s. They think they're using the facts, and they'll tell you they're using the facts. But there's a real difference between a fact-based jury, where they're really going to just follow the law, they're really going to make sure the facts are the facts, and they're only going to stick to that — 10 to 20 percent.

How are the rest of the trials decided if not on the facts? How they feel, right? So it doesn't matter if you think that the defense has destroyed the factual part of the case. There's only a 10 to 20 percent chance it will make any difference. How scary is that? 10 to 20 percent chance that the facts of the case will determine the outcome. That's based on two experienced people in this case, Dershowitz and Barnes. I didn't know it was that bad. I certainly knew that people are making decisions based on emotion, not facts, but I didn't think it was that bad in the context of a trial where somebody's life is at stake. That's scary.

And Alan Dershowitz had said a few weeks ago that there is no way that Chauvin could get a fair trial where they're holding it. So no matter what happens, isn't it an immediate appeal? I mean, it feels like the appeal is just guaranteed. So you're going to have some kind of result, but if that result is a prosecution or a guilty on any of those counts, I feel like it's going to be appealed.

Now I was also thinking, somewhat incorrectly, that the odds of a hung jury were high. Now a hung jury, which would result in a mistrial, means that at least one person just won't go with the rest of them, because whether it's an acquittal or a guilty, you've got to have all 12 people on the same side. And I thought to myself, how in the world do you get 12 people to agree on anything really in this world, but especially this, because it so puts you into your team corner? How could you ever get any 12 people to agree? And it doesn't even matter what evidence they see, right, because we already know that that's not going to matter.

But when I was listening to Robert Barnes talking about it — or was it Dershowitz? But I think they would agree on this point — that if you've got, let's say, one holdout, that they don't just send you home. The judge says go back, and then you deliberate for hours and hours and hours, and you come back and you say we can't get there, we still have a holdout, and the judge says go back. So basically the judge will create a situation in which the other jurors can put pressure on the lone holdout such that usually they'll break.

Now sometimes — and this is scary too — that lone holdout will negotiate. Oh, I hate this, but apparently it's a thing. The lone holdout will say, "Look, I can't go along with your larger charges. You want to get them for, let's say, just hypothetically, 11 people wanted second-degree murder. The holdout says I can't give you second-degree murder. I also don't think it's manslaughter, but I'll give you manslaughter if the rest of you will come down. I'll meet you halfway." What a messed-up system that is. But apparently that can happen, right? And it wouldn't even be illegal. It would just be what the jurors decided was the best fairness they could produce, right?

So the system is a hot mess, and it's amazing that we respected it at all. But it seems to work because, yeah, society marches forward. So let's keep an eye on that. I think everything we know about that trial will change. In my opinion, the facts strongly suggest acquittal. But as anybody who understands persuasion knows, the facts won't necessarily have much to do with anything.

All right. Remember, I tell you often — too often maybe — that we're all watching different m