This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2010, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
The courtroom was filled with tension and anticipation as the 12 jurors filed in, some with their eyes brimming with tears, a few blanching, others visibly trembling.
In declaring Brian David Mitchell guilty, those seven men and five women brought finality to Elizabeth Smart's eight-year saga, rejecting the notion her kidnapper was insane over the nine months he held her captive and raped her repeatedly.
"The hardest point was bringing the verdict in. I was shaking and my eyes were welling up," said Juror No. 10, a man who was in San Jose during Smart's 2002 abduction.
"I think this brought some closure to Elizabeth, more so than just to close the case or for us," said Juror No. 8, a man who has experienced mental illness in his family.
In an unprecedented move by the U.S. District Court in Utah, the entire 12-member jury, plus one alternate, gathered for 45 minutes with reporters to answer questions and discuss their highly guarded process. Jurors, who were not publicly identified in the court, wished to be called by their juror numbers.
The case was wrought with emotion at times or ploddingly moved through technical descriptions of mental health assessments, and with each day came new evidence that swayed jurors toward the defense or prosecution.
"I bounced back and forth the whole way through," said Juror No. 6, one of the youngest men on the jury. "There were good arguments from both sides, good witnesses, good closings, but when we could read the instructions of the law, I started to feel more comfortable."
Juror No. 1, a female registered nurse, agreed.
"It's been a roller coaster for me. There were some days that the defense would present a really good case, then a witness for the prosecution would have me leaning another way. Like Juror No. 6, it was a wavering kind of process for me," she said.
Jurors said the testimony of Elizabeth Smart was particularly stirring.
"How can you ignore the victim and her stamina and her ability to give her testimony?" asked Juror No. 12, one of the older men on the jury.
They also said Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist who was paid $750,000 for his research and testimony, was a big influence.
"We had heard all these terms that were technical, but Dr. Welner would reply with three words and in terms a layman could understand. 'He's a pedophile.' That couldn't be any simpler," said Juror No. 12.
He also said the defense's attack of Welner's salary had nothing to do with his professional assessment.
"That was the majority of the cross examination," he said. "I already know our government wastes money."
But several of the jurors said they were moved by defense attorney Robert Steele's closing statement because he was direct with them about Mitchell as a person.
"He characterized him so honestly, that he was not a good guy, not someone you want as a neighbor," said Juror No. 3, a female health care worker. "He treated us with respect, too."
While the majority of jurors believed Mitchell had mental problems, they did not believe they were enough to prevent him from knowing right from wrong.
"Do I have to be devious in order to follow God's command?" asked Juror No. 12. "Does an irrational mind prepare himself and take steps to avoid captivity. Would he be mindful of penalties for being caught?"
Juror No. 2, one of the youngest women on the jury, said she was influenced by the fact that when Mitchell kidnapped Smart, he did not tell her it was because God had commanded him to take a wife.
"He wasn't telling her what his delusion was," she said. "If it was a commandment from God, wouldn't you disclose that pretty quickly?"
For Juror No. 3, it was that Mitchell gave different false names at various times to elude capture.
For Juror No. 6, Mitchell's calm, penitent demeanor when he was testifying before a San Diego judge was a critical part of his decision for the guilty verdict.
"He changed so much back and forth," he said. "If he really believed, that wouldn't change."
Juror No. 12 agreed.
"He took whatever measure he needed for his own gain and meeting his own needs," he said.
The jurors had to abide by a court order that prevented them from talking about the case with anyone, including spouses and close friends. That was difficult for many, especially on days detailing the abuse Smart underwent during her nine months in captivity.
"It was easy for us to go home and cry a lot," said Juror No. 7, a man who served as jury foreman.
The only juror not present Friday, No. 13, suffered his own personal heartache during the six-week-long trial when his mother died.
So seriously did he take his duty in the case that he missed her funeral, only to end up an alternate and unable to participate in deliberations. Jurors are not told whom the alternates are until deliberation.
"He and I sat on the couch and talked about how that felt," said the other alternate, Juror No. 14. "It was like getting ready and all excited for the Super Bowl and then the coach puts you on the bench and doesn't put you in the entire game."
Despite disappointments, the jurors shared their personal lives over the weeks of testimony, swapping recipes, bragging about their children and discussing Christmas shopping.
"I've gained a lot of new friends, and I feel very close to them. When we walked into the jury room when we could start deliberating, I felt an instant closeness to everyone," said Juror No. 2. "I think for a lot of us, there is life before the trial and after the trial. Life has changed."
Read the transcript
To read the entire Q&A with the jury, go to http://www.sltrib.com.