EPISODE 8:
THE GREAT BURDEN
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Author’s note:
Thank you all for your patience in waiting for my post regarding Episode 8. I am, as some of you may know, a CNN contributor, and the attacks in Brussels have kept me so busy that I wasn’t able to keep up with sleep, much less outside projects. I sincerely hope that the world doesn’t need my kind of services for a while.
EPISODE 8
When I began to dictate Episode 8’s analysis, I started to say that “no new evidence had been presented” in the episode. Then I realized that while the statement might be true in one sense, it was false in another. While no new physical, probative evidence of the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery was presented in Episode 8, the reality was that a multitude of evidence regarding the legitimacy of his trial was presented.
Just under 1,500 years ago, the “Digest of Justinian,” codified then-existing Roman law, becoming the first written record of the doctrine of the presumption of innocence; Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e. -- “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies.” Ken Kratz had 1,500 years (3 of them at the Marquette School of Law) to learn and understand that doctrine, but has apparently failed to grasp it. Evidence of this failure is obvious in his statement; “Reasonable doubt is for innocent men.” Stunning. In the U.S., all men are innocent until after reasonable doubt has been decided, so what Kratz was telling the jury was that the defendant in that courtroom (Avery) did not deserve what every defendant in a U.S. courtroom is allegedly guaranteed—the presumption of innocence. I am surprised that even Judge Willis let that go by without comment.
The evidence I saw in Episode 8 consisted not of new facts regarding Avery’s culpability, but of Ken Kratz side-stepping real evidence while engaging in innuendo, theory, and guesswork in order to convict a man and send him away for the rest of his life, regardless of what the actual evidence indicated.
Image may be NSFW.Thank you all for your patience in waiting for my post regarding Episode 8. I am, as some of you may know, a CNN contributor, and the attacks in Brussels have kept me so busy that I wasn’t able to keep up with sleep, much less outside projects. I sincerely hope that the world doesn’t need my kind of services for a while.
EPISODE 8
When I began to dictate Episode 8’s analysis, I started to say that “no new evidence had been presented” in the episode. Then I realized that while the statement might be true in one sense, it was false in another. While no new physical, probative evidence of the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery was presented in Episode 8, the reality was that a multitude of evidence regarding the legitimacy of his trial was presented.
Just under 1,500 years ago, the “Digest of Justinian,” codified then-existing Roman law, becoming the first written record of the doctrine of the presumption of innocence; Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, i.e. -- “Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies.” Ken Kratz had 1,500 years (3 of them at the Marquette School of Law) to learn and understand that doctrine, but has apparently failed to grasp it. Evidence of this failure is obvious in his statement; “Reasonable doubt is for innocent men.” Stunning. In the U.S., all men are innocent until after reasonable doubt has been decided, so what Kratz was telling the jury was that the defendant in that courtroom (Avery) did not deserve what every defendant in a U.S. courtroom is allegedly guaranteed—the presumption of innocence. I am surprised that even Judge Willis let that go by without comment.
The evidence I saw in Episode 8 consisted not of new facts regarding Avery’s culpability, but of Ken Kratz side-stepping real evidence while engaging in innuendo, theory, and guesswork in order to convict a man and send him away for the rest of his life, regardless of what the actual evidence indicated.
Clik here to view.
MURDER SCENE THEORY
In Ken Kratz’ case in chief, (the prosecution up to, but not including the closing statement) not once did he present a single expert who was willing to go on record as saying that the murder of Teresa Halbach occurred in Steven Avery's garage. At least according to what I saw in the documentary. Not one expert. Yes, I know that there was testimony that a bullet with the victim's DNA was found in the garage, but that does not indicate that the murder occurred in that room—especially absent blood evidence that would have been there. Alleging as much is like saying that because a knife used to kill somebody was found in the kitchen, a year later, that the kitchen was where the murder occurred. It makes no probative sense.
But I suspect Kratz has never been intimidated or swayed by truth. Incredibly, in the absence of any proof, he had no problem telling the jury during closing arguments that the murder occurred in the garage. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that he was allowed to theorize in that manner. Federal judges rarely tolerate such conjecture when a person’s life is on the line. Maybe that's the difference between federal court and state court. The other day, I participated a panel discussion with a lawyer friend of mine whose defense practice is approximately 65% federal and 35% state trials. Though we did not speak about the Avery case in particular, this very competent attorney admitted to being astounded by what is allowed to be called “evidence” in a state court, and decried some of the behavior of defense attorneys and prosecutors allowed by judges. “It's a Circus.” She concluded.
If her statement is true (and I believe it is in some cases) Ken Kratz is the ringmaster of at least one circus. Or maybe just a clown. To be completely fair, not all state courts are so brazenly licentious, but many remain so.
Image may be NSFW.In Ken Kratz’ case in chief, (the prosecution up to, but not including the closing statement) not once did he present a single expert who was willing to go on record as saying that the murder of Teresa Halbach occurred in Steven Avery's garage. At least according to what I saw in the documentary. Not one expert. Yes, I know that there was testimony that a bullet with the victim's DNA was found in the garage, but that does not indicate that the murder occurred in that room—especially absent blood evidence that would have been there. Alleging as much is like saying that because a knife used to kill somebody was found in the kitchen, a year later, that the kitchen was where the murder occurred. It makes no probative sense.
But I suspect Kratz has never been intimidated or swayed by truth. Incredibly, in the absence of any proof, he had no problem telling the jury during closing arguments that the murder occurred in the garage. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that he was allowed to theorize in that manner. Federal judges rarely tolerate such conjecture when a person’s life is on the line. Maybe that's the difference between federal court and state court. The other day, I participated a panel discussion with a lawyer friend of mine whose defense practice is approximately 65% federal and 35% state trials. Though we did not speak about the Avery case in particular, this very competent attorney admitted to being astounded by what is allowed to be called “evidence” in a state court, and decried some of the behavior of defense attorneys and prosecutors allowed by judges. “It's a Circus.” She concluded.
If her statement is true (and I believe it is in some cases) Ken Kratz is the ringmaster of at least one circus. Or maybe just a clown. To be completely fair, not all state courts are so brazenly licentious, but many remain so.
Clik here to view.
THE ‘VILE’ DEFENSE
One of the things Kratz did was to dispute the defense allegation of police corruption not by disproving it, but by denigrating the allegation. Whenever the defense alleged police planting of evidence, Kratz, rather than showing why such a thing could not and did not happen, instead argued that such an allegation was ‘vile,’ on the face of it, and seemed to deny the very possibility that police corruption exists in society. It is rare, but certainly not imaginary. Kratz treated the allegations as if Strang and Buting were alleging aliens in Area 51 or accusing the officers of molestation.
The sad truth that we all have to come to grips with, is that there is corruption in every part of life. From priests to doctors, to FBI agents, to prosecutors. It is a fact of life. For Kratz and Gahn to repeatedly impugn the legitimate discussion of police impropriety (rather than prove the allegation false) is especially hypocritical in light of the fact that the defendant had already lost 18 years of his life because of a much worse wrongful allegation at the hands of these very same men! Kratz’ duplicity is simply breathtaking.
The truth of the matter is that there was more than enough circumstantial evidence of police evidence planting, along with a demonstrative history of improper police investigative procedures that, had not Buting and Strang addressed it, they would have been guilty of failing to provide an adequate defense for Avery.
The only defense Kratz and Gahn had against these allegations was that “Jim and Andy” have families and jobs. So did Gary Ridgeway, who held a job as a painter at a truck factory for 30 years and whose wife called him “the perfect husband.” Ridgeway is now also known as the “Green River Killer,” who murdered 49 prostitutes during his ‘perfect’ marriage and vehicle-painting career. I’m not equating police corruption with serial murder, but if Kratz’ point was that the officers were to be viewed as more honest because they were married and employed, it was ludicrous.
Image may be NSFW.One of the things Kratz did was to dispute the defense allegation of police corruption not by disproving it, but by denigrating the allegation. Whenever the defense alleged police planting of evidence, Kratz, rather than showing why such a thing could not and did not happen, instead argued that such an allegation was ‘vile,’ on the face of it, and seemed to deny the very possibility that police corruption exists in society. It is rare, but certainly not imaginary. Kratz treated the allegations as if Strang and Buting were alleging aliens in Area 51 or accusing the officers of molestation.
The sad truth that we all have to come to grips with, is that there is corruption in every part of life. From priests to doctors, to FBI agents, to prosecutors. It is a fact of life. For Kratz and Gahn to repeatedly impugn the legitimate discussion of police impropriety (rather than prove the allegation false) is especially hypocritical in light of the fact that the defendant had already lost 18 years of his life because of a much worse wrongful allegation at the hands of these very same men! Kratz’ duplicity is simply breathtaking.
The truth of the matter is that there was more than enough circumstantial evidence of police evidence planting, along with a demonstrative history of improper police investigative procedures that, had not Buting and Strang addressed it, they would have been guilty of failing to provide an adequate defense for Avery.
The only defense Kratz and Gahn had against these allegations was that “Jim and Andy” have families and jobs. So did Gary Ridgeway, who held a job as a painter at a truck factory for 30 years and whose wife called him “the perfect husband.” Ridgeway is now also known as the “Green River Killer,” who murdered 49 prostitutes during his ‘perfect’ marriage and vehicle-painting career. I’m not equating police corruption with serial murder, but if Kratz’ point was that the officers were to be viewed as more honest because they were married and employed, it was ludicrous.
Clik here to view.
NO EVIDENCE PLANTING. BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS….
I found it striking that Kratz found it necessary to explain to the jury why Steven Avery could be guilty even if Teresa Halbach’s “key” was not really found in Avery’s bedroom. Obviously, this was tacit evidence that Kratz believed that the prosecution had convinced the jury that the ignition key had been planted in Avery’s room. Kratz swept over the implications when he said, “even without the key….” If the accusation of police corruption was so “vile,” why would Kratz even use an “even if it happened…” argument? If there was no evidence-planting, I would expect Kratz to defend the deputies right down to the mat. But, in effect, he did not. So which is it Mr. Kratz? Were the officers good men or did they plant evidence? There’s no such thing as “a little” corrupt. Corruption is no less ‘pass/fail’ than is pregnancy. There is no such thing of being ‘a little’ pregnant or ‘a little’ corrupt.
“7/3/2”
I was surprised to find that the initial jury vote immediately after the trial was 2 to 1 in favor of acquittal. That speaks volumes of the case against the sheriff’s office. Think about that; 2 to 1. If you include the two who were unsure, it’s 3 to 1 ‘innocent’ or not sure. Ultimately, though, it appears that the intransigence of one fourth of the jury (3 of 12), led to the others changing their minds rather than accept a mistrial.
INNOCENT OR FRAMED
The jury’s initial vote is even more amazing to me, when one realizes that there were really only two possible conclusions available to them at the end of the trial; either Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach, or the police framed him. Juries rarely come down on the ‘police corruption’ side.
Besides the strength of the defense case, the other point that the jury votes and later verdict proved (at least to me) was that the jury pool had been significantly tainted prior to the trial. The juror who left after several hours of deliberation very clearly stated that he believed that the three “guilty” jurors had made their decision prior to opening arguments. That’s a pretty strong indictment.
CONCLUSIONS
So what (based solely on the documentary) are my conclusions?
I would ask that you read the following statements very carefully, because apparently I have been unclear in some of my earlier conclusions. I have found that some have taken the wrong inference from what I have written, or even attributed to me conclusions to which I have not come to. So here we go:
I do not believe that enough conclusive and reliable physical, testimonial or circumstantial evidence was provided in the course of the documentary to convict Steven Avery of murder. Nor, do I believe that the defense presented in court (at least as seen in the documentary) enough physical, irrefutable, and conclusive evidence to prove that the police planted evidence.
Now before you scroll down to the comments section and light me up like a road flare, please listen to my thoughts:
This was a case of strong circumstantial evidence of Steven Avery's guilt, balanced by strong circumstantial evidence that the evidence which made the case against Avery so strong, was itself, spurious. I am convinced (at least from what I've seen in the documentary) of neither Steven Avery's innocence nor of his guilt. If I were a juror, and I heard all that was presented on Making a Murderer through Episode 8, I would vote to acquit, because of reasonable doubt and lack of reliable evidence.
Image may be NSFW.I found it striking that Kratz found it necessary to explain to the jury why Steven Avery could be guilty even if Teresa Halbach’s “key” was not really found in Avery’s bedroom. Obviously, this was tacit evidence that Kratz believed that the prosecution had convinced the jury that the ignition key had been planted in Avery’s room. Kratz swept over the implications when he said, “even without the key….” If the accusation of police corruption was so “vile,” why would Kratz even use an “even if it happened…” argument? If there was no evidence-planting, I would expect Kratz to defend the deputies right down to the mat. But, in effect, he did not. So which is it Mr. Kratz? Were the officers good men or did they plant evidence? There’s no such thing as “a little” corrupt. Corruption is no less ‘pass/fail’ than is pregnancy. There is no such thing of being ‘a little’ pregnant or ‘a little’ corrupt.
“7/3/2”
I was surprised to find that the initial jury vote immediately after the trial was 2 to 1 in favor of acquittal. That speaks volumes of the case against the sheriff’s office. Think about that; 2 to 1. If you include the two who were unsure, it’s 3 to 1 ‘innocent’ or not sure. Ultimately, though, it appears that the intransigence of one fourth of the jury (3 of 12), led to the others changing their minds rather than accept a mistrial.
INNOCENT OR FRAMED
The jury’s initial vote is even more amazing to me, when one realizes that there were really only two possible conclusions available to them at the end of the trial; either Steven Avery killed Teresa Halbach, or the police framed him. Juries rarely come down on the ‘police corruption’ side.
Besides the strength of the defense case, the other point that the jury votes and later verdict proved (at least to me) was that the jury pool had been significantly tainted prior to the trial. The juror who left after several hours of deliberation very clearly stated that he believed that the three “guilty” jurors had made their decision prior to opening arguments. That’s a pretty strong indictment.
CONCLUSIONS
So what (based solely on the documentary) are my conclusions?
I would ask that you read the following statements very carefully, because apparently I have been unclear in some of my earlier conclusions. I have found that some have taken the wrong inference from what I have written, or even attributed to me conclusions to which I have not come to. So here we go:
I do not believe that enough conclusive and reliable physical, testimonial or circumstantial evidence was provided in the course of the documentary to convict Steven Avery of murder. Nor, do I believe that the defense presented in court (at least as seen in the documentary) enough physical, irrefutable, and conclusive evidence to prove that the police planted evidence.
Now before you scroll down to the comments section and light me up like a road flare, please listen to my thoughts:
This was a case of strong circumstantial evidence of Steven Avery's guilt, balanced by strong circumstantial evidence that the evidence which made the case against Avery so strong, was itself, spurious. I am convinced (at least from what I've seen in the documentary) of neither Steven Avery's innocence nor of his guilt. If I were a juror, and I heard all that was presented on Making a Murderer through Episode 8, I would vote to acquit, because of reasonable doubt and lack of reliable evidence.
Clik here to view.
"Jim 'n Andy" That said, I am convinced (at least based solely on what I have been shown on Netflix) beyond a reasonable doubt that the police in this matter manipulated and/or planted at least some of the evidence. Therefore, I do not believe that the trial and investigation against Steven Avery were legitimate.
This is not my final and complete conclusion! This is a conclusion based solely and only on information attained from the documentary. I have yet to view Episodes 9 and 10.
YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS
I have received dozens and dozens of comments on my previous articles. Rather than answering each one individually, I have decided to discuss them as a group, because many comments are along similar veins.
FBI EDTA Test
I hope that I have established in this article that I have no particular pre-existing bias towards the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery, nor his trial. Therefore, what you are going to get from me is my actual feelings on the matter, not my view of what I wish were true or what might be true. What I am providing you is what I believe to be true to the best of my abilities.
In every trial, opposing experts face each other and contradict everything that the other one has said. Usually, one is not 100% right and the other 100% wrong. However, one is usually more right than the other. It's simple logic that both can't be right. So what does it jury do with that information? Is their job to assess which expert they believe to be more credible, for whatever reason. That is what I am endeavoring to do, but as an experienced FBI agent, rather than simply a ‘peer’ of the accused.
Image may be NSFW.This is not my final and complete conclusion! This is a conclusion based solely and only on information attained from the documentary. I have yet to view Episodes 9 and 10.
YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENTS
I have received dozens and dozens of comments on my previous articles. Rather than answering each one individually, I have decided to discuss them as a group, because many comments are along similar veins.
FBI EDTA Test
I hope that I have established in this article that I have no particular pre-existing bias towards the guilt or innocence of Steven Avery, nor his trial. Therefore, what you are going to get from me is my actual feelings on the matter, not my view of what I wish were true or what might be true. What I am providing you is what I believe to be true to the best of my abilities.
In every trial, opposing experts face each other and contradict everything that the other one has said. Usually, one is not 100% right and the other 100% wrong. However, one is usually more right than the other. It's simple logic that both can't be right. So what does it jury do with that information? Is their job to assess which expert they believe to be more credible, for whatever reason. That is what I am endeavoring to do, but as an experienced FBI agent, rather than simply a ‘peer’ of the accused.
Clik here to view.
Based only on what I saw in the documentary, I find the FBI's test of the EDTA, absent any persuasive supporting or contradicting information at this point, to be the most credible. I don't say this because of my affiliation with the FBI. Let me give you an example. I am a huge fan of the San Francisco 49ers football team (please do not lay me out in the comments section for this. It’s a free country). If I were in Las Vegas the next time the 49’ers played the Arizona Cardinals, no amount of affection for my team could cause me to put any of my hard-earned money on San Francisco winning that game. My dough (all of it) would go on the Cardinals to win. This doesn’t mean I’m a Cardinals fan, nor does it mean that I have ceased to support the 49ers. It is simply an acceptance of reality. As much as I would like the 49ers to win that game, the odds are likely going to be very much against it.
If I believed that the FBI Lab was so compromised that none of their work could be trusted, then what you would've heard from me as a reasonable person was that I give more credibility to the defense expert because frankly, the prosecution seems crooked and the FBI Lab can’t be trusted. But my experience in 25 years in the FBI, even aware of the small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of prior FBI Lab examinations in error, leads me to believe that the FBI test is more likely correct than not. I say this not because I am a fan of the FBI, but because I believe it to be true. My integrity, my reputation and therefore “my money” depends upon my skill as an investigator and my ability to come to correct conclusions, not my loyalty to my former agency.
If I am subsequently made aware of reliable scientific evidence which indicates that the FBI lab erred on this test, I will just as quickly allow that information to affect my conclusions. If you as a reader believe that my bias has influenced my decision in this matter, I would suggest that you stop wasting your time reading these articles, because if I am biased on that point, then why would anything else I say be of value to you? Blind, actionable bias, like corruption, is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Image may be NSFW.If I believed that the FBI Lab was so compromised that none of their work could be trusted, then what you would've heard from me as a reasonable person was that I give more credibility to the defense expert because frankly, the prosecution seems crooked and the FBI Lab can’t be trusted. But my experience in 25 years in the FBI, even aware of the small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of prior FBI Lab examinations in error, leads me to believe that the FBI test is more likely correct than not. I say this not because I am a fan of the FBI, but because I believe it to be true. My integrity, my reputation and therefore “my money” depends upon my skill as an investigator and my ability to come to correct conclusions, not my loyalty to my former agency.
If I am subsequently made aware of reliable scientific evidence which indicates that the FBI lab erred on this test, I will just as quickly allow that information to affect my conclusions. If you as a reader believe that my bias has influenced my decision in this matter, I would suggest that you stop wasting your time reading these articles, because if I am biased on that point, then why would anything else I say be of value to you? Blind, actionable bias, like corruption, is an all-or-nothing proposition.
Clik here to view.
That said, I did not mean to infer in earlier articles that because the EDTA test done by the FBI Lab was negative for the presence of EDTA that Steven Avery was definitively guilty of the crime.
Yes, I completely accept the possibility that a source of blood different from the questioned vial was sent to the FBI. I noted that Kratz’ statement in court said only that the FBI test proved that the blood didn't come from “that vial.” I found that a curious way to state that fact. However, the FBI Lab not testing the vial in any way to ensure that the blood was—at least—Steven Avery’s, would be surprising to me. That type of error would seem to me to be similar to a doctor amputating the wrong leg. He may have done a nice, professional job with the amputation, but the results were doomed from the start because a basic and crucial validating step was missed. Again, I don't know the rest of the facts, such as whether the blood was typed or even DNA processed to validate that that blood sent to the FBI lab was the blood of Steven Avery.
Was the sample DNA-tested? I do not know the FBI procedures regarding this. However, DNA tests are expensive and they are time-consuming. If a rush was put on that test, it is less likely that DNA extraction and comparison, or even or even blood typing, was done. I would have to see the transmittal letter to the lab requesting the testing, in order to make a rough determination. For instance, if my doctor sends me in for a blood test and tells the lab he wants to check for diabetes or anemia, they might not do many other tests. Even if I had telltale signs of cancer antibodies in the blood, the lab might not detect them if they weren’t specifically tasked with checking for them. Therefore, while I might be deemed clean of diabetes or anemia, I might be dying of cancer and the doctor have no idea of it.
Image may be NSFW.Yes, I completely accept the possibility that a source of blood different from the questioned vial was sent to the FBI. I noted that Kratz’ statement in court said only that the FBI test proved that the blood didn't come from “that vial.” I found that a curious way to state that fact. However, the FBI Lab not testing the vial in any way to ensure that the blood was—at least—Steven Avery’s, would be surprising to me. That type of error would seem to me to be similar to a doctor amputating the wrong leg. He may have done a nice, professional job with the amputation, but the results were doomed from the start because a basic and crucial validating step was missed. Again, I don't know the rest of the facts, such as whether the blood was typed or even DNA processed to validate that that blood sent to the FBI lab was the blood of Steven Avery.
Was the sample DNA-tested? I do not know the FBI procedures regarding this. However, DNA tests are expensive and they are time-consuming. If a rush was put on that test, it is less likely that DNA extraction and comparison, or even or even blood typing, was done. I would have to see the transmittal letter to the lab requesting the testing, in order to make a rough determination. For instance, if my doctor sends me in for a blood test and tells the lab he wants to check for diabetes or anemia, they might not do many other tests. Even if I had telltale signs of cancer antibodies in the blood, the lab might not detect them if they weren’t specifically tasked with checking for them. Therefore, while I might be deemed clean of diabetes or anemia, I might be dying of cancer and the doctor have no idea of it.
Clik here to view.
Is it possible that EDTA on in/on the RAV4 could have evaporated or in some way subsided in the drying process in the blood? I don't know because I don't know the scientific facts regarding EDTA in this matter, and I have intentionally not engaged in the necessary offline research at this point.
AVERY’S GUILT?
When I say that the EDTA results make it more likely that Steven Avery is guilty, I am saying that because in order for a police evidence-planting scheme to work, several more layers of conspiracy have to be added. Now, it's not just taking blood out and applying it to a vehicle, now it involves switching blood samples sent to the FBI. It's not impossible, but it raises the level of difficulty and probability.
BRENDAN DASSEY TRIAL
I can't wait to see how Ken Kratz prosecutes Brendan Dassey, absent using Dassey’s ‘confession’ which Kratz has already invalidated in court. I also wonder how he's going to do it without physical evidence of any kind. I wonder how he's going to do it after repeatedly claiming that one man and one man only murdered Teresa Halbach. I wonder how he's going to do it and sleep at night.
Frankly, though, he might get away with it, because evidence doesn't seem to be a big issue for Ken Kratz or some jurors.
AVERY’S GUILT?
When I say that the EDTA results make it more likely that Steven Avery is guilty, I am saying that because in order for a police evidence-planting scheme to work, several more layers of conspiracy have to be added. Now, it's not just taking blood out and applying it to a vehicle, now it involves switching blood samples sent to the FBI. It's not impossible, but it raises the level of difficulty and probability.
BRENDAN DASSEY TRIAL
I can't wait to see how Ken Kratz prosecutes Brendan Dassey, absent using Dassey’s ‘confession’ which Kratz has already invalidated in court. I also wonder how he's going to do it without physical evidence of any kind. I wonder how he's going to do it after repeatedly claiming that one man and one man only murdered Teresa Halbach. I wonder how he's going to do it and sleep at night.
Frankly, though, he might get away with it, because evidence doesn't seem to be a big issue for Ken Kratz or some jurors.