6.Individual Voir Dire — Impartiality and Sentencing Views (Part 4)
650 lines[REDACTED]
(In open court:)
THE COURT: In question 42 on Page 14, you said you've served as a juror?
JUROR: Yes. Yes, I have.
THE COURT: What court was that?
JUROR: I don't remember the name of the court, but it's in Dedham.
THE COURT: Dedham?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Was it a civil case or a criminal case?
JUROR: Civil.
THE COURT: Do you remember what it was about?
JUROR: There was this guy, he fell off his motorcycle, and it was at the intersection, this guy was coming out with his truck, and at the same time, he was riding the motorcycle, and they almost collide, and he fell.
THE COURT: Okay. Was it -- was the trial completed to a verdict?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm now on Page 19. Question 74 and 75, we ask for some reactions you may have had when you got the summons for this case. And you said, "No difference whether I'm chosen or not." That was your thought at the time?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Indifferent either way?
JUROR: No. Haven't changed.
THE COURT: Okay. And the next page, look at question 77. We asked whether you had formed an opinion about this defendant's guilt based on information you had from the news media or otherwise, and also whether you had formed any opinion about a potential penalty. In part A of question 77, that was the question whether you had an opinion about his guilt, and you said "no." As a matter of fact, you said "no" to all four of the questions. I wonder if you could tell you what your thoughts are about that.
JUROR: To be honest, I haven't formed an opinion against the situation because I actually wasn't following it.
THE COURT: You didn't follow the events when they happened?
JUROR: No. Actually, more than what was here on the news, other than that, no.
THE COURT: Okay. So if you were to be a juror in this trial, you would not have any opinion one way or the other on the way in, at the beginning of the case, is that what you're saying?
JUROR: Well, yeah, definitely. I would have an opinion based on what -- if I'm chosen, if I'm to serve.
THE COURT: Let me -- let me rephrase it. So you've just been a juror in a civil case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You understand that decisions by juries in cases, both civil and criminal, are made on the basis of what's presented in the course of the trial?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Was that your experience in the civil case? I mean, the jury decided the civil case. Right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And that was based on the jury's consideration of the evidence?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. It's similar in a criminal case, except because what's at stake in a criminal case it's more important that jurors understand their responsibility. So under our system, any person who's charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent of the crime unless and until the government proves at trial by the evidence that he is in fact guilty of the charge, of the offense. The government's burden is to prove to the jury the fact of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Okay? Do you understand?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's the -- so a defendant never has any burden to prove he's not guilty. It's always the government's burden to prove that he is guilty, and that's by the evidence produced at trial. So what we ask jurors to do is pay attention to the evidence as presented, and then when they deliberate among themselves, consider that evidence and decide what it means to them, has the government proved the person charged is guilty of the crime that he's accused of, or not. We say that has to be proved to a level that the jury can say they really don't have any reasonable doubt about the fact that he is guilty of the offense. Okay? Are you with me?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to listen to the evidence, debate and deliberate with your fellow jurors, and convict the defendant of any of the crimes he's charged with only if you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of those offenses?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any of hesitation about that?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I think the parties have no more follow-up, unless the Court does.
THE COURT: Yeah, I do.
MS. CLARKE: Okay.
THE COURT: I want to run through this series for completeness. We asked a series of questions about your thoughts about the death penalty beginning on Page 23, No. 88. The first one was whether you had any general views -- this is Question 88 -- any general views about the death penalty. You can take the clip off if it's easier for you. And you said "not sure."
JUROR: Yes. I did say that.
THE COURT: Can you tell us what your view is?
JUROR: Actually, I don't have anything against death penalty, and I don't have anything against life imprisonment, so either way.
THE COURT: In Question 89, we asked you to rate yourself on a scale from strongly opposed to the death penalty to strongly in favor. And first you marked 3 and then it looks like you changed it to 8. I don't know if you remember filling out the form.
JUROR: Yes, cause actually I was looking at it wrongly. I was more thinking strongly favor would be from...
THE COURT: You had the ends mixed?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You had them transposed?
JUROR: Exactly.
THE COURT: So you are relatively strong in your feeling, but not the most, is that right? When you picked 8 --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- you signalled relatively strong in your feeling?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, if you go to the next page, Question 90, we asked you to tell us which of the various statements best describes your feeling about the death penalty in a case involving someone proved guilty of murder. You picked E.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does that still represent your --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I mean, if you had to fill this out again today, is that what you would say?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Any follow-up?
MS. CLARKE: Unless the Court has a problem with the parties' joint position?
THE COURT: I don't know yet.
MS. CLARKE: Hi. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MS. CLARKE: Could I ask you about Question 93 on Page 25. Do you see that question? It was asking you to describe your opinion about whether life imprisonment is more or less severe than the death penalty. Do you see the question?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Can you help us understand your answer? "Less severe means the person is not fault a hundred percent but more than 50 percent" -- or I'm not sure I'm reading your writing right.
JUROR: Actually, if a person is not found guilty, what more -- if a person is not found guilty for the death penalty, but found guilty for sentencing, for life imprisonment -- what was the question again?
MS. CLARKE: I was just asking, on Question 93, you have an explanation for your answer.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: I was hoping you could help us understand what you meant. The question was asking whether or not life imprisonment without the possibility of release is more or less severe than the death penalty in your opinion. And you had explained your answer. I was just sort of asking for a little help in understanding that explanation.
JUROR: If a person's guilty, guilty, found guilty, but not for the death penalty, but they can also say they're found guilty for life imprisonment, but not for the death penalty.
MS. CLARKE: I think what the question was asking is, if you've got two penalties, life imprisonment without the possibility of release or the death penalty, those are the two choices, which one was more or less severe in your opinion? And you marked that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was less severe than the death penalty, but you had an explanation for that answer. And that's what I was just trying to follow up on. Does that make sense?
JUROR: I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.
MS. CLARKE: I was --
THE COURT: Can I try?
MS. CLARKE: That would be great.
THE COURT: When you filled out the questionnaire --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- apparently you meant to convey something when you wrote what you wrote there. Can you remember what it was you were thinking and what you tried to convey when you wrote that?
JUROR: Well, my thought about this question is if a person, a person can find guilty, found guilty, but it doesn't have to be the death penalty, but, which is, I would say, a hundred percent, but they're found guilty for more than 50 percent, which probably life imprisonment.
THE COURT: Did you mean to -- if this is not right, tell me. I'm trying to understand. Do you mean that in order to impose the death penalty on someone, you, if you had to vote for it, you would have to be a hundred percent sure?
JUROR: A hundred percent sure.
THE COURT: But you wouldn't have to be that sure to decide life imprisonment was the better punishment? Is that what you meant to say?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Well, let me take that just a step further. You understand that there's not even a question of the sentence, life imprisonment or death penalty unless the jury has unanimously agreed beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of intentional murder, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CLARKE: So you don't even consider penalty until after that happens.
If you have made a decision that someone is a hundred percent guilty, could you consider any sentence other than the death penalty?
JUROR: Oh, yes, sure. Sure. It doesn't have to be death penalty for a person to be a hundred percent guilty.
MS. CLARKE: So you would weigh life imprisonment versus the death penalty after conviction?
JUROR: Yes, definitely.
MS. CLARKE: You just wanted us to make sure that we knew that you wouldn't give the death penalty unless you were a hundred percent sure?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: What kind of considerations would you have in mind in imposing the death penalty versus life imprisonment?
JUROR: It depends on -- can you phrase the question again?
MS. CLARKE: What kind of considerations would you want to have in mind in considering the death penalty versus life imprisonment without the possibility of release.
JUROR: To be honest with you, that's kind of like a hard question to answer, because I really don't know what's a possibility of the case gonna turn out, so it's kind of like a difficult question to answer at this point.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Let me take you back to question 77 on Page 20. Did you find it okay?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And that was the series of questions the judge talked to you about where you said no, you had not formed an opinion as to whether Mr. Tsarnaev was guilty, and you had not formed an opinion as to the penalty, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And I think you mentioned to Judge O'Toole you hadn't formed an opinion because you hadn't really been following the event. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: There was a point that the questionnaire asked you how much of the media coverage you had seen about this case. Do you remember that?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And you marked, and I'll -- it's not a trick question, but the page before, Question 73, you marked that you had seen a moderate amount.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Is that right?
JUROR: Yes, that's right.
MS. CLARKE: Can you tell us what stands out in your mind as to what you saw or heard in the media?
JUROR: When it first happened, it was basically all over the news. And in the beginning actually I -- what I saw was -- the thing was the whole, the beginning of everything, of what took place. After that, it fade out. That was it. Is not something I like go on Internet or something to follow up or something like that. If it's on the news, maybe I might work and start playing on the television or something, and people talking about it. That's basically all I learned about it.
MS. CLARKE: And did anything stand out in your mind that you heard or learned about?
JUROR: Not really.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. You and your wife are both in the health care business?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Right?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: She's a nurse, and you're in patient care work as well?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Two different medical facilities?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Did either one of you have any interaction with people that were harmed as a result of the Boston Marathon bombing?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Any treatment?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Any conversations with other health care professionals who may have?
JUROR: We -- no. I don't know if she has, but not on my part.
MS. CLARKE: And did you talk with your wife about whether she had any connection to people harmed?
JUROR: No. No.
MS. CLARKE: Your work as a patient care assistant, is that hourly work or salaried?
JUROR: It's hourly.
MS. CLARKE: Will you have any difficulty getting paid if you're on this case for three or four more months?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: So no financial hardship?
JUROR: No. I will still get paid.
MS. CLARKE: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I will still get paid.
MS. CLARKE: You'll still get paid?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: One last question, I think, about the news coverage. Do you remember anything about the news coverage that you saw?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: What?
JUROR: I remember the guy -- I remember this old guy that was Jack Ryan, and when he -- the explosion went off, and he fell. Yes. I remember that.
MS. CLARKE: Were you watching the television as it occurred, or was this playbacks?
JUROR: No, this is playback.
MS. CLARKE: Where were you on the 15th of April, 2013, the day of the marathon?
JUROR: April 15? I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Probably sleeping, because I work nights, so I sleep during the day.
MS. CLARKE: What about on the Friday of that week, the 19th?
JUROR: I'm not sure. The 19th? I'm not sure.
MS. CLARKE: That Friday was when there was the shelter-in-place order. Do you remember that?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Does that help at all?
JUROR: I think I was either home -- I'm not sure, to be honest with you.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MELLIN: Very quickly.
THE COURT: If you have something, go ahead.
MR. MELLIN: Sir, we've talked to you about the penalty phase where there would be this time where the jury will be weighing the aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Do you understand what we're talking about? If you get to the sentencing phase, the punishment phase?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: Do you understand the phase I'm talking about?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: First the jury would have to find the find the defendant guilty, before the jury would then -- if the jury finds him guilty, then we'd move to the punishment phase. Are you with me?
JUROR: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And at that phase, that's when the jury would be hearing evidence about aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: And the jury then is deciding and you as a juror in a case like this would be deciding between life imprisonment and the death penalty, right?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: You're with me on that?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: If you're in that point in time when the jury's deciding and you come to the conclusion that the factors justify a sentence of death, would you actually be able to vote to impose a sentence of death?
JUROR: Yeah, sure.
MR. MELLIN: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. Thank you very much.
JAMES MCALEAR: Right this way, sir.
(The juror was excused.)
COURT CLERK: 195.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 195.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out that questionnaire, which is the one we put in front of you, your questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And as little as possible, any exposure to the news reports or anything?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to just follow up on some of the questions, the answers you gave to the questions in the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And it may help for you to thumb through as we do it. Your first years were spent in the U.K.?
JUROR: Three years.
THE COURT: Yeah. Are your parents American citizens?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's why your citizenship predates your residence here?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Where is Frimley?
JUROR: It's a little outside of Surry, so it's near London.
THE COURT: That's just curiosity. So you're currently not employed?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: What are the prospects?
JUROR: I'm still looking.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you in a particular area? It looks like you had a year of college.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But that --
JUROR: Wasn't a fan of college.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to Page 19. We asked a couple of questions at the bottom about how you reacted to being summonsed for jury service and what people might have said to you and you to them. And so I'm looking at Question 74. You said you were conflicted.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: "I didn't know if I could go into this case and look at it fairly. I didn't know if I could handle the responsibility, but I always believed in innocent until proven guilty."
Maybe you can explain --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- or amplify on your answer there.
JUROR: Well, when I first got the summons, I was out of town, so I didn't know that it was for a federal case. So it was a couple of weeks later I found out it was for a federal case, and I was a little nervous about how big of a case it is and how important it is. And I didn't know, with all the media coverage, if I could look at it fairly. But the more I thought -- I've always believed in innocent until proven guilty, so the more I thought about it, the more I realized, I just have to look at all evidence, and I can't make my mind up before I see everything.
THE COURT: You say you've always believed in innocent until proven guilty. How long have you thought about that question?
JUROR: A lot. There's a lot of school reports about all that.
THE COURT: Okay. So if we go to page 20, we asked you in Question 77 whether you'd formed any opinions about what you had seen or read in the news media or from other sources, and particularly whether you thought the defendant was guilty or not guilty and if so what the penalty might be.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And we gave you a selection of answers and you chose "unsure" for each of those.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us what you were thinking about when you answered that way?
JUROR: Well, there's more -- there's a lot of counts that are against him, so I can't say for sure if he's guilty or not guilty without looking at all evidence for each specific count.
THE COURT: Okay. And that was one of the things you were thinking when you answered this way?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: To the extent you might have any opinion about any of the counts -- the other question we asked was if you did have an opinion based on information you had seen prior to the trial, could you set that aside and make the decision even as to those matters that you thought you had an opinion about based on the evidence at trial, and not on the preconceived ideas.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And you indicated on your form that you were able to do that. I would just like you to maybe tell us a little bit more about that.
JUROR: Well, looking at all the media coverage, a lot of people assume he's guilty, but if I -- evidence can change my mind. If someone convinces me otherwise, it's easy for me to change my mind about that.
THE COURT: So in a criminal trial, as I guess you probably know, the defendant, any defendant who is charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- unless the government proves otherwise. The government always has the burden of proof in a criminal case. It's up to the government to produce enough evidence of guilty that the jury is convinced that the person charged is guilty and that the jury has no reasonable doubt about that. If they are in that condition, they can properly find the defendant guilty.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: If the jury is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence, their obligation is to find the defendant not guilty, even if they might think he's probably guilty. Right? You understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The burden is always on the government to prove guilty; it's never on the defendant to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You said "if I could be convinced otherwise."
JUROR: Well, if the evidence --
THE COURT: I just want to be sure you weren't thinking that the defendant has --
JUROR: If the evidence doesn't show that he's guilty, then I can say that he's not guilty.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand, though, that the question is never "which side has convinced me;" it's "has the government convinced me he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: And -- okay. You got a Boston Strong T-shirt from your mother?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Or hat. You didn't get it?
JUROR: My mom bought a Boston Strong hat, yes.
THE COURT: Like a baseball cap?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do you have any Boston Strong merchandise yourself?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23 at Question 88, we asked a series of questions about your attitude toward the death penalty. Question 88 itself was a general question, what are your general views. And you said you would "think really hard if that is the right sentence. I think death penalty depends on the case." Anything you want to expand on or codify for us? What are your general views about the death penalty?
JUROR: I mean, it's not something to take lightly. I don't know. If it warrants the death penalty, then I'd be willing to think about it, and I would be willing to impose the death penalty, but, I don't know, it's difficult.
THE COURT: Question 89, we ask you to tell us on a scale of 1 to 10 how strongly in favor or opposed you were, and you circled No. 6, which is slightly above middle, perhaps.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is that about where you are --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- in terms of how strong your feelings are about it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Then in the next page, Question 90, we asked you to pick the statement that seemed best to describe your feelings about the death penalty in a case involving someone who had been convicted of murder. And you selected D, which said, "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it or I could vote to impost a sentence of life of imprisonment, which ever I believe is called for by the facts and the law."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that a fair statement of your actual beliefs?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You heard me this morning describe the penalty phase, if it gets there. Of course the penalty phase assumes that the jury has just concluded that the defendant is guilty of an intentional murder that warrants or for which the penalty is a possible punishment.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So you start from the premise that you have a person guilty of murder.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And then there would be evidence of mitigating factors and aggravating factors, and so on. How would you approach that task?
JUROR: Well, first I have to figure out if he's guilty or not guilty. And then --
THE COURT: We're taking that that's been done. You, because you're part of the jury --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- and he has to be unanimously found guilty, you've already found him guilty. Okay?
JUROR: Right. I would say, like, how many counts he was guilty for, and then if the death penalty is warranted for all those counts, then I'd have to think about if I'm willing to impose the death penalty. Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. On Page 25 at the bottom, Question 95, we asked, "If you found him guilty and decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote to impose the death penalty?" And you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And there's a related question on top of the next page. "If you found him guilty and you decided that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of release?"
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. MELLIN: Thank you, your Honor.
Hi.
JUROR: Hello.
MR. MELLIN: I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case. I'd like to go over Question 88 again with you which is on Page 23.
And you wrote in, "If the case warrants the death penalty, then I would think really hard if that is the right sentence." Right? Is that what you wrote?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: What do you mean by that? Because you said "if the case warrants it," but then you said -- that's when you'd think about it. You didn't say "then I would impose it."
JUROR: Because I don't think about the death penalty for every single case that's out there. So if all the counts that he's found guilty for warrant the death penalty, that's when I would really think about what it should be like in prison or the death penalty.
MR. MELLIN: Right. You mentioned that -- just a minute ago you said, "If it warrants it," then you said, "it would be difficult," or "it's difficult."
JUROR: But it's not like -- I would be willing to impose the death penalty, it's just difficult on like anybody that --
MR. MELLIN: Right.
JUROR: -- that you gave someone the death penalty.
MR. MELLIN: Right. Understood. That's where I'm trying to drill down to, is theoretically I understand you chose 6 out of 10 for where you kind of fall on this spectrum.
JUROR: Right.
MR. MELLIN: But if you are in the situation where it becomes more a reality --
JUROR: Then I would be -- then I would do it.
MR. MELLIN: You would be able to vote to impose the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Thanks.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
MR. BRUCK: Hi. My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. And I just have a few questions.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: You live in Brighton?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Do you live at home or --
JUROR: At home.
MR. BRUCK: With your parents?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell us, were you living -- you were living in Boston at the time of the marathon bombing?
JUROR: I've been living in Brighton for four years now.
MR. BRUCK: Right. Do you remember the day of the bombing?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: How did you first hear about it?
JUROR: I was at home, but my brother, who lives in New York, called me and told me about it. So I found out from my brother in New York, which is find of funny, but...
MR. BRUCK: Did you know anyone who was --
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: -- near the scene or --
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: What did you feel when you heard about it?
JUROR: I was shocked. I was -- it was a hard thing to like actually realize that that actually happened.
MR. BRUCK: And what about on the following Friday, remember what day that was?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Tell me about that day for you.
JUROR: Well, I was -- I woke up to the news of the MIT officer that got shot.
MR. BRUCK: Right.
JUROR: I was about to go to sleep, actually. And me and my family just was watching the TV the whole day and just...
MR. BRUCK: Did you stay at home?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Did you shelter in place that day?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: With your parents?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: How did you feel?
JUROR: It was scary to be locked in your house, couldn't leave, and we're not that far from Watertown, so it was a little on edge all day.
MR. BRUCK: Thinking that something more could happen right where you were?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. The -- have you talked to your parents about their feelings about whether Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty or whether he deserved the death penalty?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
JUROR: I haven't really talked to them about what they think. I just talked about me being on the trial. They haven't given me their opinions on it.
MR. BRUCK: Have you talked to them about what you think?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And what did you tell them?
JUROR: I told them that I'd be willing to impose the death penalty, but it's just having to hear everything and...
MR. BRUCK: That was during a discussion about whether to impose the death penalty in this case?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: How did that come up, if you don't mind my asking? I mean, tell us more about --
JUROR: Well, my parents asked me how I would feel if I had to give the death penalty, and they were more just wondering how I felt about it.
MR. BRUCK: Did they say how they felt?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Do you know how they feel?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Or your brothers?
JUROR: Nope.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Have you talked to any friends about their feelings about the death penalty?
JUROR: No. Only my family knows I'm actually here.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And of course I think you have a good understanding of the procedure, the two parts, and the separate decision to be made about sentencing. Judge O'Toole said -- it was actually in the questionnaire. They gave you the ages of the victims.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: 29, 23, and 8. So there's a child.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Did you know that already?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Knowing -- understanding that, you know, you would put everything you could out of your mind and start over again, we're all human.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And the only person who knows how you really feel is you.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: Knowing what you know, do you feel that you could really vote for a life sentence in this case?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
MR. BRUCK: This case?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Would you be concerned if you voted for a life sentence that people would be angry or critical of you?
MR. MELLIN: Objection about this case, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, no. Go ahead, you can answer that.
JUROR: Well, I would expect no matter what the sentence is that people have their own opinions. And if I know that I went with what I felt was right, then I'd be fine with what everybody else thinks.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You understand, I'm sure, that everyone on the jury has to make his or her own decision?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: It's not like you average out everyone's feelings --
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: -- or defer to the person who has the strongest opinion. You'd have to make your own decision.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Would you do that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And bear with me just a minute. I think that's all. Thank you so much. That's all.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
(The juror was excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 198.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 198.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat. Make sure you speak into the mic so everybody can hear you. Okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Before we get into the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And minimize, at least, your exposure to any media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yeah, trying. It's tough, but yeah.
THE COURT: Well, we want the effort. That's what we're looking for.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out, and we're going to follow up on some of the questions -- the answers you gave in the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's start with your concern about the schedule in the case and your family situation. Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: So I have my two small boys. I drop them off at day care every morning, and I pick them up every afternoon.
THE COURT: What are the times?
JUROR: I have to be at work by 8:30, so I usually drop them off by 8:00.
THE COURT: How early can they be dropped off?
JUROR: 7:45 is the earliest. It's home day care.
THE COURT: What town is that in?
JUROR: Waltham.
THE COURT: So just to understand, if you were dropping them off and coming here --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- you would, what, come the Pike or something like that?
JUROR: Yeah, I would say so. Yeah.
THE COURT: Is there another -- there's Waltham and there's Waltham. So it depends on --
JUROR: That would be the only way to do it. Probably the Pike. I never come into Boston, so...
THE COURT: What time do you pick them up?
JUROR: They get out of school by 3:30, so usually by 4:00 at the latest.
THE COURT: How late does the day care --
JUROR: The latest I've picked them up is 5.
THE COURT: Some have a pretty firm --
JUROR: No. She doesn't usually have a firm time, it's just that's usually when everyone else is picking up at the same time.
THE COURT: Figuring your -- you're the usual dropper off-er and picker upper?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Your wife travels?
JUROR: She's started a new job not too long ago, and travel is a requirement. Apparently she's not traveling now until June, but it is an option.
THE COURT: She knows that far in advance?
JUROR: That's what they told her. They said January, but then they changed it to June.
THE COURT: And you're a Grade 1 teacher?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you've been doing that for about six years or so?
JUROR: Six years, yes.
THE COURT: And you said the school day usually ends around 3, 3:30, 4?
JUROR: Kids are dismissed by 3. We can leave by 3:15, 3:30.
THE COURT: Tell us about the social media that you might use yourself.
JUROR: The only thing I usually use is Facebook, but that's just for photos of the kids or whatnot.
THE COURT: Your brother-in-law is a correctional officer someplace?
JUROR: Yeah. He's a correctional officer in Connecticut.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Question 77.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked a multi-part question, I guess, about whether you had an opinion about some matters concerning the defendant's guilt or not and what punishment might be imposed or not. And you had some choices to indicate your answer.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You indicated as to whether you had formed an opinion the defendant is guilty, you checked the box "yes." And then you checked as well in part C the box that you had an opinion that he should receive the death penalty. Down below, right below those questions, 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 either guilt or punishment based solely on the evidence that would be presented to you in court?" And you indicated "able."
Could you maybe tell us what you were thinking when you answered all of those questions?
JUROR: I feel if enough was presented to me, that I could possibly change my mind, but it would take a lot. So I think I would be able to, but it would take a lot to convince me otherwise.
THE COURT: Do you think the defendant would have to persuade you to change your mind?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You sheltered in place?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Just friends?
JUROR: A lot of colleagues, yes.
THE COURT: Was Waltham included in that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You weren't there that day?
JUROR: No. We were on school vacation.
THE COURT: Oh. I guess that's right.
You indicated that you knew one of the witnesses. I just want to look it up. Question 85.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You said that you recognized somebody on the witness list because you work with his wife?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I don't know the likelihood. This is obviously an expansive witness list. But would you be unable to be a fair judge of his testimony because you're acquainted with his wife? In other words, could you be as critical, thinking critically about his evidence as much as you would anybody else --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- or would you tend to give him a little free reign because he's married to somebody you know?
JUROR: No. I think I could answer look at it critically, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked you a series of questions about the death penalty beginning on Page 23, No. 88.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: First, that question asked for your general views. And you said, "It is necessary for the most heinous of crimes."
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: The next question we asked you to tell us the strength of your view or your attitude towards the death penalty by circling a number on the scale, and you selected 8 in 1 out of 10. Then on the next page we asked you "which of the following best describes your feelings about the death penalty in a case involving someone proven guilty of murder?" You selected E as the statement that represented your view, which was, you're in favor of the death penalty, but could vote for a life imprisonment without the possibility of release if you believed that the sentence was called for by the facts and the law of the case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does that continue to be your view about that matter?
JUROR: Yeah, I feel the same way.
THE COURT: So you heard me this morning describe the penalty phase --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- of a potential death penalty case. You understand in order to get to the penalty phase, you have already convicted the person of a crime for which the death penalty is possible punishment, right? You start from the premise that you have a person guilty of that kind of crime, right? Are you with me?
JUROR: Yes, I'm with you.
THE COURT: So then the question is, what is the appropriate penalty for this conviction? And you'll hear evidence that may suggest that this is particularly serious and blameworthy, hear evidence that there are mitigating circumstances about the events or the defendant that make life imprisonment a more appropriate penalty in this case, and the jury is to weigh all that and come to a conclusion. By this answer, are you indicating that you're prepared to weigh the penalty phase evidence --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- and possibly decide in either direction depending on how you evaluate it?
JUROR: I believe I could. I believe I could, yes.
THE COURT: Do you believe you have any predisposition towards one side or the other?
JUROR: Not really, no.
THE COURT: Page 25, Question 95, we asked, "If you found the defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote to impose the death penalty?" And you answered "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The companion question on the next pages says, "If you found him guilty and decided life imprisonment without possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that penalty?" And you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And both of those are true?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Good afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm going to go straight to one of the questions that I'm not sure whether I understood what you wanted to say.
JUROR: Right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It was Question 77, if you could turn to that. The judge asked you if you thought the defendant would have to present evidence to countervail what you already might have in your head. And what we're trying to figure out is whether, regardless of what you heard outside of a courtroom, you know, all that information has given you some kind of predisposition as to what you think the evidence shows. But could you set that aside and consider evidence in the courtroom as the basis of your conclusion as to whether, as to whether somebody was guilty or whether somebody had not met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody was guilty?
JUROR: After seeing and reading all that, it would be tough to put it aside.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So is it the notion that there are things that you have seen that you consider evidence that you cannot disregard, or is it just that you've only seen some of the things --
JUROR: I mean, I've seen, between the news reports and what I've read, a lot of it is -- it's tough to forget and put aside.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So you don't think you could suspend your consideration of that material?
JUROR: I don't think I could put it out of my mind completely, no.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So there's this notion in America that people are presumed innocent and it's the government's burden. So the fact that you have seen this material means that you cannot give a defendant a presumption of innocence. Is that what you're saying?
JUROR: I don't think I could honestly, no.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thanks. That's all I have.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. Just leave that there.
(The juror was excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 199.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 199.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic so everybody can hear you. Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were last here.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: We're going to follow up on some of your answers.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Since you've been here, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: As much as possible to limit your exposure to any media reports or accounts of the case?
JUROR: As much as possible.
THE COURT: Right. It's everywhere. I understand.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You've made an effort to do that, to turn the page?
JUROR: Yes. I'm done with it.
THE COURT: Okay. I want to ask a little about your employment and your husband's employment. You say he's an independent sales rep. What field is he in?
JUROR: He sells packaging, like it's very specific foam-in-place.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: Foam-in-place packages. It's very -- it's very specific.
THE COURT: Okay. You're an RN?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you work now at where?
JUROR: Well, the company was just bought over a couple of weeks ago, and I don't even remember the name of it, it's on my cell phone, which is downstairs. But it's Health Solutions. We do health screenings for corporations, usually set up by the insurance companies.
THE COURT: These are perspective hires or people getting health insurance --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- through the company?
JUROR: Yes. They already have health insurance. We go in to set up programs to do cholesterol, blood sugar.
THE COURT: To keep them healthy?
JUROR: Exactly. It's a wellness program, basically, but sponsored by the insurance companies. But I'm an independent, so I contract with them.
THE COURT: Contract with?
JUROR: This company. But I'm independent. They call me, say, "We have this job. Do you want to do it?"
THE COURT: I see.
JUROR: That sort of thing.
THE COURT: I see.
JUROR: It's per diem.
THE COURT: Per diem?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Okay. And how active are you in doing that? How many days would you be doing it?
JUROR: Well, I was doing it a lot more frequently, but my daughter had twins so I took some time off to be with her. And then the holiday season is very slow for that business, so we were just picking up. I haven't booked anything since I got this notice because I don't know what to do.
THE COURT: I guess one of the questions is some people are unable because of their work to take the time out that this case may take without having some serious financial or other burden. I guess it's hard to assess for us without knowing your situation.
JUROR: I'll be honest with you, I could not work. I would rather work. But I won't lose my house if I don't. Is that what you're asking?
THE COURT: Right. Well, maybe that's the extreme. But you will probably -- I guess if you work on a per-diem basis and four out of the five days you're spending it here, that would be a substantial impairment of your ability to work on that basis. You still would have Fridays, I guess. But I don't know.
JUROR: No, I could do it.
THE COURT: Okay. It's up to you, I guess, to assess that.
JUROR: Would I chose to do it? Probably not. But I understand this is important.
THE COURT: Okay. I appreciate your candor. How much do you use Facebook?
JUROR: Rarely. I just got on it because I was trying to keep up with relatives in other states and got so much grief from everybody. I probably look at it once a week, sometimes not even. It just depends on if someone in the family says, "Oh, did you see so-and-so did this?" And then I'll look at the pictures, or whatever. But I don't use it for communication or -- and I probably haven't even been on it a year.
THE COURT: Again, you can follow along. I'm on Page 11 right now, looking at Question 33. You have a friend who's a lawyer, looks like?
JUROR: Yeah, I have several actually. Two close friends.
THE COURT: What kind of law are they involved in?
JUROR: One does mostly real estate. And the other is in the court in -- it's not Dedham. Hyde Park? Is there a court there? Somewhere out that way.
THE COURT: When you say "in the court," what --
JUROR: He's a clerk? I don't know what he does.
THE COURT: He works for the Massachusetts court system?
JUROR: Uh-huh. We don't talk business.
THE COURT: Happens to be a lawyer, but he has more --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- of a clerical or administration position?
JUROR: Yes, yes. Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you about Question 77 on Page 20.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: This is a question where we asked you to tell us if you had formed an opinion about the defendant's guilt or not, or an appropriate penalty, if so, based on things you may have seen or read in the news or from perhaps other sources. And in part A you indicated, yes, you had formed an opinion.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And part C and D, which pertain to the potential penalty, you checked the box "unsure" for each of those.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Below that we asked, "If you had answered yes to any of those questions, would you able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and/or punishment solely on the evidence presented in the course of the trial?" And you checked "able" and then you added on the side "I would hope so."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Could you tell us a little about what you were thinking when you gave us those answers?
JUROR: Well, I think it's difficult to say unless you're in that position how you're going to really feel. I mean, I don't know all the information, but, you know, I would hope that in any case I could be impartial, but everything that I saw and read, it's difficult to unring a bell. So I'm just being honest. Honestly, I don't know. I guess it would depend on how everything was presented.
THE COURT: You probably understand this, but let me just set it out. In our criminal justice system, anybody who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until the government proves that he's guilty --
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- by evidence at a trial. It's the government's burden to produce enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has in fact committed the crime charged. The jury -- if the jury is so convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury may return a verdict of guilty. But if the jury has a reasonable doubt or is not convinced by the evidence by the government, then it's the jury's duty to return a verdict of not guilty. The burden is always on the government; it doesn't shift to the defendant to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: So the question is, accepting you may have some ideas from the media and so on and so forth, if you are a juror in this trial, would you be able to focus on the evidence produced in the trial and assess the charges as they are debated, based on that evidence and not on some preconceived notion, or do you think, as you put it, the bell would be hard to unring and you wouldn't be able, notwithstanding the government's case, failure to make the case adequately, you wouldn't be able to set aside the prior information you thought you had and that would continue to influence you? So, again, this is -- it's hard. We're talking about a situation in the future --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- what would you do under certain conditions, but it really is a question about, in a sense, whether you feel that you've been so influenced about what you've seen that you would not be able to do the job that we ask jurors to do?
JUROR: No. I think I could. I mean, there's many times you think you know all the information and you formulate an opinion, and then once you get all the information, it changes.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: So, I think it's important to be open-minded. Because, I mean, I know the media doesn't tell you everything. They color things the way they want. We all know that. So I do get it. But I did want to say that I do feel that way now.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: I didn't want to lie about it.
THE COURT: No, no. That's why we ask the question. Sometimes it's inevitable that people have ideas about things before trial.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this. It's not unusual for people in your profession to be involved in court cases. Have you ever --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- participated as a witness or anything for anybody?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And no jury service yourself.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You contributed to some of the funds, the One Fund, and you have some Boston Strong merchandise?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: When did you do those things?
JUROR: Oh, shortly after -- as soon as the bracelets came out, I think.
THE COURT: So in the late spring of 2013?
JUROR: Yeah, I would guess.
THE COURT: We also asked jurors about their attitude towards the death penalty, and those questions began at No. 88 on Page 23. We asked you if you had general views about the death penalty, and you said, "In general, I'm against it. However, a convicted terrorist" -- maybe that should be plural -- "are in a category by themselves."
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: "I see it as a war crime."
JUROR: Uh-huh. I do.
THE COURT: Just tell us a little more about what you were thinking when you gave us that answer.
JUROR: Okay. When you ask about the death penalty, the reason I'm against it is because it's so final, and recently there's been a lot of guys that were on Death Row that never committed the crime, and you can't undo when someone's been executed, so for that reason I'm against it. However, having said that, if someone or a group of people plot, carry out a terrorist act on my country, I don't have a problem with them being executed.
THE COURT: Is it your view if someone is guilty of a terrorist crime, that they would always get the death penalty, or you think it's you would make an exception to your other view?
JUROR: Again, I think you need all the information. You talked earlier about mitigating circumstances. And I think that sort of plays into almost everything. You know, you need to have the whole story.
THE COURT: If you turn to page 24, Question 90.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: We asked: "Which of the following statements best expressed your view about the death penalty in the case of someone proven guilty of murder?" And you picked the last possibility: None of the statements above adequately describe your feelings about the death penalty. And we asked you to explain. And you said, "I would have to have particular facts and law to assess my judgment."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you tell us what you mean by that?
JUROR: Well, obviously I'm not a lawyer. And, you know, you think you know the law, but you really don't know it. You guys are the ones that are the experts in that.
THE COURT: Thank you.
JUROR: So I would assume you would share what those parameters were with lay people, and we'd have to go by those instructions. And so I would just have to feel that I can't make a judgment on that because I don't know the law. I mean, I know some of the law, of course.
THE COURT: Yeah. This morning I described --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- the penalty phase, as we called it.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you don't get to a penalty phase until the jury has convicted somebody of a crime for which the death penalty is possible. Right? So you've -- in the first phase you've found the person guilty. Then the question is, what should be the sentence? Should it be death, or should it be life imprisonment without the possibility of release? And as I described it, each side gets to make presentations, the government seeking the death penalty would likely present evidence showing this is the worst crime than other crimes for -- other murderers, for example, and therefore this one -- this crime deserves a greater imprisonment than we might otherwise impose. Those are the aggravating factors. Those are the aggravating factors calling for a more serious penalty.
The defense will present evidence that pulls in the other direction, suggesting there are factors about this case, about the defendant himself, that would argue that a death penalty is not the appropriate penalty and life imprisonment is a better way to punish these crimes by this defendant.
And the jury would then consider all that, come to their own conclusions about all that, and decide on which course each individual juror would think is the right penalty for the crime that they all have convicted the defendant of. Right? So is that what you're getting at, that you would have to --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- assess all that information before --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- you could give us a firm answer?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: That was why you couldn't pick one?
JUROR: It's too complicated.
THE COURT: So is it possible, as you assess yourself --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- that after that process, you could find yourself in a frame of mind that would say, yes, I think the death penalty is appropriate; or, alternately, you could similarly find yourself in a frame of mind and say, on the basis of all that evidence, I don't think we need the death penalty here, I think life imprisonment is enough? Could you be in the condition where you could go in either direction depending on your assessment of penalty-phase evidence? Or would you tend one way or another because of the nature of the crime?
JUROR: No. No. I think --
THE COURT: You've identified it as a terrorist crime.
JUROR: If someone were convicted by all 12 jurors and without a reasonable doubt --
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: I'd be good with that like if the person is either guilty or not guilty, and I would live with whatever that was. If it came to a guilty verdict and we had the penalty phase, as you said, it would be a lot of discussion. And if it came down to the death penalty, could I do it? Is that what you're asking? Could I actually put my John Hancock on it and say, yeah, okay?
THE COURT: That's one of the things.
JUROR: Okay. I don't know. I think I could, but I don't know. I'm being honest. I mean, this is someone's life. I'm in the business of, you know, keeping people healthy and alive. But I have strong feelings about people that don't respect life and take it from other people. So I --
THE COURT: So let me ask you, I know this is hard, because it's to a great degree hypothetical.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: It depends on what you are yet to hear. At the bottom of 25, Question 95, we asked that question you just kind of put to yourself: "If you found him guilty and you decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty?" You said, "I'm not sure." Right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Now if you go to the next question, we asked kind of a companion question: "If you found him guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release would be the punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that?" And you again said, "I'm not sure."
Is it just because it's speculative or hypothetical, you just can't give a firm answer?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is that what it is?
JUROR: Yeah. And also, too, this question here, I would have to know all the other stuff to say -- like what I thought he was guilty and everybody else -- you know, I don't know. I would just have to have more information.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I think the parties --
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: -- have no more.
MR. MELLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: Well, we got to the end anyway.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
COURT CLERK: Just leave that right there.
JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: About 20 minutes or so. Does that sound right.
(Recess.)
(After the recess:)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 4:34 p.m.)