Day 11 - January 29, 2015

Judge O'Toole explained that the same jury would decide guilt and, only after a capital conviction, consider death or life imprisonment without possibility of release. He distinguished the government's beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden for capital intent and aggravating factors from the greater-weight standard for mitigation. Individual jurors could consider mitigation without unanimity; a death sentence required unanimity but was never mandatory. He also renewed restrictions on case discussion, research, and media exposure. Individual questioning addressed publicity, prior opinions, sentencing views, and personal responsibilities. Juror 208 said he might remain convinced despite unconvincing trial evidence and expressed stronger support for death in this case than his general questionnaire rating suggested. Juror 211 ultimately agreed that insufficient proof required acquittal. Juror 215 remained unsure whether she could personally vote for death, while Juror 229 said she needed case-specific information before choosing a punishment. The judge required rephrasing of several sentencing questions and limited follow-up about matters including law-enforcement credibility. When the government renewed its motion against counsel instructing jurors about deliberations, he emphasized identifying disqualifying bias and said voir dire was not for argument or instruction, without expressly granting or denying the motion. A separate dispute over whether an unsure questionnaire response reflected uncertainty about guilt or about holding an opinion remained unresolved. The court denied government cause challenges to Jurors 204 and 215. It found Juror 204's anxiety insufficient for removal and distinguished Juror 215's uncertainty about a future sentencing decision from inability to vote for death. The defense preserved its venue-based implied-prejudice objection without a particularized challenge to Juror 205. Jurors 204, 205, 215, and 229 advanced.