8.Defense Objection to Courthouse Security's Effect on Prospective Jurors
16 linesMS. CONRAD: Okay. And another, though, has to do with a memorandum that went out about new security measures around the courthouse. So that's arguably more pressing.
I have a --
THE COURT: That is out of our control.
MS. CONRAD: Well, yes. But --
THE COURT: I mean, literally. That is done by the Boston Police Department.
MS. CONRAD: Well, I think part of it is. This says "By order of the City of Boston Police Department in cooperation with the U.S. Marshals and the Federal Protective Service," and it goes on to describe not just street closures but also canine -- explosive-sniffing canine-screening vehicles in the area, and we're concerned about its impact on prospective jurors.
THE COURT: I have some concern along those lines. I cannot alter it. I'll just tell you that.
MR. BRUCK: The question becomes after two weeks was it necessary to begin this now as opposed to the beginning of the trial?
THE COURT: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. CONRAD: Just for the record, we also note the presence -- I know this is probably -- your Honor's going to say the same thing, but we also note the presence of Coast Guard gunboats in the harbor visible to prospective jurors, and just the kind of show of force and security precautions really has a prejudicial impact on prospective jurors and ultimately jurors.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: The boats have been there, and counsel hasn't asked about any of the jurors' perspectives.
THE COURT: It is what it is.
MS. CLARKE: Friday? Friday at nine?
THE COURT: Thursday.
MS. CLARKE: Thursday. I'm off a day.
(The Court exited the courtroom and the proceedings adjourned at 4:54 p.m.)