speed with which this happened, there were a couple of holdouts initially, and they are now

of one accord.

Do you think maybe they were convinced, the disagreement was if there was a disagreement the ask for the pecker testimony the Cohen testimony for the rereading of the jury instructions?

Do you think the fact that we didn't hear from them again after that, that that one

section or that one conflict was what they needed to get to something now?

I think the jury instruction was pretty pro-prosecution. I think a lot of the evidentiary rulings were pro-prosecution. So what you're going to get with a verdict is pretty

much what you've gotten up to that point. What are the rulings? What evidence has been excluded?

So the FEC expert, they never heard from. So the jury is only as good as the information they're giving.

Well, and so that gets to my question.

You all having, and you've handled some very high profile cases,

is there a situation when afterwards jurors

may hear more of the story, things that were excluded,

things that the defense argued for and could not get in,

and then possibly hearing from a juror at another point oh we didn't

know this was an option that was an option we didn't know they excluded an expert

who may have been able to tell us more about federal election law.

I guess that's the kind of thing that if they talk,

we could finally get some more information from them

about how those decisions impacted where they got to eventually.

There have been many cases where the juries after the if they bring in a verdict they learn in the media that there were aspects of the case that they were not aware of and

that they wish they had been aware of. Sometimes they have some, you know,

buyers remorse about the verdict and that can play into that. Sometimes they authentically

...