She convinced Ms. Saalfield to give her $27,000 for safekeeping as an exercise in letting go of money. Ms. Saalfield soon became suspicious, demanded her cash back and called the police. Ms. Mitchell eventually repaid Ms. Saalfield about $9,500, but kept the rest.

A second witness, Lee Choong, a Singapore native who earned a master’s degree in business in New York, went to Ms. Mitchell in 2007 when she was upset over an unrequited infatuation with a co-worker. Ms. Choong gave Ms. Mitchell about $128,000 over two years; she did not recoup any of it, despite a promise of a full refund if her life did not improve.

Ms. Mitchell also convinced Ms. Choong that she was surrounded with “negative energy” that would be dispelled by putting $18,000 in a jar and leaving it with the psychic. Later, Ms. Choong gave Ms. Mitchell tens of thousands more, supposedly for supplies.

During the trial, Mr. Aronwald argued that Ms. Mitchell had held up her side of her bargain with the women, providing prayers, meditation and rituals aimed at alleviating their problems. “She provided the services that were contracted,” he said.

That these methods did not work or were of questionable value did not mean Ms. Mitchell had defrauded the women, Mr. Aronwald argued in his summation. Both women admitted on the stand under cross-examination that they were deeply skeptical of Ms. Mitchell’s techniques, but paid her anyway, suggesting that they were never tricked into thinking the psychic had the power to better their lives, Mr. Aronwald said.

But an assistant district attorney, James Bergamo, described Ms. Mitchell as an expert at discovering people’s vulnerabilities and scaring them into handing over their cash. It mattered little, he argued in his summation, if Ms. Mitchell’s clients believed what she said about their past lives or negative spirits: the important fact was that they believed she would return their money. “The facts scream scam,” he said.

One juror, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said, “The case turned on the idea of larceny as a promise not delivered on.” He said Ms. Mitchell had taken “outrageous sums” from the women, claiming it was for supplies like candles, but used the money for other purposes.

“She was clearly robbing these people in a heinous way,” the juror said.