there's never any assurance that a juror who meets a certain profile will return a verdict a certain way.

While it's hard to compare-and-contrast (the two trials), there's no question that prosecutors tried a more streamlined case this time.

This is not somebody who made some inadvertent false statement, ... This is a case where a jury convicted a CEO for lying to two different government agencies. That's a big deal.

In the last two years, the government has painstakingly climbed ladders, gotten different people along the way to plead guilty in order to go after someone at the higher rung. We're now at the top of the ladder.

It's more likely that you can lose a case in jury selection than win the case.

I don't think there's any question that prosecutors who adopt a 'KISS' (keep-it-simple, stupid) strategy usually are able to make a much more meaningful and cogent presentation to the jury.