Last night, a Texas jury returned a guilty verdict against Eddie Ray Routh for the 2013 murders of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Routh’s insanity defense was rejected, and he is set to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Soon after the verdict was announced, Good Morning America‘s George Stephanopoulos interviewed members of the jury and gave them the opportunity to explain their reasoning for the guilty verdict, and the rejection of Routh’s insanity plea.

More from Mediaite:

“We all had our strong feelings,” one juror said. Another indicated there was no disagreement from the start of deliberations.

As for whether Routh was “faking” his insanity, one female juror told George Stephanopoulos that “evidence shows there was a definite pattern there when it came to his earlier convictions before the trial… [which was that] he would get intoxicated, get in trouble, and the police would show up, and he’d say, ‘I’m a veteran, I have PTSD.’”

“Bottom line: You were convinced that he knew the difference between right and wrong when he pull those triggers?” Stephanopoulos asked.

“Without a doubt,” a few said aloud. “He knew the consequences.”

Stephanopoulos went on to ask the inevitable question: Did you see ‘American Sniper?’ Did it affect your decision? I’m glad he did, because it gave the jurors an opportunity to offer their perspective on a conversation that has been swirling around their heads since they entered the jury box.

Some of them saw the movie, but in the end, all of them reached a guilty verdict—multiple times.

Watch:


World News Videos | US News Videos

This may be the most important interview associated with the ‘American Sniper’ trial, because it heads off questions about how fair this trial could have possibly been, given Kyle’s fame and rise as a pop culture icon. We’ll probably see articles ten years down the line that question whether or not a change in venue should have been allowed, or if a fair trial was even possible, but the fact that the jury got to sit down and explain in their own words how they came to a conclusion so quickly—they deliberated for just over two hours—will lend credibility to those who defend the jury and their verdict.