LPRC - Episode 15 – Experience as a Jury Foreman Inside a Major Murder Trial

Episode Date: November 13, 2018

The post Episode 15 – Experience as a Jury Foreman Inside a Major Murder Trial appeared first on Loss Prevention Research Council.

Hi everyone, welcome to Crime Science. In this podcast, we aim to explore the science of crime and the practical application of the science for loss prevention and asset protection practitioners, as well as other professionals. Co-hosts Dr. Reed Hayes of the Loss Prevention Research Council and Tom Meehan of Control Tech discuss a wide range of topics with industry experts, thought leaders, solution providers, and many more. In this episode, Dr. Reed Hayes and Tom Meehan talk to featured guest Greg Brumley of lululemon on his experience as a jury foreman inside a major murder trial we would like to thank bosch for making this episode possible use bosch cameras onboard intelligent video analytics to quickly locate important recorded incidents or events bosch forensic search saves you time and money by searching through hours or days of video within minutes to find and collect video evidence learn more about intelligent video analytics from Bosch in zones one through four of LPRC's zones of influence by visiting Bosch online at boschsecurity.com.

All right. Welcome back, everybody, to another episode of Crime Science, number 15 to be exact. Today, what we're going to do, my host, my co-host, Tom, me, and myself, is we're just going to have a conversation with an industry colleague of ours, a longtime industry colleague, Greg Brumley. Greg and I have worked together while he was at different retailers, including T-Mobile. And so we'll talk a little bit about that. But we're going to talk to Greg about, to me, a somewhat unique experience, particularly for anybody in law enforcement, loss prevention, asset protection, and that is serving and actually heading up a jury in a major criminal trial.

while we may not joke about it, we do talk about, yeah, how do people stay off juries? Because, you know, we've got very, very demanding jobs, or we might, in some defense attorney's mind, feel like we would be, or somebody might be a little more biased towards the prosecution side or whatever. So we're going to cover that today. And what I'd like to do is, Greg, So we're going to cover that today. And what I'd like to do is, Greg, introduce you. And could you give us maybe what are you doing right now in the LPAP world? Thanks a lot, Reed. Yeah, I've been in this industry for, oh, I guess a better part of 25 years. And started out in loss prevention at Walmart stores back in 1992.

And then left there and went to, after a 10-year career, went from there to the Seattle area. Went to work for Starbucks International. And then just made my way to where I am today as the vice president of asset protection for Lululemon, we call it athleisure apparel company. And I have both the facilities department as well as loss prevention and been here three years in January. And you mentioned T-Mobile. I went to T-Mobile after Starbucks. But, yeah, I've had a pretty wide experience in the retail world and just loving it, having fun with my life.

Fantastic. So what I'd like to do is kind of set this up by saying I see Greg, of course, and talk with him at many of the industry conferences that we've got out there, industry conferences that we've got out there, including ASIS's GSX or NRF's loss prevention, or of course, also at the annual RELA AP event. And at one of those above conferences, I believe it was RELA, in this case, I talked a little bit more about Greg's experience. And because both of us serve or have served for a long time on ASIS's retail LP council. And in fact, Greg headed that up for two years. And I know that during a crucial part of that, well, Greg wasn't making the calls. He was out serving the community as a juror.

And so I said, you know, I really would like to know more about it. What about, you know, let's do a crime science podcast on this. So what I thought I'd do is ask two or three questions, go to my colleague, Tom Meehan, of course, VP at Control Tech, and longtime LP practitioner as well for some questions. But, you know, Greg, let's go back to the beginning. How did you find out you were summoned to be on a jury? And what were some of your initial thoughts and actions at that point? Yeah, great question. It was, I remember getting a summons. And the interesting thing for me is I'd never been called to jury duty ever.

I'd never even, you know, shown up and then not get selected. I'd not even received a notice. So it was the first time I'd never even, you know, shown up and then not get selected. I'd not even received a notice. So it was the first time I'd ever received a notice. And because of that, I didn't pay too much attention to the notice itself, which I learned later was actually unlike the normal sort of you're being called for a two-week jury pull. This was a specific trial that I was being called for. And so I didn't know that until I'd gone in. But, you know, the usual thoughts filled my head of, oh, gosh, I'm not gonna be able to do this. I don't have the time. And then as I got closer to the day and actually went into the day of

jury selection, there were somewhat near 900 people that had responded there were 3 000 invitations sent out 900 people showed up for just one trial and i got the feeling right away this was something out of the ordinary there was something bigger about what was going on here there's media around and and so anyway that was kind of how it all started but i was my initial thoughts were gotta get off this i gotta i'm sure they won't pick me i got a degree in criminal justice and I run a loss prevention department. There's no way they're going to want me. So that's kind of how it started. My initial thoughts were. So you're thinking, okay, wow, never been summoned. This sounds like it might be a really big deal. Some of the media coverage, some of the indications, the red flags out there, if you will,

the signals. So what were your thoughts? Okay, I want to get out of it, but how did that kind of go down? What were your thoughts? Why would you not serve? What does that look like for many that are in this industry? Yeah, I mean, there was those thoughts too. I mean, the only reason I thought I wouldn't serve is I just didn't think they'd want me based on my background. And then the second thought was, I don't know if I have the time. And I was thinking at that time, it's just going to be a couple of weeks. And, you know, just cut to the chase a little bit. When all is said and done, this trial started about the 21st of January. And our final verdict was reached on the penalty phase May 5th of 2010.

So this was about almost a four-and-a-half-month trial. So it's a really long trial. I wasn't thinking that at first. More than anything, I just thought, man, they're not going to want me. I did think it would be kind of cool to get to serve just to be on that side of things. Often in our world, we're out in the courtroom or sometimes a witness, and we don't ever really get to see what goes on in the jury world. I thought that would be kind of cool, but I just didn't think at the front side of it that

I'd even have a chance. So following up on that, I mean, can you tell us a little bit, Greg, about the selection process? What did it look like? How did it go down? You mentioned how the huge number of initial citizens that they reached out to for this particular case, what did that selection process look like? Well, and I'll disclose up front here before I get too far into this. I ended up being the jury foreman on this trial. And it was a death penalty case. It was called Drupal Homicide. And the jurors and myself all agreed that we would never really talk to the media ever, any of us, about our deliberations or how we reached our verdict or you know who struggled with it or who didn't

and all of that so i'll just say that up front i'm going to try and avoid getting into this not so much the facts of the case because that's all public but just the inner workings of the jury so i'm going to try and avoid that area just out of the respect and commitment that we all made to each other um but anyway um the process was really interesting. You started out filling out an extensive questionnaire because this was turning out to be, it was going to be a death penalty qualified jury, meaning that every juror had to commit that they would set aside personal bias or feelings or convictions and rule on the law. And if you couldn't do that, you wouldn't mail on the jury.

So it was a death penalty qualified jury. And that initial questionnaire really sort of weeded out quite a few people. Then the second phase is we were all called back in. You were notified that, yeah, you're still in the pool. Then the second phase is we were all called back in. You were notified that, yeah, you're still in the pool. You're all what I learned later to some of the facts of the case. In this case, there was an allegation of alcoholic blackout. And so they would say, you know, is alcoholic blackout a legitimate? Do you think it's a legitimate claim for, you know, defense?

And, of course, that was just so hypothetical. But they asked a bunch of hypothetical questions that ended up being sort of part of the facts of the case. And then you left again. And then you came back to a large room another day, a third day, where they had probably 200 or 300 people in the room. And then they went through and asked questions of the whole room. And then they started picking. They went through and picked their – each whole room. And then they started picking. They went through and picked their, each side had a certain number of parentery challenges. Each side was able to pick their jurors.

And then at the end, there were 17 of us left. And five would ultimately be alternates. And then 12 would be the jurors to decide. We didn't know, as an incidental, we didn't know who would be an alternate until we went into deliberations after the trial was completely, you know, both sides had rested. And they put everybody's name in a box, and they picked out the 12, and the five were alternates. So it was kind of an interesting deal. Everybody wondering if they were actually going to get to sit on the jury after all those months listening to trial. But anyway, that's how the process went. And as it went on,

I remember sitting there thinking as they dismissed people and people, and I'm still sitting there and I'm like, Oh my gosh, I'm going to be on this jury. And anyway, it was just this, it's kind of this heart-wrenching day of, we started to hear more about the facts just through the process of jury selection. We couldn't watch the news, of course, at this point. I didn't know anything about the case.

I was out of the country when it happened. But anyway, I knew it was serious and I was kind of just dreading, oh gosh, I'm going to be on this jury. So that's kind of how the process went in selection. That's excellent insight. And we do. We really want to be respectful, Greg, of what you all thought, what you agreed on as a jury, as a team. You know, that's that's the good stuff. Tom, let me go over to you. What are some of your initial thoughts or questions right now for Greg as far as his experience? Thanks, Reed. Greg, thanks for joining us on the podcast today.

You know, I'm intrigued by the whole process and certainly will be respectful. And if there's anything that you don't feel comfortable with, just let Reed and I know. But throughout the process, I mean, I have gotten summonses myself in the past that have not been picked and always went right back to my work role. How did you handle your work role and what you were working on in your business role? Great question. I have to say, I just give a ton of credit to T-Mobile and the way they supported me through the whole process. T-Mobile and the way they supported me through the whole process. In the state of Washington, if you are on jury duty, a company can legally put you on leave of absence, meaning they have to preserve your job, but they don't have to pay you. And that would have been devastating for me,

what ended up being, you know, four and a half months trial. But my supervisor and the chief operating officer were both involved and knowledgeable of what I was doing and both committed to supporting me through it, including from nine to four, while the judge talked back and forth between sides. And I had my laptop back in the jury room and was able to do menial things, approve expense reports and respond to emails. And we got out of court downtown Seattle at four o'clock every day, and they were religious about it. town Seattle at four o'clock every day and they were religious about it. And, um, and I would, I took a bus downtown and I about three stops where I was at was the stop for my office. And I'd go in and often work till five 30 or six. Um, most nights there were some particularly tough days of testimony that I just didn't feel like doing anything, um, emotional and draining. And I'd go home, but most times I'd go into the office and work till six, six thirty. And then Fridays was a day off. So I was able to work all day Fridays on an occasion.

I work Saturdays, but I had a really solid team, a lot of support from the company and was able to able to do what I needed to do in the in the time frame I had. But it wasn't easy. And I felt fortunate. I know a lot of people don't get to experience that kind of positive, that positive experience I did. And it can be a real hardship, but I was, I felt really blessed to have the support I did. Could you give the listeners kind of an idea of the case and what the accusation was? Yeah. I mean, it's, it's part of public record public record so it's it's not a problem in the uh in the summer of 2006 um a woman um and her two little boys and the woman's sister uh were just brutally murdered

in their home um by what ultimately ended up being a young man from across the street that had recently got out of rehab, alcohol and drug abuse. And he came across in the middle of the night, armed with knives and blades and killed all four of them. And then the next day, burned the house to the ground. So it's a real tragic, tragic heart wrenching case. Um, and, um, lots of DNA, um, evidence because of the fire. Um, and, um, I think that's one of the reasons it took so long to sort of, um, deconstruct and recreate the crime scene and just the testimony that was helpful for us to make a decision, but decision. But just a fascinating, fascinating case. And really, like I said, heart-wrenching, especially with a three and a five-year-old boy involved.

So, yeah, one of those things you can't get out of your head, especially the current crime scene photos. And the husband and father was not around. He was in the U.S. Army fighting in Iraq when the murders happened. Just, you know, your worst nightmare, frankly. So, yeah, that's high level what happened. Can you give an overview of what the trial was like? I know you said it was a long extended. You gave a little bit of the schedule.

But what was it like day to day? And, you know, how did you gauge when you thought it would be over? Yeah, right. Well, I think the most, I think that I really didn't have a sense of the weight or the magnitude of what was going to happen until the very first day of trial. And I remember coming into the jury room that first Monday morning, late in January of 2010. And it was dark in the halls of the courtroom. And I was about 830. I came in and the jurors started to trickle in. We all sort of got to know each other high level and just talking mundane things like, how do you take a bus down here and how do you how do you you know you where are we gonna eat lunch and um oh we got a coffee

machine in here and you know just talking really just mundane little things and um and and i'll never forget the first time i felt how how serious and and deep deep this was, the bailiff came in and asked us to line up. Obviously, we didn't see anything out in the courtroom yet. We could hear a little bit through the door, but we didn't know what was going on outside. And, of course, we didn't really know the facts of the case because we obviously were on the jury because we hadn't read anything or heard anything about the trial or the murders. And we weren't watching the news,, so didn't know what was coming. So we lined up and when they we walked out into the courtroom and they, you know, you hear them say all rise and the judge stand. And there's there's firemen in uniform. There's law enforcement uniform.

There's like 10 cameras lined up videoing us. Everybody in the courtroom is looking at us as we walk out and take our seats in the jury box. And, you know, my heart starts racing. you know, like I said, I'm feeling my heart's in my throat. I'm, you know, I'm feeling a little emotional, frankly, looking at what's going on out here. See the defendant sitting there in front of us. And the prosecutor started and he asked the husband and father of the victims to come up and take the stand this guy comes up he's a he's a ukrainian immigrant um and he's in full dress uniform is his army uniform he takes a stand and he and he goes through and talks about how we learned about the murders. And oh my goodness. I, you know, it was at that moment I knew this was, this was a serious big deal. And we had a, I mean, had a really big job in front of us. And I, I mean, I was both moved and a little scared, but also just feeling like, man, I got, I got a serious task in front of me and I'm taking this

really serious. We're, we've got a guy's life front of me and I'm, I'm taking this really serious. We're, we've got a guy's life on the line. We got justice. We want to serve for this family. That's, that's lost almost everything. And, uh, yeah, so it was, it was that first day that just was so powerful for me. And then as the, as the trial went on, it was more of the same day. Some days were mundane and boring, and some days were fascinating, you know, sort of Perry Mason moments and just all along the spectrum. But that first day, I'll never forget. And being that, you know, you work in asset protection, and you deal with the criminal justice system, has that trial changed the way you view the

criminal justice system at all? You know, it really has. I wouldn't ever say that I was an advocate for the death penalty or an advocate for, you know, just hate defense lawyers or whatever. But I definitely leaned that way. But I think I walked away from this whole thing feeling like we're going to have the most serious penalty applied to somebody. And it's me and 11 other people's decision. I want to be damn sure that there's no doubt in our minds. And I want to be challenged in my thinking by both sides. I want, even if we choose not to choose not to, to convict, I want it to, because it's, it's overwhelming and compelling evidence and that, and that it's, you know, just without a doubt that we, we don't have enough to convict. And then on the other side, if we convict,

I want to know for sure, this guy had the best counsel. He had every chance they, they, to, to make it clear why he wasn't guilty. And that we as a society and individuals can feel really confident when we convict somebody that we did everything we could to help either disprove or disprove. And yeah, so I'm a big advocate for our adversarial system that the importance of having competent defense, I think, is just invaluable. And it helps us society know when we do put somebody in in in jail or worse, that we're confident as a society that this is completely deserved. And they had every chance to to show why we shouldn't convict them. So, yeah, I feel strongly that we have the best system in the world, and we're blessed to be in this country with the adversarial system that we have. Greg, let me ask you, if I could.

You mentioned the prosecutor, one of the first, I guess, a strategic move that he or she made. But could you maybe describe some of the performance of one or more of the prosecutors or defense attorneys? You know, what was their style? Could you pick up on their strategy? And a little about their skill. I mean, a little about their skill. I mean, were they any good? Yeah. Well, it's interesting. I, I, I definitely, obviously we, we convicted the individual both on the guilt, guilt, innocent phase. And then he was also, you know, found to have put on death row as a result. And so we, the jury in one of the more liberal counties in the state of Washington, with a wide cross section of the community on it. We had an IBM executive, a Boeing person, a female doctor. We had just a really, you know, cake maker from Costco.

We had just this really, you know, cake maker from Costco. We had just this really great cross section. And we were unanimous on both guilt innocent phase as well as the penalty phase. The thing that really got us there was the thorough nature of the prosecutor's case. And he handled the whole thing himself. He didn't, you know, he didn't have the defense had two, sometimes three lawyers that would, you know, take turns. They had a they had a screen with sort of real time transcript of what's been said that day and the previous days in front of them, which cost a lot of money. And the prosecutor didn't have that. He just had yellow pads, notes he was taking. And he did all of the examination and cross-examination himself. I think the defense was great, but this prosecutor was gifted. Incredible memory. And he had a real way of setting up questions leading to a point that you got real early on from the way he was working. It took a little while to see where he was going, but many times you could see exactly what he was doing.

He was magnificent. And I'm actually kind of a, I follow him in the news. He's had a number of trials since then. And he's, I don't know that I've ever seen him lose. He's quite good. So there was a number of, of great Perry Mason moments that he had, he had really got some, some witness kerfuffled and caught them really in, in sort of,

I'm not going to say lies, but really had, had spoken about things. They didn't really have firsthand knowledge of, and, and he was able to show it and it was uh really it was kind of fun to watch on some of those days uh he also had a really great way of boiling down really complex and detailed information into you know consumable stuff for average people like us on the jury um felt really respected by him and and i did the defense as well i i think I really felt like when the defense took over, the prosecutor started with their case and then what the

defense wanted to go second. And I felt, I was really kind of eager to hear their case. I wanted them to, you know, really counter some of the things we'd heard on the prosecution side. And in some cases they did, but most cases it wasn't, they just didn't, it wasn't that they weren't good. They just didn't have the facts to support, you know, what they were trying to get at. So really interesting, different styles, but I was really impressed with the prosecutor. Yeah, it really sounds like it. And, you know, we see trials on TV. Many of us have been involved in depositions or even a trial here and there, but to, but normally even then, because of certain witness rules, you're not there to see anything other than what you're seeing is you're sitting on the witness stand. So you just can't watch other witnesses testify.

So I think, but to be in the situation, yeah, where you were and the other jurors to see both sides, to see everything in totality and to weigh it, but to see that performance and, you know, God bless them for hanging in there, particularly as a prosecutor. A lot of them could go off and, you know, sometimes make more or even a lot more money. But, you know, we need their talent and expertise to protect on that side as well as on the defense side, that's for sure. And I thought one thing that might be interesting for us, particularly those of us that are in crime prevention, loss prevention, asset protection, and criminology, you touched on

the victims. You touched on the victims. You touched on the victim's family. Can you talk a little bit more, Greg? What are you comfortable about talking about that victimology, about those people, what they went through? But how did that family end up in that situation, or was it just really, really bad luck because they, they're the neighbors across the street happened to have a, you know, a very, very troubled family member. I think, um, when you look at what happened, um, this family was, they were, um, immigrants from, um, Ukraine. immigrants from Ukraine.

The husband, they came over for, they asked political asylum for religious freedom. They were prosecuted as Christians in that country. They loved America. The husband, as I mentioned, went and signed up for jury duty, I'm sorry, military service. And the wife was just a go-getter. She in a, um, a shop, uh, uh,

orthodontist shop and would regularly, um, she was a strong member of her little church and, and her sisters, she had three sisters and her sisters would come and help her with the boys, um, while her husband was deployed. And we actually in the jury and just during facts of the case, believe that this guy from across the street was coming for one of the sisters. But anyway, the only interaction that she had with this young man across the street was when he moved in about three weeks before the murders, she went across the street to introduce herself and actually invited him to her church. And that was the only interaction they had. So just, you know, tragic, heart-wrenching story.

But when you look at the family, and I got a little bit of this after the trial, I was curious about so many different things and I got to meet the husband and father. But, you know, it destroyed marriages. It ruined relationships and families. The girls whose sister and, you know, little nephews were murdered are somewhat estranged, evidently. The parents of the woman and the sister that were murdered, it's such a stress on their

marriage. They didn't make it as a married couple. It destroys lives. It's just devastating. You think something like this happens to people, obviously it's lives that will never be. And all the things that they would have done and touched and impacted in society are not going to be.

But it's also impacting on those that are left behind. And I mean, just devastatingly emotional trauma. So that came through a little bit in the trial and some of the victim impact statements when we were in the penalty phase got visibility to a little bit of that. Just tragic. But yeah, the victimization, it goes beyond just those who were the direct victims of the crime, their relationships, friends, everybody's impacted.

Even the guy that committed the murders, his parents and sister are just destroyed, devastated. And loved him and were supporting him, but they're all enormous emotional challenges as a result of what happened. So, yeah, it's a horrible thing. So I think, you know, we talk a lot about routine activity and how crime is generated by the routine activities of offenders and what they do as they move around in place and time and if that intersects with a place or, in this case, a person and their routine activities in place and time, and if that intersects with a place, or in this case a person, and their routine activities in place and time, and it sounds like, you know, here, one lesson learned, and it's not

something we can actually do anything about, but if she, you know, one of the victims approaches this particular neighbor, introduces herself, and invites him to come to church to share in her faith in this case. But that's a normal, healthy behavior, but that interaction there may have, in that individual, of course, generated something, something evil, but something. And that's sort of, as we try and better understand and make sense of crime and loss, as we try and better understand and make sense of crime and loss, how it happens so that we as practitioners and scientists can better defend against that and protect. So we appreciate that insight, Greg, that helps a lot. Tom, what are some thoughts that you have on that or, or some of the other components of what Greg is sharing with us?

I think it's I can think it's very heartfelt. I can tell just by the way you're talking, Greg, how emotional it is. But I guess since I've never been in that situation, what are the deliberations like? What is the function of deliberation? And what's the emotion and the bond between the jurors? Again, without going beyond what you feel is appropriate. So the listeners get a feel for that. It certainly sounds like it was life-changing,

but the actual function of deliberation, what was that like? Yeah, you know, I was just going to take a second on the emotional thing because I'm a really emotional guy. I mean, I joke that I cry at the grand opening of grocery stores and they cut the ribbon. I joke that I cry at the grand opening of grocery stores, you know, and they cut the ribbon. But seriously, this was not a stretch for me to be emotional over. In fact, you know when you're going into a deal like this that you can't watch the news.

You can't talk to anybody about it. You can't talk to your fellow jurors about it until you get into deliberation. So this was just an emotional, you know, you bottle it up. And in this case, for four months until you can actually talk about it after the trial's over. And that was a challenge. In fact, I remember the first night coming home from that day that was so striking for me. I came home from jury duty and my wife had been on a jury before, so she understood. And my kids were in high school and she told them, you know, hey, we can't talk about what dad's been doing. We just talk about our day. And as I sat there at dinner, it was this incredible experience.

Because I'm sitting there thinking about what I just heard that day, knowing I can't say anything about it. Hearing this guy sit on the stand on the, um, on the stand talking about his two little boys and his wife that were murdered. And I'm, I'm sitting with my wife and two children having this great dinner talking about this wonderful day and all this. And that this guy will never get to experience what I'm sitting doing right then and there. And, and I'm, I look at my kids, I'm looking at my wife after this first day. And I just burst out crying. I mean, of course, you know, my family is freaking out.

They look at each other and they're looking at me and they're like, dad, are you okay? And I'm like, man, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. But I just had this overwhelming overflow of feelings. And, you know, I think, you know, this victimization thing you talked about a minute ago, Reed, it impacted us too. I think we were all traumatized by having to go through the process, not to mention law enforcement and the, you know, the, the firemen that had to

sift through the rubble and find the bodies and deal with all that that was. And those of us in the jury and the court staff that have to look at the crimes, I mean, there's just this enormous, you know, sort of swath of damage and destruction that happens to so many people you don't think about initially. So anyway, just more thoughts on that. You're right, Tom. It was incredibly emotional. And when I think about it too much, even now, I start feeling those feelings come back up. But to your question about deliberations, I think, I think the interesting thing for me was, um, I really, I was, the first thing we did was we selected a jury foreman and I was, I was selected as the jury foreman. What I wanted to do quickly was not get into, okay, where do we all stand and vote? I

wanted to have everybody just sort of, what are the questions you still have? What are the outstanding issues that you'd like for us to discuss and help each other with? And I made a point not to take a vote until we'd had all those things answered and talked about. So we did that as a jury and we were, and I think it really helped because I felt like if we start taking a vote right away, it's going to divide sides and we're going to have people defending their position before they have a chance to even really hear each other out. So I made a point just to let's talk about the questions we have. And once we get comfortable with, yeah, everything is resolved in my mind, then let's take a vote.

And that seemed to work well because when we finally voted, it was unanimous on both counts, both the guilt-innocent phase as well as the penalty phase. And that seemed to really work. That's really good insight. And I was going to kind of wrap up here if we could just because of time limits. But, you know, i was going to ask you uh what are some thoughts or recommendations and you know it's sort of like raising kids uh having babies uh and whatever how to even act at work sometimes aren't really we don't have a

training course uh or a playbook even for us and i was wondering if uh how you thought of that um you know hey you know what, here's how I think we should deliberate. Uh, we, we need to get some kind of consensus here, uh, based on all the evidence, the facts that we've been reviewing, you know, but let's not go there too fast because here's what could result. So instead let's approach it this way, but, uh, any other thoughts or recommendations on, uh, I guess, criminal justice system, the overall what you went through or what we out in the community should know, Greg, from your standpoint? You know, I think one of the things that I felt as we, you know, I think in our world in criminal justice and law enforcement, we can have the feeling sometimes that that the juries are stupid I mean I remember saying that and they don't get it

and I have a different point of view on that I think I being a part of it being a part of a jury and you know seeing the jurors getting to know them many of them were still friends to this day. That I was impressed with just the seriousness with which they took the task, the ability to really discern evidence, and the responsibility on lawyers to help them understand the fact that they need to make the right decision.

And I just have a renewed point of view on jurors and in general, the whole process. I really respect it. I'm proud of the service that I was able to give. that I was able to give. And I think given there's an enormous responsibility on lawyers to represent their case well and to do their homework to make sure they're given their very best. I think that's where the breakdown comes sometimes

is they don't put as much emphasis in preparation and just take a little bit easier approach. And, yeah, that's something I walked away with. Well, we appreciate that and have tremendous respect for what you did, what the rest of the jury did. And to all of you out there, as you say, whether you're prosecuting, defending, or ruling, or in this case you're trying to make sense of and provide some level of justice. We appreciate everybody out there. It's one big ego system. We do live in a dangerous neighborhood called the world, it seems sometimes, and we need to kind of all pull

together. And as you know, at LPRC, we try and look at things very strategically and how do the pieces and parts work together to make a difference. So with that, Greg Brumley, our tech and techie Jordan Burchell, and all of you, all the listeners from Crime Science Podcast and live from here in Gainesville. We look forward to getting back together with you again. Thanks so much. Thank you everyone for tuning in. We would like to once again thank Bosch for making this episode possible. If you would like to suggest topics for future episodes or provide feedback, please email kevin at lpresearch.org. See you next time.