Have you seen any publicity about it?

And if people put up their cards and say, yes, that's me, they'll be called up to speak privately with the judge and the attorneys to hear more about why they feel that they, you know, had to answer a question affirmatively. And it may be something very simple like, oh, this is a case against, you know, IBM and my father worked for IBM when I was a child for a couple of years. And everybody may say, well, that's fine. You know, we don't care about that. But if they say, oh, I went to high school with the plaintiff, you know, and we were best friends, then they will be excused from that case. Once a jury has been selected, the trial can begin.

Jury members must remain impartial and open-minded throughout the trial. At the trial, the judge will give you detailed instructions about your duties. Here are important rules that must be followed in all cases. During the trial, you may not discuss any aspect of the case with anyone, including family, friends, or trial participants. The idea being, you know, if I go home and talk to my husband about, you know, what the police officer said about the crime, then my husband may say, well, you know, that guy must be guilty. And I might say, yeah, it sort of seems that way. I agree with you, you know. And then I come back to court the

next day with that in mind, and I haven't kept an open mind. I've brought somebody else into the process. So, one thing we do to check on it is just about every morning before we begin, I will say, have you all abided by my instructions not to listen to any news broadcasts or talk to anybody about the facts of the case? They all nod. Judge George O'Toole, Jr. You know, I never know whether somebody's cheated or not, but mostly they take their work really seriously. And when we say this is really important that you confine yourself only to what you've heard here in the courtroom and not on any private investigation you've done, any comments that other people have made.

Tell your family members you just can't talk about it. And they do. They follow through on that. Judge O'Toole became a judge in 1982 and has been a federal judge since 1995. In 2015, he presided over the trial of Johar Zarnaev, one of the two brothers who placed bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. Jury selection was complicated because so many people had connections to the victims or first responders. The bombs were homemade, made with pressure cookers, and went off seconds apart.

Three people were killed. Crystal Campbell, 29, Lu Lingzi, 23, and Martin Richard, who was eight. More than 260 people were injured.enteen people lost their legs. Governor Deval Patrick described the search for Zohar Tsarnaev as a massive manhunt and said, we are asking people to shelter in place. Tsarnaev was charged with 30 federal crimes, 17 of which carried the death penalty as a potential sentence, including the use of a weapon of mass destruction and conspiracy. 1373 prospective jurors filled out screening questionnaires. People wrote about neighbors and friends who'd been injured. Another difficulty in selecting jurors

was that because some of the crimes carried the death penalty as a potential sentence, each member of the jury had to be willing to consider it. Selecting the jury took two months. The trial began in March of 2015. There was huge international press coverage of the case. And we just didn't want to have the jurors arriving individually by themselves at the courthouse and maybe having to make their way through a crowd, both of the general public and perhaps of people from media. So we arranged with the Marshal Service for the jurors all to assemble at a remote location every morning.

And then a bus would bring them over. They'd come into the garage of the building and go straight up to the jury room in an elevator and not through any of the public parts of the building. And we'd reverse parts of the building. And we'd reverse that in the evening. They'd go down the elevator, get on the bus, be brought back to their spot of departure first thing in the morning.

So that was partly to keep them insulated from demonstrations, for example, but also just the physical anxiety of having to pass through a large number of people who are assembled at the courthouse to listen to the case. Do you remember if any of the jurors who were chosen asked to be let go when they realized what type of graphic evidence was going to be shown. So we go through a very, in this case we did go through a very extensive examination of the jurors as they were being selected. And sure, there are people who had strong views already and didn't think they could put them aside, but there are also people who really understand what the system is about and why we need people who are open-minded. And that's what we do during the selection process, what we call the voir dire. We try to get at that kind of

intellectual commitment to do the job they're being asked to do. And if they say they can't do it, then we don't let them stay. You know, they can move along and maybe get another case. Might not have the same pressures. We spent a long time in paneling the jury. The jurors heard testimony from 154 witnesses. So there were different categories of witnesses. So there were law enforcement people who could tell you what they did and saw. A lot of the people who had been injured in the bombing testified. Some had lost legs.

Some had been injured in other ways. Some had been emotionally harmed. And, of course, there were the family members of the deceased. So their families and friends testified, and it was very graphic testimony. Do you find yourself in cases like these at the end of the day, just kind of going back to your chambers and wanting to lie down or just be quiet for a moment? I think the latter, yes. It's very, I mean, I have a lot of experience with it,

but it's not by any means that I'm indifferent to it in any way. So, yeah, it's very emotional. But it's my job to keep in any way. So yeah, it's very emotional. But it's my job to keep it under control. Four days after the bombings, Zohar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were found in Watertown, Massachusetts. They threw pipe bombs and shot at the police. And the police shot back. shot at the police, and the police shot back.

According to the police, Tamerlan started coming towards them while firing his gun, and after he ran out of ammunition, officers tackled him. Johar got into a stolen SUV and drove toward the police officers, hitting his brother in the process. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was pronounced dead about an hour later. Johar Tsarnaev drove away. He then escaped, and it was gone for quite a while. And at some point, a homeowner in Watertown went out to his backyard where he had a boat

and it had canvas covering it to protect the interior of the boat from getting rained on and so on. And there was something odd about it. So he notified the police and they came in and the defendant was actually hiding in the boat. But there had also been, and I'm not quite clear as I think back on it, the precise sequence, but there was a fusilade of bullets fired at the boat. And I think it was the defense strategy, perhaps to encourage some sympathy for the defendant,

that law enforcement overdid the armed assault on the boat. So they wanted the boat brought in so the jurors could see the number of bullet holes in the boat and the blood that was inside. So I think it was something the defense wanted the jurors to understand, how he had been apprehended and what that might mean. So we made arrangements for an open space, a warehouse in South Boston that was not far from the courthouse. We had the boat towed down and brought into that warehouse. And the jurors were brought down by bus on one day and were able to walk around the boat and ask.

They didn't ask any questions, but they could sort of interrogate the boat by looking at it closely. And then we went back to the courthouse and resumed the trial in the courtroom. Judge O'Toole says that over the course of the trial, he kept a close eye on the jury, trying to take what he called their emotional temperature. They were shown photographs that the rest of the courtroom didn't see. The worst thing was autopsy pictures. So you have a young boy whose body was really torn apart.

But it was part of the government's case to put that into evidence. We kept it very minimal so that it was not extended at all, but just it's, the jury really had an obligation to understand the horror of the events. When the state's chief medical examiner described how the eight-year-old victim, Martin Richard, died, a reporter for the New York Times wrote that some members of the jury

hung their heads in their hands. At least three were crying. Two or three looked as if they were staring into the abyss. Do you sometimes, do you ever think to yourself, well, I wish they didn't have to see, you know, just as another human being, kind of look down at the jury and think, well, this is a lot for the day. These jurors have really been through the ringer today.

Yes, yes. Do you think that there's a way to get the message across, get the full picture in front of jurors in cases like these without having to show them these, you know, kind of horrendous images? Is it possible? Well, I don't know. I mean, if you ask the prosecutors, they would tell you that they have to do this because you can't understand how horrible things were if you don't see the actual one because most people don't extend their imagination in that direction. And so it takes having to see something you don't want to see to understand how bad it was. I can think of, for example, to switch to a different case,

I remember trying a child pornography case, and the images were awful. And we had a rule that the lawyers, this would be the prosecution, essentially, could display the images, but of course it was the images that were, in a sense, on trial with the defendant. They could display it to the jury for five seconds, and that's all.

So we would take measures like that to try to mitigate the unpleasantness, if not the disgust that jurors might have. But it would be necessary for them to understand what exactly was at stake in the case. The Boston Marathon bombing trial was five weeks long. The jury found Johar Zarnaev guilty on all 30 counts. Then the jurors began what's called the penalty phase to determine whether or not he would be executed. That lasted for four weeks, and the jury voted for the death penalty.

Some of the victim's family members had told the press that they didn't want Tsarnaev to get the death penalty, and after it was all over, one juror spoke publicly, saying, If I had known that, I probably would change my vote. He said, I've never had to make a I probably would change my vote. He said, I've never had to make a decision like that in my life, choosing between somebody getting the death penalty

and somebody getting life in prison, and I hope I never have to do something like that again. My mind still goes back every now and then. It's not something that I'll ever forget. At the end of the trial, you entered an order to extend the term of service for the jurors and the alternate jurors by 90 days. Why? Because of the emotional impact of the evidence they'd seen and because we expected that when they no longer had each other, the jurors, they might be home by themselves and might have memories of awful images that they've had and so on. And so we wanted to allow those people who thought it would be helpful to them

to have some counseling about how to handle their emotions and their memories. And so that was the purpose of the order. We'll be right back. Each month, Apple Podcasts highlights one series worth your attention, and they call these series essentials. This month, they recommend Wondery's Ghost Story, a seven-part series that follows journalist Tristan Redman as he tries to get to the bottom of a ghostly presence in his childhood home. His investigation takes him on a journey involving homicide detectives, ghost hunters, and even psychic mediums,

and leads him to a dark secret about his own family. Check out Ghost Story, a series essential pick, completely ad-free on Apple Podcasts. What software do you use at work? The answer to that question is probably more complicated than you want it to be. The average U.S. company deploys more than 100 apps, and ideas about the work we do can be radically changed by the tools we use to do it. So what is enterprise software anyway? What is productivity software? How will AI affect both?

And how are these tools changing the way we use our computers to make stuff, communicate, and plan for the future? In this three-part special series, Decoder is surveying the IT landscape presented by AWS. Check it out wherever you get your podcasts. The very, very first homicide case I had when I was a judge was a 10-day case. It involved a man who put a hit out on a woman, a 19-year-old, and when no one else could find her, he finally found her. He shot her a couple of times, and then he executed her. The testimony was graphic.

The photos were graphic. This was a young woman. As the trial was going on, I could see my jurors become more and more distressed every day. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jill Karofsky. Before she joined the Supreme Court, she was the state's first violence against women resource prosecutor, and then a circuit court judge. When we bring jurors in and they are asked to sit in a case, this is what we instruct them. You may not talk about the facts of this case with anyone, not even your fellow jurors, until it is time to deliberate.

So we're telling them that they need to look at graphic photos. They need to hear graphic testimony. They need to listen to graphic photos. They need to hear graphic testimony. They need to listen to graphic 911 calls. And they can't do the two things that we know people must do in order to work through trauma. And that is one, process it, usually by talking about it. Some people can, you know, or write about it or process it, however, and through relationships with other people. But we have closed those avenues.

So what we ask jurors to do is to just absorb all this trauma and just to keep on absorbing it and not process it with anyone. Just hold it in and hold it in and hold it in. And I could watch my jury in this case struggling. And I kept talking to my colleagues and I kept talking to the administrators around me saying, I've got a jury that I know is in distress. How can I help them? And there really wasn't anything available. The best I could do was, one of my fellow judges has a very, an elderly lab named Ursa. And she brought Ursa into the courthouse on one occasion. And I said, I'm going to ask my jurors if they'd like a visit from Ursa over lunch. And they were all for it. So my, I didn't go in there, but my colleague brought IHRSA in and they all got to love up a dog over lunch.

That was the best I could do. And the thing I was most afraid of happening happened. And that is that my jury deliberated late on a Friday afternoon into a Friday evening. They came back with the verdict Friday night, and I sent them out into the dark all by themselves. And I know they had to have been scared because when I left the courthouse that night and I took the special judge elevator down to the special judge garage where no one could get me, and I got into my car, I was still scared.

And I felt terrible. Judge Karofsky contacted a friend who was a therapist who said she'd be willing to see jurors for two free sessions. If they needed more, she'd work with them to find a way to get sessions covered by insurance. Then Judge Karofsky wrote a letter she'd give to jurors at the end of a trial. The letter describes ways they might feel afterwards. They might notice changes in their appetite or sleep. And said that if they were having a tough time, to call her or the therapist.

And people reached out. Their biggest concerns were, number one, did we get it right? And number two, am I going to be in any physical danger because of the verdict that we rendered? I had one individual call me the day after one of these trials, And this guy was great. He was, I don't know, he was probably late 50s, early 60s, tall guy, big guy. And he got on the phone with me. And he said, Judge, this is the day after the trial. He said, Judge, I walked in the door after serving on your jury last night, and I burst into tears. What the hell is wrong with me? There are situations where I have seen jurors have to stay out and deliberate until 2, 3, 4, 5 in the morning.

I wouldn't want to make a decision about, should I buy a red car or a blue car at four in the morning having been up all night? We always say, why don't you sleep on it? I'm going to sleep on it. And I think that's one of the other places where we could be very, very mindful of jurors, of court staff, making sure that everyone is getting enough rest, enough sleep, so that they're able to make the best decision that they possibly can. We put them in a position where they can make the best decision that they possibly can. Where I worked, we brought jurors in on Monday morning, and the jurors had no idea were they going to be on a case or were they going to get to go home.

Were they going to be on a half-day trial about retail theft or maybe a first-time drunk driving, or were they going to be on a multi-day graphic child sexual assault case, a child pornography case, a homicide, a sexual assault, you know, a sexual assault case of an adult. Like they would have no idea. And they would come in and I was, I tried to be very sensitive about the questions I was asking people, especially in a domestic violence or a sexual assault case, I would let them know up front what the case was about. And I would say, if just knowing what the issue in this case is

about, if you hear that and you are thinking, there is no way I can sit on this jury trial, I'm going to let you go without asking any more questions. That doesn't always happen. There are some judges who believe that they need to individually talk to each of the jurors. And by individually, it's not just the judge and the juror, right? The courtrooms have to be open. They can ask the other jurors to leave, but anyone else can sit in there and they can ask, why can't you sit on this case? Have you been a victim before? Has your child been a victim before? And your child been a victim before? And they feel like they need to ask all these probing questions.

So right from the get-go, you can really, really trigger some people. There are instances where people have shown up for a jury trial, where the judge has asked, have any of you ever been a victim of sexual assault? Someone will raise their hand and it will be the first time they have ever disclosed that they were a victim of sexual assault. The first time in a public courtroom without any support there, without knowing what that answer is going to mean. Does that mean they're going to be on the jury? They're not going to be on the jury? In front of these complete strangers, on the record, so there's a court reporter taking down every word that is being said. I think the justice system is just

now understanding how trauma impacts victims. I think the justice system is just now understanding how trauma impacts defendants. And we haven't quite had the opportunity to look out and understand how trauma is affecting everyone in the courtroom. Why aren't jurors given more preparation, explicit preparation, or warnings about the type of evidence that they might be, but in general, you don't, the court doesn't want to do anything to color or influence the juror's preconceptions about the case. Massachusetts Jury Commissioner Pamela Wood. The court doesn't want to presume that somebody, you know, might have a certain reaction to a certain type of evidence. Now, if it's, you know, if it's fairly clear, if it's going to be a very gory murder case involving, you know, dismemberment or something like that, the judge might say something, but they're not going to emphasize it because they don't want to, they don't want to be seen as opining or coloring their own view or the juror's view

of what might or might not be upsetting. We, my office, the Office of Jury Commissioner, send around a survey to everybody after they serve and ask for their views. And it really runs the gamut. So you could easily get somebody who'd say, I wish the judge had warned me there would be graphic photographs. But in the same trial, somebody will say, I really didn't appreciate the judge presuming that I couldn't handle it, or I felt like the judge was trying to discourage me from serving

or something. So, people have very different reactions and that's one of the beauties of the jury system is that people bring different perspectives to the task. And so, the court is always walking a very fine line of trying to preserve that open-mindedness and not suggest that this is going to be a very upsetting case or this is going to be a very disturbing case. Because right away, the defense would object to that, to say, let's let the jury decide how they feel about this case. Don't you bring them into the case saying, oh, don't do this if you're squeamish or if you have sensitive sensibilities. You know, with that, naming names,

I remember raising this with one judge who said, you know, tell them to suck it up. We'll be right back. Hey, it's Scott Galloway. And on our podcast, Pivot, we are bringing you a special series about the basics of artificial intelligence. We're answering all your questions. What should you use it for? What tools are right for you? And what privacy issues should you ultimately watch out for? And to help us out, we are joined by Kylie Robeson, the senior AI reporter for The Verge, to give you a primer on how to integrate AI into your life. So tune into AI Basics, How and When to Use AI, a special series from Pivot sponsored by AWS,

wherever you get your podcasts. Are you looking to eat healthier, but you still find yourself occasionally rebounding with junk food and empty calories? You don't need to wait for the new year to start fresh. New year, new me? How about same year, new me? You just need a different approach. According to Noom, losing weight has less to do with discipline and more

to do with psychology. Noom is the weight loss management program that focuses on the science behind food cravings and building sustainable eating habits. Noom wants to help you stay focused on what's important to you with their psychology and biology-based approach. Noom takes into account your unique biological factors, which also affect weight loss success. The program can also help you understand the science behind your eating choices and why you have those specific cravings, and it can help you build new habits for a healthier lifestyle. And since everyone's journey is different, so are your daily lessons. They're personalized to help you reach your goal. Stay focused on what's important to you with Noom's psychology and biology-based approach. Sign up for your trial today at Noom.com.

In your time as jury commissioner, how long have people been talking about trauma for jurors, but I can't imagine my predecessor didn't get the same sort of thing, saying, you know, this was really, you know, upsetting, you know, I wish I'd known it was going to be, you know, that graphic. But I will tell you that I served on a jury last April in federal court, and it wasn't graphic or gory or anything like that. And it was a civil case. So nobody was going to lose their liberty over it. And I was struck by how stressful, I guess, I found the responsibility of sitting there in the box and thinking, I'm going to have to decide who wins this case and who doesn't with my fellow jurors. And even that was stressful.

And we see that in the comments, that people say it was an awesome responsibility. Some people love that. They say, I felt so empowered. I renewed my faith in the judicial system or it made me proud to live in a democracy. You get very inspirational comments like that. The letter I think that means the most to me that I've gotten over the years was from a gentleman who wrote to me and said,

I've made mistakes in my life. I'm going to choke up. I do every time I tell this story. He said, I made mistakes in my life, and I'm a convicted felon. And I thought I would never be a part of the community again. And I went to jury duty, and they put me on the jury, and they made me the foreperson. And I feel like I'm a part of the community again.

And I just thought, boy, you know, that's really what it's about, is making people feel like their voice is important and that they're part of the government, that they are what makes our society operate. But, you know, it's not a walk in the park. It's not a walk in the park at all. So it's a serious experience, let's just say that. Every now and then we get a comment from someone who says, this was a waste of time. This case never should have come to trial. The prosecutor didn't have a case. But much more often, that's rare, and much more often people talk about what an important and sometimes stressful experience it was. Federal courts can grant jurors access to counseling if they've been on a high-stress trial.

They can basically be temporarily treated like a federal employee and have access to some of those mental health benefits. This is how Judge O'Toole was able to get the jurors free counseling after the Boston bombing trial. Pamela Wood says Massachusetts had tried to make something like this happen at the state level. They'd also tried to share information about ways jurors could get help on their own. But it was all just extremely ad hoc. You know, we felt like we had to do something and sort of acknowledged that this was even an issue.

One judge wondered if jurors could be considered state employees, since they were paid for their time, and temporarily get state employee benefits. Pamela says that didn't work out. But after a lot of trial and error, the state of Massachusetts figured out how to implement a statewide juror counseling program. The state will pay for jurors to have three free sessions with a counselor. If that isn't enough,

the counselor will help them make a plan. And have jurors been using the program? They have. They have. Very few, thankfully. I mean, it's interesting. Some people say, well, how's it going? Are you getting lots and lots of takers? And I'm like, I don't want lots and lots of takers. I don't want to discover that jury service is traumatizing for large groups of people, but for the few for whom it is, we want to have something available. They've been up and running for about a year, and she says that some people who have taken advantage of the program only meet with a counselor once. In fact, there was one person who called as they were leaving the courthouse,

and they left a message. And so the counselor called them back, and they were kind of resolved at that point. And they said as soon as they left the message, they felt better, just knowing that there was this option and that they weren't alone with this. So it's been kind of an interesting phenomenon in that way. It's almost like just knowing that it's available is doing a lot to serve the purpose that we're trying to achieve. And acknowledging that it is okay to have feelings about what you saw or heard or had to take part in. Absolutely, absolutely.

I think that's a huge part of it, and I think that's a change in recent years of the attitude about this, about this experience of serving as a juror, there was a feeling like, yes, it's tough in a lot of ways. You know, it's tough to arrange your schedule to get to the courthouse. It may be tough to get to the courthouse. You know, it's tough to arrange childcare and be away from your family. And, you know, it's tough to argue with strangers and have to come to an agreement when you may not agree.

You know, we acknowledge it's an inconvenience. It's demanding. And it's an obligation of citizenship. And it's also a right. And it's just tremendously important to our democracy. And we appreciate you. And we thank you. And we hope you'll recover from all of it, from taking the time off and getting the child care and being away from your work and your family, and also whatever you saw. And this is sort of an acknowledgement that that's really a little different

from the inconveniences of serving as a juror. Criminal is created by Lauren Spohr and me. Nydia Wilson is our senior producer. Katie Bishop is our supervising producer. Our producers are Susanna Robertson, Jackie Sajico, Libby Foster, Lily Clark, Lena Sillison, and Megan Kinane. Our technical director is Rob Byers. Engineering by Russ Henry. Julian Alexander makes original illustrations for each episode of Criminal. You can see them at thisiscriminal.com.

We're on Facebook and Twitter at Criminal Show. And we're also on YouTube at youtube.com slash criminal podcast. Criminal is recorded in the studios of North Carolina Public Radio WUNC. We're part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. Discover more great shows at podcast.voxmedia.com. I'm Phoebe Judge. This is Criminal. Jury, I just want to thank you for being here today. By being here, ready to serve, you've done your part to preserve our constitutional right to a trial by jury. After the trial, you will go back to the business of everyday life. Hopefully you will have a renewed sense of the importance of the jury system to our rights

and freedoms as citizens. The number one selling product of its kind with over 20 years of research and innovation, Botox Cosmetic Adabotulinum Toxin A, is a prescription medicine used to temporarily make moderate to severe frown lines, crow's feet, and forehead lines look better in adults. Effects of Botox Cosmetic may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems, or muscle weakness may be a sign of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Don't receive Botox Cosmetic if you have a skin infection. Side effects may include allergic reactions, injection site pain, headache, eyebrow and eyelid drooping, and eyelid swelling. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Tell your doctor about medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton syndrome in medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may increase the risk of serious side effects. For full safety information, visit BotoxCosmetic.com

or call 877-351-0300. See for yourself at BotoxCosmetic.com. Support for this show is brought to you by Nissan Kicks. It's never too late to try new things, and it's never too late to reinvent yourself. The all-new Reimagined Nissan Kicks is the city-sized crossover vehicle that's been completely revamped for urban adventure. From the design and styling to the performance, all the way to features like the Bose Personal Plus sound system, you can get closer to everything you love about city life in the all-new reimagined nissan kicks learn more at www.nissanusa.com slash 2025 dash kicks available feature bose is a registered trademark of the bose corporation