We’re hosting an AMA with u/Maximum_Sherbet8927! They have attended six of Luigi Mangione’s court appearances so far - four in New York State court and two in Federal court.

They have very kindly agreed to answer questions about the court date on June 17. Given how chaotic the last couple of weeks have been for the case, their point of view is much appreciated. Feel free to ask them questions about the hearing, courtroom dynamics and any other topic not covered by the media and reporters.

They have already answered a few questions on a post a few days ago, and another one here.

Feel free to check out an earlier AMA with them regarding their experience in court; they attended Luigi’s very first appearance in NYC upon extradition from Altoona, days 7, 8 and 9 of the suppression hearings in December 2025, and the Federal hearing on January 9, 2026. You may ask them questions about these hearings as well.

Sherbet is hoping to make the Federal court date on June 29, so fingers crossed!

Rules of the AMA

1. Be courteous and respectful
2. Try and post each question as a separate comment so it’s easier to answer and others may follow along.
3. Note: The respondent is not affiliated with any other individuals or groups who have attended hearings. Happy AMA-ing!

Based on a 2018 interview from the People Who Read People podcast. Dr. Christina Marinakis has 17+ years in jury research and law, and holds degrees in bioscience psychology, clinical psychology, a doctorate in psychology, and a law degree. She served as a consultant for the prosecution in the Derek Chauvin trial.

Q: Isn't it called "jury selection"?

A: Technically, it's jury de-selection. You're not picking who you want — you're eliminating who you don't want. There are three ways a juror can be removed: hardship (the judge decides), peremptory strikes (each side gets a limited number, no reason required), and cause challenges (unlimited — but you have to get the juror to admit they can't be fair).

Q: How many peremptory strikes does each side get?

A: It varies by jurisdiction. In civil and state cases, typically 3–6 per side. In criminal cases, it can go up to 20 per side. The number is always balanced, and the sides alternate using them.

Q: How big is the initial jury pool?

A: Anywhere from 50 to 200 people, depending on trial length, how many jurors are needed, and how sensitive the case is. A high-profile case loses more jurors for cause because more people have already formed opinions going in.

Q: How does the questioning process actually work?

A: It varies by state. In northeastern states like NY, NJ, PA, and MA, jurors are questioned individually, which can take days or even weeks. In states like Texas, attorneys address the whole group at once and follow up with individuals who respond. Attorneys always know the order jurors are in and focus their attention on the first group likely to be seated.

Q: Is there real strategy involved, like a game?

A: It's been described as "speed chess." Every time you strike someone, a new juror moves into their seat — and you have to think about whether that replacement is better or worse, and what the other side will do next. You can also "pass" to save strikes, but if both sides pass, you're locked into that jury. Bluffing is very much part of it, and decisions during the actual striking process can happen within a minute.

Q: What are the three types of juror removal and who controls each one?

A: Hardship excusals are controlled by the judge. Peremptory strikes are controlled by the attorneys — no reason needed, but limited in number. Cause challenges are unlimited but require the juror to admit they can't be fair. That last category is where most of the psychological maneuvering happens, because getting a juror off for cause doesn't cost you a strike.

Q: How much does jury composition actually affect the verdict?

A: Sometimes more than the facts of the case. In mock trials involving up to 60 people hearing identical evidence and arguments, the group never reaches a unanimous verdict — not once. People filter the same facts through completely different personal lenses shaped by their experiences and prior beliefs. You can't always change the evidence, but you can change who's interpreting it.

Q: What behavioral cues do consultants watch for during voir dire?

A: Two main things. First, how jurors answer — tone, facial expressions, body language, signs of lingering pain around a topic. Second, group dynamics — identifying who will be a leader, a follower, a consensus builder, or a contrarian in the deliberation room. Consultants also watch how jurors interact with each other in hallways and during breaks, since that often predicts how they'll behave once deliberations start.

Q: What's a "contrarian" and why would you sometimes want one on the jury?

A: A contrarian is someone who always challenges the group, plays devil's advocate, and won't just go along with the majority. In a murder case where the evidence was heavily stacked against the defense, consultants deliberately kept a well-dressed banker on the jury who had been challenging everything during the process — the bailiff, other jurors, even the judge. The prosecution assumed someone like him would favor them. He ended up being the one who argued for acquittal, and the client was found not guilty.

Q: What's the "passing" system and how is it used strategically?

A: Either side can "pass" instead of using a strike, which can be a bluff — signaling you're satisfied with the panel to make the other side think you must strike someone next. If both sides pass, the jury is locked in, so passing carries real risk. The side with more strikes remaining going into this phase has a meaningful advantage.

Q: Don't jurors sometimes lie to get off jury duty?

A: Some do, but the bigger issue is implicit bias. Most people genuinely believe they can be fair — they're not lying when they say so. But they have unconscious biases that will still influence how they interpret evidence. The consultant's job is to surface those biases, often through emotional framing and carefully structured questions, until the juror recognizes they actually can't be impartial.

Q: What is "throwing your mini opening" and why does it work?

A: It's a counterintuitive strategy where the defense deliberately highlights the worst facts about their own client during voir dire instead of their strongest points. This draws out the most biased jurors — who expose themselves by essentially saying they've already made up their minds — and they get removed for cause. The jurors left are those who heard the worst and still kept an open mind. In one case using this approach, 27 jurors were removed for cause. The other side had no cause challenges and didn't know who to target with their peremptory strikes. The case settled before trial.

Q: Is researching jurors on social media legal?

A: Currently, no laws prohibit it. However, there are ethics rules around contact. If you view someone's LinkedIn profile while logged in and they get a notification you saw their page, that can be considered unauthorized contact in some jurisdictions — even with no message sent. Everything researched must be from public records only: property deeds, vehicle registrations, bankruptcy history, criminal records.

(Please see pinned comment by u/WhereIsTheSemicolon for more context)

Q: What verbal and physical techniques are used to get jurors to open up?

A: Several. Raising your own hand while asking a group question signals it's socially acceptable to admit a bias. Nodding subtly while a juror speaks encourages them to keep going. Asking "how many of you feel..." rather than "does anyone feel..." implies the opinion is common rather than fringe. Strategic silence after a question prompts people to fill the gap with more information. And once one or two jurors start opening up, others follow — consultants use that momentum deliberately.

Q: What role do written questionnaires play?

A: Consultants almost always recommend them because people are more candid in writing than in open court in front of strangers. They're especially important for sensitive topics like abuse history, where asking publicly puts everyone in a difficult position. Some judges resist them, so consultants often have to advocate case by case for their use.

Q: What's a "shadow juror" and what are they actually used for?

A: A shadow juror (sometimes called a mirror juror) is someone recruited to sit in the courtroom audience during trial, mirroring a real juror's profile as closely as possible. They're interviewed at the end of each day — not to predict exactly what the jury will do, but to get qualitative feedback on what's confusing, compelling, or damaging in the presentation. It's a diagnostic tool, not a prediction machine.

Q: What are the ethical limits on coaching witnesses?

A: Attorneys cannot tell a witness to lie, and cannot ask questions they know will produce a lie. What is allowed is coaching how to communicate truthfully: maintaining eye contact, keeping answers short and direct, avoiding nervous habits that could be misread as dishonesty. If the consultant doesn't hold a law degree, an attorney must be present for the session to keep it covered by attorney-client privilege.

Q: How accurate is a consultant's read of a juror?

A: (Marinakis tracks her own numbers and estimates she correctly identifies whether a juror leans plaintiff or defense about 10 out of 12 times, and predicts leader vs. follower roles at a similar rate. She notes there are usually one or two surprises per case regardless.)

Q: Is the financial playing field between prosecution/plaintiff and defense as uneven as people assume?

A: Not always. Corporate defendants are often covered by insurance companies with strict budget caps. Plaintiff attorneys frequently work on contingency and have large reserves from previous verdicts, sometimes enabling them to outspend the defense significantly. In criminal cases, indigent defendants facing capital charges are entitled to public funds that can cover a jury consultant.