5.Individual Voir Dire — Hardship, Prior Opinions, and Capital Sentencing (Part 3)
816 lines(In open court:)
THE COURT: Actually, we're going to take a break for the stenographer at this point.
(There is a recess in the proceedings from 11:30 a.m. to 11:55 a.m.)
(After the recess:)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 11:55 a.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 183.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 183.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please.
Have a seat, if you would. Speak into the mic so everybody around you can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Hi.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Since you were last here when you filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid discussing the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Except you appearance here, obviously. People have to know where you're going.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And avoid any media about the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Okay. Would you tell us a little bit about your employment, what you do.
JUROR: I'm an assistant team leader with Whole Foods in their seafood department. So I'm full time there and just -- basically an assistant manager.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I'm an assistant manager basically with the company working specifically in seafood, so...
THE COURT: Do you work in a particular location or do you kind of work in a headquarters location?
JUROR: I work in Woburn right now. I just transitioned, so I'll be working in the Woburn store.
THE COURT: Okay. And what does your work involve?
JUROR: I supervise the department, doing orders for fresh products or supplies, helping customers, cleaning, basic maintenance.
THE COURT: Okay. And you don't -- based on your answer to Question No. 10 which asks whether it would be difficult for you to serve on the jury because of its length of time, you don't see an impact significantly on your job?
JUROR: It would be financially difficult, most likely, but they would hold my position. They can't fire me, basically, but it would be a financial issue.
THE COURT: Well, how significant?
JUROR: If we --
THE COURT: Would you be able to make up loss -- are you paid by the hour or by a salary?
JUROR: I'm paid by the hour.
THE COURT: Okay. So would you be able to -- on the time when we weren't sitting, would you be able to put in time that would --
JUROR: I have some vacation time, but it depends on how long it ran for, how much of an issue it would be. It would be -- sorry. I don't know how much you get paid normally here. If it's $40 a day, it would be a bit of a financial struggle for that long a period of time.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I guess it's -- you're the one who can assess it. I mean, that's the kind of thing we have in mind when we ask, for a case that's going to go for some extended period of time, what the burden would be. And, you know, if it's too great a burden, then we won't ask you to do it. So I guess that's what we're trying to figure out, what is the level of burden on you particularly financially, or can you moderate it by weekend hours or something like that?
JUROR: If I was going to be able to work -- like because I know we don't have court on Fridays, I would be able to work on the weekends, so I would be able to do it with vacation time and help from family, if they needed to. But as long as I could work three days a week, I could probably make up most of it.
THE COURT: All right. The store is open all weekend, I assume?
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Facebook. Daily you look at Facebook?
JUROR: Yeah, usually on breaks at work and things like that.
THE COURT: Anything else? Do you both post and --
JUROR: Periodically I post. Mostly it's just out of boredom.
THE COURT: Just checking what's going on?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah.
How about anything else, Twitter or Instagram or anything like that?
JUROR: I don't have any of their accounts.
THE COURT: Okay. I just want -- there's something I noticed I just wanted to have you explain. In Question 13 we asked you to identify any current or former spouse, and you said none, but in Question -- and you can look at this, Question 31 and 32 you refer to your ex, E-X. Is that an ex-spouse or ex-boyfriend or --
JUROR: Ex-boyfriend of two years. He's currently in the Army. He was recently deployed.
THE COURT: "Ex" is sometimes used to refer to an ex-husband, so that was my confusion.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So he was deployed in Afghanistan?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: He got back in September of this year.
THE COURT: How long was he there?
JUROR: For nine months.
THE COURT: In combat?
JUROR: Yes, I believe so.
THE COURT: Okay. And did he come back okay?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How long ex?
JUROR: We broke up in November.
THE COURT: So let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77 near the top of the page. There we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the news or from other sources perhaps, had you formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not or what penalty might be imposed, and you said no to all of those questions.
Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JUROR: I haven't really seen anything in the media about the whole situation. I knew what was going on when it was happening, but I'm not really -- I don't really focus on the news that much, so I didn't really hear much about what was going on during the whole process till after. I know somebody was caught. But up until then I wasn't really paying attention to any of the details or privy to any information or anything like that, things like that.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. You may know that in our criminal justice system any defendant -- any person who is charged with a crime and becomes a defendant in the case is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, unless and until the government proves that he is guilty, and proves it by the evidence at trial to a jury that must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the person, and if the jury is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty, the jury will be instructed it is their duty to find him not guilty.
Do you understand those principles in general?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty in -- if you were a juror in this case in applying those principles fairly and impartially?
JUROR: No, I wouldn't.
THE COURT: And you'd require the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and you would not presume the defendant guilty, but rather innocent. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If it's not, tell me.
JUROR: No, it is.
THE COURT: Would you look at page 23 -- well, before we get there, that was concerning the first part of 77, which was about guilt or not. Also we asked about the death penalty, and you answered no to that.
We asked some more questions about the death penalty beginning on page 23. In Question 88 we asked sort of a general question about your views on the death penalty. You say you're not really for or against but you feel better about life imprisonment than the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything you want to add to that or explain or -- you don't have to. I'm just asking you.
JUROR: No. I guess I've never really formed an opinion strongly one way or the other, but if it came down to it, I would probably say death is not necessary.
THE COURT: I couldn't quite hear that. If you want to push that maybe a little closer to you, that's fine.
JUROR: Sorry. I was just saying I've never really formed an opinion one way or the other, but I probably would go more -- I feel life in prison is a stronger punishment because you actually have to spend time thinking about the consequences of your actions as opposed to death.
THE COURT: In Question 89 we asked you to kind of place yourself on a scale from 1 to 10 of strongly opposed at 1 up to strongly favor -- this is the death penalty -- at 10, and you selected 4, indicating somewhere on the opposed side of the middle, I think. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And then if you go to the next page, Question 90, we asked you to select which statement came the closest to representing your view of the death penalty, and you selected D: Not for or against, could vote to impose it or vote for life imprisonment depending on your assessment of the facts and the law in the case. Does that still represent your --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- position on this?
JUROR: Definitely.
I've never actually been in a position --
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I have never really been in the position to think about it one way or the other, so I think depending on what the facts are, what information I heard would form a stronger opinion for myself.
THE COURT: And on page 25 at the bottom, that's 95, and on the next page, 96, they're kind of paired. The first question said if you found the defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you indicated yes.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And on 96, the next question was kind of the companion to that on the other side: If you found him guilty and you decided life in prison without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that, and you said "yes" as well.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So what I'm hearing is that you think that based on your evaluation of the evidence you could possibly vote for either depending on how you assess the evidence. Is that fair?
JUROR: I think that's a very fair assessment.
MR. MELLIN: Just a few, your Honor?
JUROR: Sure.
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case.
I would like to go back to just the questions about the financial hardship because today's really the last day we have to talk to you about that, and we want to make sure that two months into this trial you're not sitting on the jury and then you have to raise your hand and say, "I just can't afford to be here."
Are you confident that this isn't going to be a financial hardship for you?
JUROR: As long as I could work on the weekends, it wouldn't be. And I can lean on my family. They told me that if I ever needed help, they would be willing to help. But as long as I could work like a Friday through a Sunday, I could work a good 30 hours, and I have a good amount of vacation time saved up.
THE COURT: Could I follow up on that?
As far as you know -- you've worked there for a while?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- weekend work is available to you?
JUROR: Oh, yeah. I do it on a regular basis. My schedule is always changing.
MR. MELLIN: And just following up on the death penalty questions, Judge O'Toole just talked to you about your answers to Questions 95 and 96 where you said that to both you could conscientiously vote for the death penalty over life imprisonment. Do you remember those questions?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: So do you believe that if you found that the evidence supported the death penalty in a case like this, that you would be able to vote to send someone to death?
JUROR: If that was what was proven to be the best option and what the evidence was proven for, I would vote for it.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Thanks.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
You mentioned that your ex saw combat in Afghanistan. You were involved -- you were in a relationship at that time?
JUROR: Yes, I was.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me a little bit about what you learned about that and what the impact was?
JUROR: He didn't really talk a lot about what was happening during the deployment. We would get to Skype and talk periodically, but we never really discussed what was happening over there, mostly just when he got back, just different personality changes.
MS. CONRAD: And do you know what type of combat he saw?
JUROR: He was a gunman on top of a lot of the trucks, so he was a mechanic and a motorman, I think it was. But he either worked on the trucks or ran the guns on top of the trucks.
MS. CONRAD: Now, if there might be some evidence that motive for the bombings related to American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, would your relationship with this person and his experience affect you in any way in evaluating the evidence?
JUROR: I honestly never had an opinion about the war one way or the other. I just always supported our troops and whatever, I mean, men and women we had from our country fighting over there. But I would rather they all be home, so I understand both sides of the view, but I just mostly support our troops and whatever they feel is right that they're doing.
MS. CONRAD: You said that when you got the jury summons you didn't know it was for this case?
JUROR: No, I didn't.
MS. CONRAD: When you realized it was for this case -- I don't know how you came to realize that, but at whatever point, how did you feel about possibly serving on this jury when you figured that out or learned that?
JUROR: It was very surprising and intimidating. This is a very big, important case, so it was a little intimidating to know that this could be a possibility. But just mostly I was surprised. I didn't even know this was really happening.
MS. CONRAD: When you say "intimidating," can you tell me a little bit more about in what way?
JUROR: Just I know this is a very big, very important case, and so whoever does get chosen for this jury, they really have to be very conscious of what's going on and really paying attention to the material and really focused on, you know, making the right decision and listening to all of the evidence. So it's very important.
MS. CONRAD: Did anybody make any comments to you about -- maybe if you said anything to them about the fact that you might be serving as a juror on this case, any reactions that you got from people?
JUROR: No, everybody's been really respectful, understanding that I have jury duty, and they're like, "All right. Just let us know when you have to go in," and understand I'm not allowed to talk about it or discuss it. And everybody has been very respectful of that.
MS. CONRAD: Were you in the Boston area when the bombings occurred?
JUROR: No, I wasn't.
MS. CONRAD: You didn't live here at the time or --
JUROR: No, I lived -- well, I mean, I lived in Chelmsford. So I was working. I might have actually been in New Hampshire at the time working. That's where my current store used to be. So I wasn't really anywhere locally. So I honestly didn't really hear about it till after it happened.
MS. CONRAD: Do you -- I think there may be one or more victims or survivors of the bombing who live in the Chelmsford area. Do you know any of them personally?
JUROR: I don't know them personally. I think I know someone from the Chelmsford area that wrote a book, but I don't know him personally. But I have heard of someone who was involved, but I'm not positive what his name was. But I just know there was someone from Chelmsford but...
MS. CONRAD: Have you gone to any events related to that book coming out or any events in Chelmsford related to that --
JUROR: No, I haven't.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right, ma'am. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 184.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 184.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would.
Have a seat. Speak into the mic so everyone around here can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And as much as possible to avoid any exposure to media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out before, and we're going to follow up by asking you some questions about some of the answers you gave --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- in the questionnaire. And, of course, congratulations on your condition.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Tell us about your childcare concern that -- and if you want to look, I'm looking at page 5, Question 10.
JUROR: So I work full time as a teacher. I drop off my son normally around 6:25 every morning. And I live in Holbrook. I drop him off in Stoughton and then I have to drive to Boston.
THE COURT: About how many miles is that from your home to the daycare?
JUROR: From my home, maybe five to ten miles? I'm not exactly --
THE COURT: All right. How long does it usually take you --
JUROR: From my house to daycare, usually 15 to 20 minutes.
THE COURT: How about at the end of the day going the other way? Is the traffic worse?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: What would it take then?
JUROR: From work?
THE COURT: No, from daycare back home.
JUROR: Yeah, about 25, 30 minutes.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay.
I interrupted.
JUROR: No, it's just driving to work, driving in to Boston that's the challenge. It's not so much getting from home to daycare.
THE COURT: Right. Where's the school?
JUROR: Boston Public Schools in Dorchester, TechBoston Academy.
THE COURT: So after you -- how do you come? Do you come up the expressway?
JUROR: No, I actually drive the back roads.
THE COURT: Yeah. So what's a typical drive from Stoughton to school?
JUROR: It takes about 45 minutes total.
THE COURT: Is that the concern, the commuting time and --
JUROR: My main concern actually that I didn't bring up earlier is that I actually have a family trip planned for the week of the 14th, so I won't be --
THE COURT: February?
JUROR: February, yeah. So I won't be in Boston during that time. I didn't mention that on the -- as a concern, but that was the main...
THE COURT: What's the nature of the --
JUROR: It's a family trip. I plan it a year in advance.
THE COURT: Your family: You, your husband and child?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And is it prepaid?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. I think that's all we have to hear.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: We'll miss you, but enjoy your trip.
(Laughter.)
JUROR: Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 185.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 185.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
Just make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Will do.
THE COURT: Not too close.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I'm a risk manager.
THE COURT: First I have to ask, since you were last here, have you been able to abide by my instructions not to talk about the details of the case with anybody?
JUROR: As much as I possibly can.
THE COURT: Okay. And to avoid as much as you possibly can unwanted exposure to media stories about the case?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead now. Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: Okay. I'm a risk manager and a contracts manager for a construction company.
THE COURT: And what does that involve?
JUROR: That involves reading a lot of contracts and managing the corporate insurance program.
THE COURT: Okay. What kind of contracting does the company do?
JUROR: Electrical. We're a local electrical contractor.
THE COURT: How big is the company?
JUROR: Well, they have several companies. It's probably running 160, 180 million, so they're a big company.
THE COURT: And you've been doing this particular job for about ten years or longer?
JUROR: More like 30.
THE COURT: Thirty? All right.
JUROR: I worked for another electrical contractor.
THE COURT: The same kind of work?
JUROR: The same kind of work.
THE COURT: All right. How about social media use by yourself? Do you use it at all?
JUROR: Absolutely not. I'm a dinosaur.
THE COURT: In the course of your work I guess you've had the experience of having your deposition taken a couple of times?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Those are both civil cases?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: And when were they?
JUROR: One was a case in New York City that centered around contract language and the interpretation of the insurance requirements of the contract.
THE COURT: Yeah. When was that?
JUROR: That was -- I can't even remember. Maybe 15 years ago, 18 years ago, something like that.
And then the other was in a large lawsuit in Connecticut, a claim involving a man named Avery. It was a death claim. And I was deposed because the two insurance companies were having an issue about how the claim was managed.
THE COURT: Okay. If you'd turn to page 19 in your questionnaire, I wanted you to look at the bottom of page 74 and 75. We asked about reactions when you received the summons and then also when you realized it was this case we were empaneling for. In answer to Question 74 you said, "It is an honor to be asked to serve."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why you said that?
JUROR: Why did I say that?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Because I believe that probably -- the right to a fair and impartial trial is probably the most important right that we as individuals have.
THE COURT: And you're honored to take part in that. Is that what you're telling us here?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: The next question you said you had some mixed feelings because of the time commitment --
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: -- I guess.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is that right? Is that what you were conveying there?
JUROR: Of course.
THE COURT: But then you go on to add, "Could be the experience of a lifetime."
JUROR: Yeah. I think everyone could -- in this position would probably -- should probably have a lot of mixed feelings about the situation. I'm a single mother, you know, but I do have a support network, so... I have plans to do things this spring, and I know this trial is going to be a lengthy time commitment; but on the other hand, as a risk manager, I've been faced with situations where decisions that were wrought by a jury were pretty bad, and I know that if people like me don't serve on juries, that that is what you can expect. So one has an obligation.
THE COURT: Okay. If you'd turn to the next page, Question 77, we asked whether you had formed an opinion about things you'd seen in the media, and so on, about whether the defendant was guilty or not and what the penalty might be, and we gave you three options, yes, no and unsure, and you checked "unsure" for each of the questions.
Can you explain what you were thinking as you did that?
JUROR: Well, I've spent a lot of time -- when I finally did realize this was the case that I was being summoned to serve on the jury for -- as to what I had actually seen on the news media. And I watched the full -- I turned on the TV on marathon day five minutes before the blast went off, so I saw the whole first response; I saw the bomb go off. I saw everything that day.
I also saw pretty much everything that happened from very early on Friday morning, because I get up at four -- so from the minute I turned on the TV to see what the weather was going to be -- because I had a scheduled vacation day, I was looking to see what I could do -- I saw the full media coverage for everything that happened on Friday, okay?
But what I think I'm missing from that is that in the days that followed -- again, I'm a single mom; I have a big job -- I did not see a lot of media coverage thereafter. So in looking back upon what I saw, I don't think that I saw anything that was completely conclusive; just indications. I saw bits and pieces of information. So I remain somewhat on the fence.
THE COURT: So in a criminal trial when someone's accused of a crime, they're presumed to be innocent of the crime they're charged with unless and until the government proves they're guilty by the evidence at trial, proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. If the government fails to convince the jury to that degree so the jurors cannot say they're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has committed the crime, it's the duty of the jury to find the person not guilty.
If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to do that?
JUROR: I don't think I'd have an issue with it, no.
THE COURT: The second part of the question refers to attitude about the potential penalty, and we asked some more questions about that beginning on page 23 with Question 88 where we asked for you to tell us what your general views about the death penalty might be. And you said "It could be an appropriate punishment but may not be the most appropriate punishment."
Can you just tell us what you were thinking when you made that answer?
JUROR: Well, I don't know that -- I mean, death is something that we all face, and sometimes I think that life imprisonment can be a fate worse than death, particularly if one is thrown in with common criminals and treated as a common criminal and forced to live the rest of their lives with people that have committed heinous acts.
THE COURT: In the next question we asked you to sort of place yourself on a scale of the strength of your views from strongly opposed to strongly favor, and you put yourself sort of in the middle. Is that --
JUROR: That's correct. I don't think that death is necessarily the greatest punishment of all.
THE COURT: If you'd turn to the next page, 90, Question 90, we asked you to state which of the possible formulations represented -- best represented your view, and you picked D, which was not for or against, could vote to impose it or could vote to impose life imprisonment, whichever you believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
Today would you still say that represents your choice among --
JUROR: Yeah, I would say so.
THE COURT: So I'd now ask you to turn to page 25 and Question 95, and 96 at the top of the next page. They're kind of a pair of questions. 95 asks if you found the defendant guilty and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for it, and you said "yes."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: And the next question we asked the other side of that question: If you found him guilty and decided life imprisonment without release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that, and again you said "yes."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: So depending on your assessment and weighing of the evidence, it's possible you could find yourself voting to impose the death penalty or voting to impose life imprisonment but -- is that --
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: -- a fair summary? Okay.
MR. MELLIN: Just a few. Thank you, your Honor.
Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. MELLIN: You said this morning -- or this afternoon that you think that life imprisonment may be a fate worse than death. Can you expand on that a little bit?
JUROR: Well, I would think, to me, to be thrown in with the dregs of society, to have to live among rapists and murderers and live amongst that general population would be, to me, a fate far worse than death. We all face death.
MR. MELLIN: When you think about the appropriateness of the death penalty in certain types of cases, are there certain cases that come to mind for you that you do think it's appropriate for?
JUROR: The one case that -- well, the type of situation for sure would be a prisoner that would be too dangerous to lock up with other prisoners.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Can you think of any other examples?
JUROR: Well, I think if you want to set an example of someone. I think the death penalty is perceived by others probably to be the greatest penalty, so perhaps in that way some crimes, particularly crimes committed against the state, would be punishable by -- justifiably punishable by same.
MR. MELLIN: And just to wrap up, if you believed that the aggravating factors in this case or any case sufficiently outweighed the mitigating factors, would you be able to vote to impose the death penalty on someone else?
JUROR: That's correct. I really don't have anything against the death penalty itself. I think it is a fitting punishment for certain types of crimes and for wantonly taking the life of another person.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Thanks.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck, and I am one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers, and I just have a few things I would like to go over with you, if I could.
Question 85 on your questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell us about that witness or the -- you know the parents of the witness. Is that right?
JUROR: That's correct, yes. Just socially. She's a young doctor, and she was the treating physician for the young MBTA policeman who was shot. And I know her parents socially.
MR. BRUCK: Do you know the doctor?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
JUROR: I probably have met her, but I don't really know her. I probably met her through her mother.
MR. BRUCK: Have you talked to her mom and dad about what all she did that night, her experience?
JUROR: No, but I've heard through other third parties of that long before I was expected to come here.
MR. BRUCK: Sure. There's been a lot of publicity about how she did.
MS. PELLEGRINI: Objection. I request that be stricken.
THE COURT: All right, it's...
MR. BRUCK: Do you think that would have any effect on the way you look at this case?
JUROR: Not at all.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You bought your son a Boston Strong T-shirt?
JUROR: That I did.
MR. BRUCK: And can you tell me what the circumstances were?
JUROR: Just coming into town the week after and there was a huge crowd of people shopping on Boylston Street. And I think it was just part of the Boston Strong sympathy that weekend that we were going to go about business as usual.
MR. BRUCK: And what did the Boston Strong T-shirt mean to you?
JUROR: What did the Boston Strong T-shirt mean to me? I think it's just the spirit of Boston, that despite whatever happens, that we will continue.
MR. BRUCK: You said that one idea, when Mr. Mellin was asking you questions, about when the death penalty might be appropriate would be for a crime against the state. And I guess that brings up the question of this case. Understanding that you haven't heard the case and haven't reached a decision, do you lean one way or the other about whether the death penalty is appropriate for the Boston Marathon bombing?
JUROR: I'm very torn about it. I have a 17-year-old son, so I can't help being a mother too.
MR. BRUCK: And what -- I guess what's the answer to my question about whether you're here, here, here (indicating)?
JUROR: I would need to see the evidence. I would have to know what actually happened. All I know is what was in the media circus.
MR. BRUCK: It's a two-part trial, as Judge O'Toole has explained to you, so by the time the jury gets to decide the punishment, they're past the question of whether they've got the right guy. You don't decide punishment until you know beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did the crime. Picture yourself at that point having found that Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty. I'm just supposing we get there. Do you have an opinion at that point?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. I think that's just a -- re-asking the form of the question.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
Do you think there's anything else that the Court or we should know now that you've had a chance to talk this through?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think we'll just leave it at that unless there's something particular.
JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: That's all I have.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 186.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 186.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would.
Have a seat. Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And to avoid, as much as you could, media --
JUROR: As much as I could.
THE COURT: -- exposure? Yeah.
Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I work as an HR director at a high-tech software company in Waltham.
THE COURT: And are you the director?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In other words, you head up the HR?
JUROR: I have a VP of HR above me, but I'm in charge of global operations from an HR perspective.
THE COURT: How big is the company?
JUROR: Worldwide we're almost 6,000.
THE COURT: You say you don't -- in connection with your work, I guess -- use blogs. Do you have anything to do with the company website?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: But personally you use Facebook and Instagram?
JUROR: Not really. I have 11 friends on Facebook. I'm on it just because people were sending invites, so they made me. I'm not even on as myself. I have an alias on there. Because of what I do for a living, it's not advisable. And I'm on Instagram because my 11-year-old niece just joined, so I felt the need to keep an eye on what she was doing.
THE COURT: Okay. So let me just ask you to turn to page 19 of your form. We asked at the bottom, 74 and 75 -- we asked a couple of questions about what you thought when you received the summons and what people might have said to you and so on and so forth. And in 74 you said you were anxious about how long the trial could be and how that would impact your job.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Back in the beginning we had set out in Question 10 the schedule, and so on, and asked whether you thought it would be very difficult for you to serve, and you said no. Did you sort of satisfy yourself about the impact or --
JUROR: You know, it's not necessarily about the time. It's more about the -- this is going to sound really silly, but the judgment that people would have. Because so many people were making comments about, "Only dumb people end up on juries. You have to be smart enough to get yourself out of jury duty." So I feel like I would be criticized for not getting myself out of jury duty.
THE COURT: How would that affect you?
JUROR: It's hard to explain the people I work for. They're -- it's hard to explain. It's...
THE COURT: Do you mean the people at work would think you owed it to them to talk your way out of it?
JUROR: Yes. My job should be my priority, and so shame on me if I wasn't able to be smart enough to get myself out of jury duty because I should be making my job my priority.
THE COURT: And what do you think about that?
JUROR: I disagree completely. Completely.
THE COURT: Okay. On page 20, Question 77, we asked whether you'd had -- whether you had formed an opinion based on things you'd seen and read in the media and otherwise whether the defendant was guilty or not, and then if so, what the appropriate punishment should be. And you said -- to both -- "Do you have an opinion whether he's guilty?" you said "yes"; and "Do you have an opinion that he should receive the death penalty?" and you said "yes." We asked down below whether -- if you had formed an opinion on those sources, whether you would be able to set that aside and base your decision about guilt or punishment only on the evidence presented at trial, and you said "able."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So I want to ask you about those things.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: You understand that in our criminal justice system anybody who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, of the crime, and that presumption continues until the government changes it by proving otherwise at trial, by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is, in fact, guilty.
Do you understand that that's --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- sort of the basic principle under our prosecution of crime?
You say you formed some opinions. If you were a juror in the case, would you be able to strictly apply those principles that the government has the responsibility of proving at trial by the evidence, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant has no burden to prove that he's not guilty?
JUROR: Yes. I do it for a living. There are situations that we have to investigate that you immediately go into assuming one set of facts is the truth, and then there's always another set of facts that you come to learn and your opinion changes. I'm not saying that it's my idea to be on the jury, but I do believe I could do it.
THE COURT: So we asked -- in Questions 80 through 82 we asked, you know, to try to gauge your personal involvement in any of the events. You had some friends who were nearby, I guess, if you look at your answer to Question 80.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Maybe you could tell us about that.
JUROR: Yes. We traditionally go in to the Red Sox game on Marathon Monday. And this was the first year in a long time that I wasn't able to join them because of work. So my friends -- I knew logically our routine, and so I guessed they would be at Who's On First, but I wasn't sure.
THE COURT: That's a restaurant?
JUROR: It's a bar on Yawkey Way, and so people tend to go there after the Red Sox game. And what we usually do is we go to the bar, and then about four o'clock we go and cheer in the late runners, the ones -- we don't usually go to the finish line, but we go and cheer on the late runners. So I logically had an idea of where I thought my friends would be, but I was anxious for a few minutes.
THE COURT: So, what, the information you got from them you put in 80 you got later?
JUROR: I was able to get ahold of them. And I offered to go pick them up, and we realized very quickly that I wasn't going to be able to do that, and they felt a little bit stranded in town. But one of the friends they were with was a Cambridge firefighter, and he somehow had a connection that was able to get them out of town.
THE COURT: How long have you been doing this with this group?
JUROR: Oh, jeez, probably since about 2000.
THE COURT: Then on the top of the next page, you both in terms of your residence and the company, I guess, were impacted by the closures, the sheltering and so on?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would that have any effect on you if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: No. I lost a little bit of sleep, but that was fine.
THE COURT: And then the next answer, you made some substantial contributions to the One Fund --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- and attended some events, I guess?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I don't know the facts behind the assessment, but it seems like that's a rather strong commitment to the fund. Would that have any --
JUROR: I tend to give to any natural disaster or any sort of -- you know, the one -- what's that, the Cancer Society, things like that, I tend to do that. I think this one because it was so prevalent, there were so many opportunities to give, I probably donated more than I normally do. There was a fundraiser in my town that was at a bar that I normally frequent, so I went. I went to the Boston Strong concert. It was a fun concert.
THE COURT: It was at the TD Garden?
JUROR: At the Garden, uh-huh.
THE COURT: After -- any recent, in the last year or so?
JUROR: No. Honestly, now that I think about it, probably since the concert, that was probably the last.
THE COURT: That was in the summer sometime? People here probably know.
JUROR: I'm not even sure, to be honest with you.
THE COURT: Beginning on page 23 at Question 88, there are some questions to gauge your views about the death penalty in general and potentially in this case. So 88 asks for your general views.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And you said, "I'm for the death penalty."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you want to explain that a little or --
JUROR: I think there are some crimes that are so heinous that if the person is found guilty, the death penalty is warranted.
THE COURT: In Question 89 we asked you to put yourself on the scale from strongly opposed to strongly favor, and you put 8, which is up towards the strength side favoring. As you think about it, is that about where you should be?
JUROR: I think so.
THE COURT: And then on the next page, in Question 90, we ask you to select which of the following possible statements best describes your feelings about the death penalty when somebody's been proved guilty of murder, and you selected E, you're in favor of the death penalty but could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release if "I believe that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case"?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Does that accurately represent your view?
JUROR: Yes. I think as you stated earlier, there would be instructions with the case that would say what criteria needs to be met in order for the death penalty to be an applicable punishment, and if that was the case, then yes.
THE COURT: And if you thought on the evaluation of that evidence it was not the appropriate punishment, would you be open to voting for life imprisonment instead?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Even though you tend to be in favor of the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked at the bottom of 25 and the top of 26 a pair of questions that go together, really. 95: "If you found the defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote for it?" and you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And then similarly on the next page, "If you found him guilty and decided that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for that?" And again you said "yes"?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do those answers represent where you are on this issue?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
I just want to follow up. On Question 77, Judge O'Toole asked you about your feelings after seeing the news media, and you said that you're able to set aside those feelings because I think you said that you do that all the time in your work, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. MELLIN: There's also -- if you turn the page back to page 19, Question 75, that asks about what did others say to you about your possible jury service in this case. And you said, "Most commented on the fact that we should skip the trial and go right to sentencing." Is that right?
JUROR: Many people have said that to me, yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And do you understand that's not the process?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And is there anything about that that you would have a problem following the process in this court, which is first there's a guilt phase and you have to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the evidence here in court?
JUROR: No, I have no problem understanding that it's a two-phase process.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Very good.
And then just going on to the -- Judge O'Toole asked you about the contributions to the One Fund. Is there anything about your contributions to the One Fund that you think would affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
JUROR: No.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And finally, about the -- just a couple of questions about the death penalty. After hearing the instructions this morning, do you understand that if the jury is to get to the penalty phase, the jury would have already found the defendant guilty.
You understand that, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: And that in the penalty phase, there's this time when the government would put on aggravating evidence, or evidence that we think supports the death penalty, and the defense can put on what's called mitigating evidence, or reasons why they believe life imprisonment's appropriate.
Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: And while that is going on would you keep an open mind before making a decision?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So the fact that you'd already found the defendant guilty, would you wait until the end to make a decision or would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty just because you found him guilty?
JUROR: So again, if I understand the process correctly, it's a two-phase process. So guilt is one piece of it, sentencing is another, and there will be different evidence to support life in prison versus the death penalty?
MR. MELLIN: Correct.
JUROR: It's two separate processes. Yes, I could make the distinction.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And during that second process you would keep an open mind to consider the evidence?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
Following up on something Mr. Mellin asked you, when people said to you "we should just skip the trial," what did you say back?
JUROR: I agreed in some -- in some conversations I agreed.
MS. CONRAD: So as you sit here today do you agree?
JUROR: No. I mean, these were conversations when the whole thing first happened and I wasn't as thoughtful about it; I was more emotional.
MS. CONRAD: And what time frame would you say this was?
JUROR: I would say probably months after it happened, within that.
MS. CONRAD: And how many people would you say you said that to?
JUROR: I have no idea.
MS. CONRAD: And what was behind that? Can you just -- I mean, I appreciate your candor. I really do.
JUROR: No, no, I understand.
MS. CONRAD: I'm just wondering what you said --
JUROR: There were children involved. There were children involved.
MS. CONRAD: And when you got your summons -- I just want to -- did you realize it was for this case?
JUROR: I had no idea.
MS. CONRAD: But you said that, if you'd just turn to 19, Question 75, when people found out that you'd received a summons for this case --
JUROR: No, it had nothing to do with that. It was when I actually had to take the 5th off, January 5th off, and people started making the connection for me. Quite frankly, I don't follow the news that closely. I wasn't aware that the trial was starting.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. But at that point when people learned that you might be in the jury pool for this case --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CONRAD: -- they commented that -- they expressed their view that "we should skip the trial."
JUROR: I don't recall anyone specifically saying that. I don't...
MS. CONRAD: Can I just ask you to read your answer?
JUROR: Yeah. Sorry.
(Pause.)
JUROR: Oh, possible jury service. I don't think I read that fully.
MS. CONRAD: But the question before that was about the jury summons.
JUROR: Yeah, so you're right. I must have -- I must have had conversations; I'm just not recalling anything specific.
MS. CONRAD: Well, to the best of your ability to recall those conversations, at that point once you received your summons and realized that you might possibly serve as a juror in this case, when people expressed that view to you, how did you respond?
JUROR: Again, I apologize because I'm not recalling specifically right now, so I don't remember what my response would have been.
MS. CONRAD: Do you remember how you felt about it?
JUROR: The overall feeling I had was sitting there feeling very anxious that this could be months of my life in a trial.
MS. CONRAD: But when you -- did you have any feelings -- or do you have any feelings or reaction to the possibility of being a juror in this case?
MR. MELLIN: Objection, your Honor. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think we've been over it.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. Let me ask you something else, then.
You mentioned -- or you told us about your annual tradition of going to the Red Sox game on Marathon Monday. Did you do that again this past year?
JUROR: I did.
MS. CONRAD: In 2014?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And did they have any sort of ceremony honoring the victims and survivors of the marathon?
JUROR: If I recall, I believe it was the day before.
MS. CONRAD: So you weren't there for that?
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: Did you go and watch the runners at the end of the marathon in 2014?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And where did you watch?
JUROR: I apologize. I'm not aware of the exact address, but it's right there where the McDonald's and Pizzeria Uno's are. It's, like, I think at the end of --
MS. CONRAD: Do you know what T station it's close to?
JUROR: No, I'm not very good about that.
MS. CONRAD: Do you usually walk over from Fenway?
JUROR: That's exactly it; we walked.
MS. CONRAD: So when you first heard about the bombing in 2013, how long was it from when you heard about it to when you found out that your friends were safe?
JUROR: Probably 15 minutes. We heard about it pretty quickly.
MS. CONRAD: So -- but you were able to reach them pretty quickly?
JUROR: Yes, on cell phones.
MS. CONRAD: What was your first reaction when you heard about the bombings? Was it concern for their safety?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And you told us that you had -- and again, we appreciate your honesty, but you told us that you had formed an opinion that Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty and should receive the death penalty. And I appreciate your expressing your understanding of the legal principles, but we're all human.
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: So can you first tell me what's behind it? What formed your opinions or what influenced your opinions?
JUROR: Do you want to know specifically or --
MS. CONRAD: Sure.
JUROR: Yeah, I think seeing the Lord & Taylor video was evidence of my opinion; the incident that happened in Watertown, the fact that he was literally right there with a gun in hand. That's what formed my opinion.
MS. CONRAD: And you -- what about your opinion about whether -- that he should receive the death penalty? What formed --
JUROR: I mean, that's not necessarily specific to him. There's -- I think crimes involving children I have strong feelings about.
MS. CONRAD: But the question on page 20 was whether you had formed an opinion that he should receive the death penalty, and you said "yes." So it was specific to this case.
JUROR: Again, there was a child involved, and I have a strong opinion about the death penalty when children are involved.
MS. CONRAD: And I appreciate that. So when Judge O'Toole was asking you some questions about the presumption of innocence and the government having the burden of proof, you said that if you heard different facts at trial you could apply the burden of proof. Is that what it would take for you to find Mr. Tsarnaev not guilty?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
Yeah, you don't have to answer that question.
MS. CONRAD: Let me ask it a different way, then. Let me reframe the question.
Would you expect the defense to produce evidence that Mr. Tsarnaev did not commit the crimes?
JUROR: So if I'm understanding your question correctly, if you were to present contradictory evidence to what I believe I have seen in the past, would I be able to believe that evidence?
MS. CONRAD: That's a great question, but that wasn't my question. My question is -- but can you answer that question?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. What if the defense didn't present any evidence, and the government presented evidence but that evidence was not sufficient to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
JUROR: We're talking reasonable doubt?
THE COURT: On behalf of the process, I'm going to object to that.
MS. CONRAD: Well, your Honor --
THE COURT: No, the defense will -- it's getting too technical in the mechanics of litigation, what the defense presents and doesn't present; for example, evidence is presented through cross-examination. And so it's -- I think it's a very misleading, difficult question for a layperson to answer.
MS. CONRAD: Well, your Honor, I really think it goes back to the presumption of innocence, so if I could take another --
JUROR: Could I try to answer it for you?
MS. CONRAD: Sure.
JUROR: I think I understand what you're getting to. My grandfather was a defense attorney in Boston for over 45 years. I feel that I understand the defense process. And so I believe, again, if it was not warranted to find a guilty plea, I would be able to do that.
MS. CONRAD: I appreciate that you understand our role. I'm asking about you as a human being, whether you would be able to return a verdict of not guilty in this case.
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: I think it's already been answered, but go ahead, answer it.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And how much money have you donated to the various Boston Strong --
JUROR: I'm not sure. Some of it was through your cell phone when a number would come up on the screen and you'd just hit it; I participated in a charity auction that I think I bought a $100 salad bowl. I think it was a $50 donation just to get in the door; concert tickets. As I said, I'm not sure.
MS. CONRAD: So -- but you said "hundreds," so can you give us a ballpark?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's enough.
JUROR: I just did.
THE COURT: I think we're ready to move on unless you have another topic.
MS. CONRAD: Okay.
(Pause.)
MS. CONRAD: Thank you very much.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: I'd like to do the next one because I think it might be quick, if you'd look at Question 10.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE COURT: Oh, that's the one that's not here? That was quicker than I thought.
MR. BRUCK: That was quick.
THE COURT: Then I think maybe -- let me just look at my notes for the next -- yeah, the next one will be more extended, so why don't we take the lunch break. What do you think, two o'clock? Quarter to two? Whatever? Two o'clock? I think we're going along pretty expeditiously, generally speaking. It looks like we have about five left. That's not too bad. As long as --
COURT CLERK: We have six.
THE COURT: Do we have six? Yeah, I created two piles. That's still not bad. All right. So we'll see you about two o'clock.
(The Court exits the courtroom, and there is a recess in the proceedings at 1:00 p.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The Honorable Court entered the courtroom at 2:14 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 189.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 189.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here please. Have a seat. Thanks. Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since your last visit with us when you filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my request that you avoid any discussion of the case as much as possible and avoid media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us a little bit about your employment, what you do?
JUROR: Sure. I currently work for a nonprofit here in Boston called City Year. We're an education-focused nonprofit that has recent high school and college graduates volunteer in high poverty urban schools in 26 cities in the country.
THE COURT: And your position?
JUROR: Vice-president of corporate partnerships.
THE COURT: So you're...
JUROR: So I work with companies that help fund our efforts.
THE COURT: Trying to enlist support?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us about social media that you use.
JUROR: Sure. I use a variety of social media, both personally and as part of my job.
THE COURT: And do you use different media for different purposes?
JUROR: For both. Use them in different ways. I mean, each particular piece of social media is used in a different way based on the audience, based on how you would use it.
THE COURT: How about Facebook, for instance? How would you use it?
JUROR: Primarily for personal information for Facebook, friends, families, et cetera.
THE COURT: And Twitter?
JUROR: Stuff with my kids. Twitter is a little bit different. Twitter is more of a business purpose for me but trying to sprinkle in both personal as well to give more context.
THE COURT: I assume City Year has a blog?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: A website and a blog?
JUROR: We also have a blog, yes.
THE COURT: Do you contribute to that?
JUROR: Not personally yet, no.
THE COURT: Your wife has a cousin who was injured in Iraq?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When was that? When was he injured?
JUROR: It was hard for me to place the exact year. I want to say probably about eight years ago.
THE COURT: So 2007, 2006?
JUROR: Sounds right to me.
THE COURT: How serious was the incident.
JUROR: Pretty serious. He's lost some function in his right leg. He was injured in the head and chest. But he's made a very strong recovery, so he walks with some support, but is doing well.
THE COURT: And what's he doing now?
JUROR: He's in school and living with family.
THE COURT: It says he was a sniper injured by an IED?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you know the details at all?
JUROR: Other than he was with his platoon and things went wrong.
THE COURT: And you can take a look at -- we'll follow it up with questions --
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: -- the answers you gave to the questions in the questionnaire. I'm looking now at Page 11.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And question 33 now. Three relatives -- two relatives and a friend --
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- friend of a relative, I guess, who are lawyers, you say, in private practice. Do you know what kind of work they do, what subject matters?
JUROR: My brother-in-law is in private practice; he's a defendant or defense lawyer.
THE COURT: Criminal defense or civil defense?
JUROR: Civil defense, I believe.
THE COURT: Is he in a firm?
JUROR: His family firm.
THE COURT: Okay. And how about the others?
JUROR: The other is my uncle who is in private practice. I'm not sure what area he focuses in these days.
THE COURT: And the wife's friend?
JUROR: My wife's friend? Also a family firm currently doing mostly real estate and --
THE COURT: As far as you know, all of them are doing civil work?
JUROR: As far as I know.
THE COURT: And where? Are they all around here?
JUROR: No. Brother-in-law and uncle are in greater St. Louis area, and my friend and my wife's friend is here locally.
THE COURT: Okay. So I'm now at Page 19. We asked a couple of questions about your reaction when you realized you might be a possible juror in this case and then what people may have said or you said to them about it. You said you were surprised when you learned what the case would be. "Emotional when I remembered the bombing. Intrigued at the process of a case like this."
Can you explain the answer a little?
JUROR: Sure. A variety of things.
THE COURT: Yes.
JUROR: I think, one, I had a lot going on at the time so I hadn't realized I was being summonsed for a federal trial at the time and got the automatic phone call the day before and was surprised; and then, two, putting two and two together as far as what case we were talking about surprised me as well, and the magnitude of that. From a personal standpoint, I -- in my career, I worked for an event that takes place along the route of the Boston Marathon, fundraiser for the first five years of my career, got to know all the folks that organize the race, the race director, pretty well in a professional relationship. After that, ended up being a participant in the Marathon three separate times, including once with my wife, and once where I had a medical emergency, was transported to the finish, and then again a third time successfully completing it. So it's a fairly emotional race for me personally
THE COURT: So let me ask you this: Do you think you're too close to the race to be a juror for this case?
JUROR: I believe I would be.
THE COURT: You would be too close?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anybody want to just follow-up on that?
MR. MELLIN: No.
MR. BRUCK: Yes, please. There are a lot of people in Boston that are connected to the Marathon.
JUROR: Of course.
MR. BRUCK: If there's going to be a jury in Boston, it's going to be composed of people who remember this event.
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Well, go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: An awful lot of people feel emotional about the bombing at the marathon in Boston. And you're one of those people.
JUROR: (Juror nods.)
MR. BRUCK: Juries are supposed to be composed of people who have different feelings, not people who all feel the same way.
JUROR: Right.
MR. BRUCK: Do you think that that's important, that there be a cross-section?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't think that's all -- with all due respect, whether he thinks that's important, we're trying to get at his ability to be a fair and impartial juror. That's the question.
MR. BRUCK: Fair enough.
When you say -- of course the law requires jurors to put aside if they possibly can their own -- what they know, what they read, what they've heard, even what they feel, if they can do it, and be objective and be guided by the evidence presented in court. And that's the real question. Put that way, do you think you could put aside your emotional connections long enough to be an objective juror and be fair to both sides?
JUROR: I believe deeply in the process and the importance of the process. What I can tell you is I've been often surprised by the level of emotion that comes to me when dealing with this particular race and my personal experiences with that. In addition, a significant number of people that I know, that I've worked with, were in the immediate area and potentially at harm. And I think it would be difficult for me to separate that as part of a trial in digging back into the specific events of that day.
MR. BRUCK: Very well.
THE COURT: Okay. I think we'll stop here. Thanks.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror was excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 190.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 190.
(Juror 190 enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat. Make sure you speak into the mic so everybody around here can hear you. Okay. Thanks.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: Since you were last here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case, except for logistical --
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- things?
And as much as possible avoid any exposure to media accounts?
JUROR: Yes. I don't read the paper or anything.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I just want to ask a couple of employment questions first. And you can follow along if you want. I'm looking at Page 6, Question 13, where we ask about in this case your husband's employment. You say he's a senior project manager, but I want to get an idea of what kind of field he's in.
JUROR: He works for an excavation company, James W. Flett Company in Belmont. They do a lot of dirt work, they call it. You know, they dig the foundations and things like that.
THE COURT: And how long has he done that?
JUROR: I think my son's 27. So 27 to 28 years.
THE COURT: I see he has a business degree. Is his work business work or is it engineering work?
JUROR: He's not an engineer. When he got his job, they kind of taught him. He does project management and he also does estimating.
THE COURT: Okay. Now yourself?
JUROR: I'm an operations manager in a nonprofit in Gloucester for an elder home care agency. I do all the scheduling. I'm in charge of the 400 clients and 100 home health aides.
THE COURT: 100 home health aides?
JUROR: Yup. We keep the elderly in their homes. We send the girls out to do showers, housekeeping, laundry, in order to keep them home from the nursing home.
THE COURT: So you, among other things I'm sure, but you sort of oversee the assignments? Is that one of the things you do?
JUROR: I'm in charge of everybody. There's a director over me and I'm kind of like the central command.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked about social media, and you identified Facebook. It says you don't post messages or opinions, you just play games.
JUROR: No, I don't. I talk to my sister and play the slot games. That's it.
THE COURT: So let me ask you to turn to Page 20. We asked here to try to ascertain whether you had formed an opinion about issues in this case, in particular whether you had formed, based on the media or other things you had seen or heard about, whether you had an opinion whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and whether he should receive the death penalty or not. And as to the first two, you said you had formed an opinion that he was guilty. As to the second two, you said you were unsure about the death penalty.
And then below those we asked if you answered yes to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt or punishment solely based on the evidence presented in court, and you said you thought you would be able.
You understand that in a criminal prosecution in this country, a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial and convinces the jury collectively that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you understand --
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- that those are the rules that apply?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So what we ask jurors to do is set aside notions they may have from other sources and to pay attention to the evidence at trial, focus their attention on that.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And if they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, to say so. But if they're not convinced by that evidence, no matter what else they've heard, they -- and cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge, their obligation is to find the defendant not guilty. Do you understand that?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: So in this question it appears you're telling us that you have an opinion, but then later we asked could you set it aside and pay attention to the evidence at trial and make your judgment on that.
JUROR: What I meant by that was based on what I had heard in the news and the media and everything, I believe him to be guilty based on what I had heard and seen. But I'm open to, you know, listening, to hear the facts, and I would be able to set that aside and listen to the facts and form an opinion after that.
THE COURT: Actually, we ask you to do it in a slightly different order.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: First we ask you to set it aside, and then listen to the facts.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And the distinction is the defendant has no obligation to prove that he's not guilty. The defendant is always presumed to be guilty unless the government has proven otherwise. So I don't know if you meant to suggest it, but I heard it in the answer that if --
JUROR: I think I'm a little nervous.
THE COURT: Fair enough. And you're a lay person in a highly --
JUROR: I think, because I'm a little nervous, I just mixed it up.
THE COURT: Fair enough. But I just want to be sure that's the case --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- that you do understand, the defendant doesn't have any obligation to explain himself or to show you that he is not guilty. The burden is always on the government to prove he is guilty.
JUROR: I understand.
THE COURT: Another way of putting it is: The question is never "which side has convinced me," it's "has the government convinced me by the evidence that he's guilty."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You understand that?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: Okay. And so tell us what you think your condition of mind would be if you were a juror in this case with respect to those matters.
JUROR: Meaning how would I find him guilty?
THE COURT: No. Would you be able to put aside prior impressions or conclusions --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- and concentrate solely on the evidence at trial and make your judgment about that, or would your prior thoughts about the case, opinions, conclusions, interfere with your ability to judge the case solely on the evidence produced at trial? Which do you think it would be?
JUROR: I don't believe that would get in the way. I'm pretty open-minded. I work in a nonprofit. We see a lot of different people and different things. At first sight -- you usually at first sight sometimes first form a first opinion about somebody without getting to know them and hearing the facts. I think I'm pretty open-minded that I would be able to do that.
THE COURT: We also asked you some questions about your attitude toward the death penalty.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: That begins on Page 23, a group of questions. The first one is 88, which asks for your general views on the death penalty, if you had any. And you said, "I do believe in the death penalty if the crime is severe enough and warrants it."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Does that represent your view?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do you want --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- to qualify that or expand on it?
JUROR: I haven't had -- in my lifetime, I haven't had to think about it too much. But I do believe on certain things, if it's premeditated or if they set out to do something purposefully and to harm people or kill people, depending on the circumstances, I do believe in it.
THE COURT: In the next question, 89, we asked you to give us some measure of how firmly or strongly you believe it from 1 to 10, with 10 being strongly favor. And you selected 7, sort of above midpoint, but not at the extreme.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is that what you meant to convey?
JUROR: Yes. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Question 90 on the next page, which asked you to select which of the potential statements or which of the proposed statements best describes your view of the death penalty in a case involving someone proven guilty of murder, and you selected E, which is "I'm in favor of the death penalty but I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release if I believe the sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
JUROR: (Juror nods.)
THE COURT: As you're here today, does that still represent your views?
JUROR: It does, yes, sir.
THE COURT: So depending on the -- you heard me this morning describe the so-called penalty phase, where there will be additional information, assuming -- you don't get to the penalty phase unless somebody has been convicted of a qualifying crime. So that's the premise --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- that the person is guilty of intentional murder, for example.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And in the penalty phase, then you'd hear evidence that might be directed at persuading you that one penalty was better than the other for this case.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: By this, are you conveying that you are open to consideration of that evidence and potentially could be persuaded in either direction by that evidence?
JUROR: Yes. That's what I'm trying to say. Depending on the circumstances and what I hear as facts, I could maybe be swayed either way.
THE COURT: Okay. Look at Page 25, the last question on that page. We asked if you found the defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you said yes.
JUROR: I believe I could.
THE COURT: And the next question on the top of the next page we ask the other side of that page.
JUROR: 25?
THE COURT: 26, Question No. 96.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: So this question now asks the other side and says, "If you found him guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously for that penalty?"
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said yes.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MR. MELLIN: Thank you, your Honor.
Good afternoon. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case, and I've been told to slow down. If I'm talking too fast, please let me know that I'm talking too fast.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. MELLIN: Just following up a little bit on what you were just talking to Judge O'Toole about, the death penalty, you indicated or said if it was premeditated or there's a killing, you would be open to the idea of the death penalty. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: And just for the record, you have to say yes or no for the court reporter. Okay?
JUROR: Yes. I'm sorry.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And in determining or deciding the appropriate punishment, do you understand that the jury would have already found the defendant guilty of one of these capital accounts -- capital counts. Do you understand that?
JUROR: I do.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So by time you get to the penalty phase -- the government would be putting on evidence of these aggravating factors, the reasons why we think it's appropriate. Do you understand?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: And the defense has an opportunity to put on mitigating evidence or evidence they would argue is the reason why life imprisonment is appropriate. Do you understand that?
JUROR: I do.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And when you're listening to that information, are you going to have an open mind in deciding the appropriate punishment, or because you've already found him guilty of the capital offense, are you already going to determine what you think the appropriate punishment is?
JUROR: I've never been in that circumstance to, you know, be in that position, but I'm hoping I would be open minded. I feel like I am that kind of person. I'm an educated person, someone who works with all kinds of people in my job, and I would hope I would be. I can't say for certain, I've never been in that position, but I really think I could be.
MR. MELLIN: And if you get to the point -- and if you were in a case in which you found these aggravating factors sufficiently outweighed the mitigating factors to justify a sentence of death, would you be able to vote to impose a sentence of death on someone?
JUROR: I've thought about it, and I believe I could.
MR. MELLIN: All right. Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
First of all, could I ask you to tell us a little more about your career? You told us that you are an operations manager. It sounds like you're supervising a lot of people. I assume you didn't start out at that level and you sort of worked your way up?
JUROR: No. I actually started my job when my youngest son went to kindergarten as a way to get out of the house. I was doing scheduling. And then over the last 18 years, I've built up in my position, being in charge of everybody. There's a director over me who does more of the paper work and things, but I'm the one who runs the business part of it.
MS. CONRAD: Have you during your career -- I know you're a licensed social worker.
JUROR: (Juror nods.)
MS. CONRAD: I just need you to answer out loud for the court reporter.
JUROR: Oh, okay.
MS. CONRAD: When you nodded your head, you meant yes, right?
JUROR: Yes. I'm sorry.
MS. CONRAD: It's okay. It's not a normal conversation, unfortunately.
And have you at any point had direct client contact as a social worker?
JUROR: Previous to my position I'm in now, I did work for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Welfare Department.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me a little bit about what kind of work you did in that capacity?
JUROR: I was a social worker, and we calculated food stamps, AFDC, General Relief, things like that.
MS. CONRAD: You had a case load, I assume?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And I also just have to ask you. You said your father was a statue maker. Can you tell me what that means?
JUROR: My dad was born in Italy, and he worked for Bay State Statuary. He made statues.
MS. CONRAD: Interesting.
You said you had obviously, as most people have been, been exposed to news reports and media reports about the Boston Marathon bombing. Can you tell us what sticks out in your mind about what you have seen, heard, read?
JUROR: After it happened what sticks out in my mind that I read?
MS. CONRAD: Yeah. Just everything you've been exposed to. What are the main things?
JUROR: Just about how many people did get injured, and, you know, how people were in shock, and the horrificness [sic] of it.
MS. CONRAD: And if the defendant were found guilty of committing the marathon bombings --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: -- is that the type of crime that you would consider warrants the death penalty?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: I think it's a stake-out.
MS. CONRAD: Well, you told us, I think it was in your questionnaire, that you said if the crime was serious enough.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CONRAD: Is that the type of crime that you would consider serious enough?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And would you be able to consider things like the defendant's background, lack of a criminal record, age, in determining -- having already hypothetically found him guilty -- determining whether or not the death penalty was an appropriate punishment?
MR. MELLIN: Objection to the specifics.
THE COURT: Well, go ahead, you can answer.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Now, you told us you like to think of yourself as an open-minded person. I think we all would like to be open-minded. But this is different, presumably, from anything you've ever been asked to do before.
JUROR: I understand.
MS. CONRAD: And we're really just asking for the most honest answer you can give us.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CONRAD: There's no right or wrong answers.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: And you know yourself better than we know you, obviously. You said in your questionnaire that you had already formed an opinion that he was guilty.
JUROR: (Witness nods.)
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And if you were chosen as a juror for this case, would you truly be able to put that out of your mind and presume him to be innocent?
JUROR: I have never been in that position. I hope I could. I couldn't guarantee it.
MS. CONRAD: And if the government did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be able -- do you know whether you'd be able to return a verdict of not guilty?
JUROR: If they were not able to prove their case?
MS. CONRAD: Beyond a reasonable doubt?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Anything else? Okay. Thank you.
(The juror was excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 191.
[REDACTED]
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 191. Have a seat here, if you would, please, sir. Speak into the mic so everybody can hear you. Okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire that we've put in front of you, that's your questionnaire, since that time, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible avoid exposure to any media articles about it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave so you may want to follow along as we do that. First I want to turn to page, I guess it's Page 6, Question 13. We asked about how your wife is employed and so on. She's an RN?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where does she work?
JUROR: Hebrew Rehab Center.
THE COURT: Okay. In West Roxbury, Jamaica Plain?
JUROR: Yeah, Roxbury.
THE COURT: And then yourself. You work at Newton Wellesley Hospital?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What kind of work do you do there?
JUROR: I'm a patient care assistant plus a unit coordinator.
THE COURT: What does a unit coordinator do?
JUROR: More like a secretary.
THE COURT: Okay. To keep track of --
JUROR: Like -- it's mostly to -- we put like transfer order.
THE COURT: Patients coming in and going out, is that what you mean?
JUROR: Yes. And whenever the doctor, they put in orders for the patient, we would actually confer them over to the nurse, nurses.
THE COURT: Okay. And we also asked, you'll see at the bottom of Page 10 and top of Page 11, what social media you might use, Facebook, Instagram.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And it's on Page 10, at the bottom we asked if you posted messages or things. And you said, "pictures, quotes, nothing too personal."
JUROR: Yes. Exactly.
THE COURT: How often would you be using those?
JUROR: Actually I don't really use it as much. I would say probably once a -- once, twice a week.
THE COURT: Either of them? Either Instagram or Facebook?
JUROR: Both.
THE COURT: Both? Okay. You think your father-in-law -- this is question 33 on Page 11.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Your father-in-law may have worked for a prosecutor's office or public defender's office or some other law office?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What can you tell us about that?
JUROR: He used to -- he used to live in Boston. He's an attorney. But he had moved to Atlanta. And that's like long before I came to Boston.
THE COURT: Do you know what kind of law he did?
JUROR: I don't know what he did then. But now he do immigration law.
THE COURT: Okay. In Atlanta?
JUROR: In Atlanta.
THE COURT: Could we cut the audio, please.
MR. MACELHINEY: Cut.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)