4.Individual Voir Dire — Further Juror Examinations (Part 2)
309 linesTHE COURT: All right. 223?
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 223.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 223.
(Juror No. 223 enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please.
Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic and make sure you speak loud enough so everyone can hear you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case and --
JUROR: Kind of.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: Kind of.
THE COURT: What's the qualification?
JUROR: What's a "qualification"?
THE COURT: What do you mean "kind of"?
JUROR: Oh, yes, yes, yes. No, I think I got it.
THE COURT: Okay. And avoid any news media reports on the case?
JUROR: Yes, yes, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to follow up on it with some of the answers you gave.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to tell us about your work position.
JUROR: Oh, I'm a financial analyst.
THE COURT: What does that involve? What do you --
JUROR: It's like a lot of financial information. It's kind of an explanation for the company and then do a lot of financial reporting, do the budgeting, forecasting for the company, those stuff.
THE COURT: Is it -- this is a fairly large company. Is it company-wide or are you a division?
JUROR: I'm in a division. I'm in the Quincy division, is my current job, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: The headquarter in Marlborough, so... I'm in Quincy.
THE COURT: So you're in Quincy?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you'd look on page 5 of the questionnaire, under Question 10 you express some concern about whether your job would be in jeopardy.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you explored that further since this questionnaire was filled out?
JUROR: Yes, I think it's going to impact my life, basically, my job. I have a very demanding full-time job. I have children. And then it's -- because it's if I -- it seems like two work -- I mean, pretty much two jobs, if I come here and then go home, still have work. Like, for example, last night I received a phone call to come here to the jury duty, and then worked until, like, 10:30 last night.
I guess it's kind of an impact on my job since I would have two full-time jobs.
THE COURT: Has anybody at work told you that, that if you were serving they would continue to expect you to be working full time or --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- or that it would somehow cost you your job?
Have you discussed it with anybody at work?
JUROR: No, not yet. Not that far yet.
THE COURT: Okay.
And with respect to the children, it looks like they're mid-teenagers?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah, my daughter will be applying for college this year. So we would plan for the school visit in the spring.
THE COURT: She's a junior?
JUROR: Yes, she's a junior.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
JAMES MCALEAR: Right this way, ma'am.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 229.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 229.
(Juror No. 229 enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, if you would, please. Have a seat.
Speak into the mic so everybody around here can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Okay. Thanks.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able, since the last time you were here, to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anybody or the process or anything like that?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And have you also, to the extent you've been able, avoid media reports about the case or the process?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out, and we're going to follow up on some of the questions.
JUROR: Can I open it?
THE COURT: You can. I'm going to start on page 6. And the question is a quick one. It gives a little information about your husband and his work. You say he's a financial advisor?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell -- put that in a little more context, what it is he does?
JUROR: Sure. He works in a family business for RBC. It's called the McCarthy Group. And he's a financial advisor, just as far as long-term planning.
THE COURT: I see.
JUROR: Investments.
THE COURT: Personal wealth, is that what you're talking about?
JUROR: Yeah, exactly.
THE COURT: How long has he done that?
JUROR: Oh, let's see. I'm going to go with -- God, I think going on 21 years.
THE COURT: Okay. And your own work?
JUROR: Well, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up, but I do do a little bit of everything. I run events right now, I was a social worker, and I do volunteer for HAWC. I think that's on here.
THE COURT: Yeah, I was going to ask you what that acronym means.
JUROR: So it was a haven for domestic violence. And basically what we do is --
THE COURT: What do the letters mean?
JUROR: Well, they just changed it. Now I'm nervous. What is it? It's Haven for Wellness and Change [sic], so... And it's out of Salem.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: And basically what we do, I'm on call for people who suffer from domestic violence.
THE COURT: Do you counsel or --
JUROR: It's just a hotline. So basically what I do is I make a plan with them to be referred to -- you know, make sure they're in a safe situation, and I refer them to the best situation.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm looking at Question 26 on page 10 where you talk about your event planning and so on.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Did I say page 26?
JUROR: You did.
THE COURT: Page 10, Question 26. Sorry.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Just from the dates, homemaking prior to the event planning, but there's an overlap there. So is it you were doing both at the same time?
JUROR: I was.
THE COURT: Is the event planning a full time, part time?
JUROR: No, I do contract work for them. So they call me when they want me to work, and I can say yes or no.
THE COURT: When they get a particular event?
JUROR: Yes. Right. Exactly. I mean, they would like me to work a lot more, but because I have the children I just kind of get to pick and choose.
THE COURT: I see.
Next page, page 11, Question 33, you have a friend who is a Homeland Security lawyer?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us about that. Do you know what this person does?
JUROR: Right now she works in immigration. She just moved up here. Her parents were sick. So she was down in Miami, and now she works out of Hartford. So she does a lot of the Homeland Security with people who are in immigration, are illegal status.
THE COURT: And is this somebody you're close to or is this just somebody who's an acquaintance? Can you give us --
JUROR: Sure. She was my roommate in college, and we've been friends ever since, so over 20 years.
THE COURT: But you're not neighbors --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- because she's long distance.
JUROR: No, no. She lived in Miami, but she had to move back because, unfortunately, both her parents are ill, so she takes care of them.
THE COURT: So how do you stay in touch?
JUROR: By phone. She's actually back in Miami selling her house.
THE COURT: Also on page 11 at the top we asked about social media.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You said Facebook infrequently?
JUROR: Yeah, just to kind of spy on my kids.
THE COURT: Page 14, Question 42, you've been a witness, I guess, probably when you were a social worker?
JUROR: Yeah, a long time ago. Yup.
THE COURT: And then also personal family matter, I guess?
JUROR: Oh, yeah. I took care of my uncle who passed away last year, and his ex-girlfriend's daughter was suing him for rent even though they lived together. I just felt like I had to stand up for him.
THE COURT: So that was fairly recent?
JUROR: Within the last two years.
THE COURT: How about the other one?
JUROR: Oh, God. That was a long time ago. That was probably -- had to be in the '90s.
THE COURT: All right. So now turn to page 20, if you would, please.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Question 77.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: In that question we ask a multiple-choice sort of question with available boxes for you to check about whether you'd formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not or if he should receive the death penalty or not based on things you'd seen in the news or learned about otherwise. And you -- for the available choices, yes, no or unsure, for each of those you checked "unsure."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Would you just tell us about that, why you chose that box?
JUROR: I would have to say because of a lot of -- when it happened -- was through the media that I heard about it. And, you know, I just think I'm a little bit jaded with the media, and I just thought with our legal system I should keep an open mind. You know, through my education and, you know, I just know what the media tells us, there's always more. So I felt like, you know, you're innocent before proven guilty, that I should have that open mind. So I had to answer that fairly.
THE COURT: And would you be able to, if you were a juror in the case, follow that principle, that a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty by the evidence at trial?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In your capacity as a social worker or in your volunteer capacity, have you had any connection with or association with criminal prosecutions?
JUROR: Well, what I do right now as far as with HAWC is we have to stay very non-judgmental. And the advice that we give people has to be one of just support and empowerment and not what -- you know, we can't persuade them either way.
And when I was a social worker, what I did mainly was crisis work. And, again, that was where I would go in and make a plan for the person's safety but I couldn't tell them what to do and I couldn't judge the situation or what was going on.
THE COURT: So would you be able, in this case, although it has some notoriety, to listen to the evidence, hold the government to its burden of proof, which is to prove the defendant guilty of any of the crimes that he's charged with beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial, and if you thought the government had not sustained its burden on any of the counts, would you be able to find the defendant not guilty as to that count?
JUROR: Yes, I think so.
THE COURT: Any hesitation?
JUROR: Well, I mean, it's a weighty question, but I want to believe that, yes, I would, because I feel like, you know, as we learned today with the videos and everything I've been thinking about is that, you know, if it was myself or someone I knew who was in this situation, that I would want that fair trial.
THE COURT: Okay. Beginning on page 23 we asked a series of questions about jurors' thoughts or attitudes about the death penalty, and that begins with Question 88 on 23.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: 88 is a general question: Do you have any views about the death penalty in general? and you said none. Is that accurate?
JUROR: Yeah, I think that -- well, maybe as far as like -- what do you mean "in general"?
THE COURT: I guess as a policy matter should there be a death penalty or not or are there occasions when it is appropriate and occasions when it's not? I mean, people could have various thoughts about it, that's all. We're really trying to get you to tell us whatever occurred to you in response to that, so...
JUROR: Right. So I think on 91 I explained that I feel that it is case to case in my mind. So I don't know if "none" is an appropriate answer to that one. So, I mean, I feel it's case by case.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll get there. We'll work through them.
JUROR: Sorry.
THE COURT: In 89 we asked you to see if you could position yourself on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of being strongly opposed or strongly in favor, and you chose -- I guess you chose 6 first and then changed it to 5.
JUROR: I feel like it should be the middle because, again, I feel it's case by case.
THE COURT: Okay. And then the next page, Question 90, we set forth a series of statements that people could possibly agree with or disagree with, and asked you to select one that you thought best described your feelings about the death penalty for someone who has been proven guilty of murder, and you selected D saying you're not for or against the death penalty. "I could vote to impose it or I could vote to impose a life imprisonment without the possibility of release, whichever I believe was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
Does that fairly represent your view?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And when you were referring to 91, you're kind of saying the same thing?
JUROR: Right. Right.
THE COURT: Is this something that -- it's understandable if jurors, when they came in in early January, hadn't thought a lot about the death penalty at that point and when we asked you to fill out these questionnaires. Have you thought about it more since then at all?
JUROR: Oh, absolutely. Since I left, you know, having to answer that question, of course. But has it changed? No. I mean --
THE COURT: That was going to be my next question. Have you changed your view in any way?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: The bottom of 25, Question 95, we asked, "If you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote to impose the death penalty?" and you said "yes."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The next question is the reciprocal of that. "If you found the defendant guilty and you decided that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that penalty?" and you said "yes."
JUROR: Do you feel like that's a contradiction?
THE COURT: No, I don't necessarily. Do you?
JUROR: No, I don't. I think it's depending on what the facts are.
THE COURT: Okay. Follow-up?
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, may I ask a few questions?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case. I'd like to jump back to where Judge O'Toole started, which was a little bit of discussion kind of about your master's of social work.
Your undergraduate degree, it looks like, was in psychology. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: What types of courses did you take for that? I didn't mean that to be a trick question.
JUROR: I know. It was just a thousand years ago. So behavioral psych. I did concentrate more in adolescent at the time, so adolescent psych, family and children.
MR. MELLIN: And "adolescent" to you means what? What age are you talking about?
JUROR: Well, adolescent -- well, some theories it could be 13 to 26.
MR. MELLIN: Okay.
JUROR: You know, depending on, you know, what school of thought you came from, so...
But when I did work with children, for adolescents it was considered 13 to probably 18.
MR. MELLIN: And what type of work did you do with the children?
JUROR: Well, I've had many jobs in social work, so I'm trying to think. To start off with, I did work at a group home, Harbor Schools, and I was the lead social worker there. So they were residents that were placed there. And so I did a lot of case work, a lot of individual, and then a lot of groups. And then overseeing the staff.
MR. MELLIN: How did the children end up at the home?
JUROR: Some of -- I would say most of them were probably placed by the state at the time. They -- you know, if they weren't able to be integrated into the community at their homes, or if their homes weren't a place where they were being able to kind of abide by laws and different things like that, this was a place where they could be under supervision and get an education as well.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. You mentioned earlier that you did some work in kind of a crisis setting. Is this the crisis setting or is that something else?
JUROR: No, no, I worked for Greater Lynn -- not Greater Lynn. I'm sorry. I worked in Lynn at a crisis center, so it was on-call. And I also worked in the crisis agency. So if, say -- a lot through Lynn Union Hospital, if they had people who came in who were, perhaps, suicidal and different things like that, I was the initial person who did the evaluation before the psychiatrist came onsite.
So I did the evaluation to see if the person should go to the next step or if they could go home or if they could go into outpatient therapy or if they needed to be in inpatient.
MR. MELLIN: Any interactions with law enforcement in any of that where -- if the crisis was some type of domestic abuse or anything like that where you would call the police?
JUROR: They would call me. So I was -- like the police usually were the ones who brought them to the hospital. Not all the time. I'm sorry. But that's how that happened.
Would I have to call the police? At my office sometimes, you know, if somebody was -- you know, had a psychotic break or something like that, or was getting violent, then we did have to call for police assistance.
MR. MELLIN: And in the time you were working in social work, did you do any psychological testing on any of the people you were dealing with, anything like that?
JUROR: No, that wasn't my job. That was done -- they were referred to me after that.
MR. MELLIN: Have you ever done any?
JUROR: Probably as, like -- you know, in graduate school as part of a practicum, but it wasn't what I studied or specialized in.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So in this case if you were to hear from psychologists, would you be able to decide the weight to give that testimony based on hearing the testimony here in court as opposed to maybe what you learned back a few years ago?
JUROR: Honestly, you know, I don't know. I mean, it was so long ago, it kind of seems like a lifetime ago. It might trigger some things that I had in my education, but I don't think I would consider myself like a professional in that.
MR. MELLIN: Fair enough. Okay.
And then turning to the death penalty questions, you kind of put yourself in the middle of the road on this. You said that you have thought about it a little bit since we handed you this little text to fill out.
What have you thought about the death penalty since you filled out this questionnaire?
JUROR: Probably how my position has changed on it, you know, as far as, like, you see me as a social worker, I probably started out young probably being more liberal, and then probably becoming -- as I became older and worked more a little bit more open to, you know, that it's not very black and white; that there's different things that come into play for me as far as that decision.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And you mentioned that you believe that it's a case-by-case analysis, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. MELLIN: If you did believe this was a case where you thought the death penalty was appropriate, would you be able to vote to impose the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
Can you tell me a little bit more about some of the things in your life experiences that caused you to change your view about the death penalty?
JUROR: Probably having children myself and seeing things -- you know, and as far as just things that -- cases maybe I've come across or things I've seen in the news as far as things happening.
MS. CONRAD: Can you be more specific? Any particular cases that come to mind?
JUROR: No. I think just probably, you know, if you had asked me this question 20 years ago, I would have said absolutely not, and now I just think -- I'm just not as naive and I just have to, you know, look at things from both sides.
MS. CONRAD: When was it exactly that you did do social work? You said the '90s?
JUROR: Yes. And I still always -- like I said, I always try to keep myself involved in some way, you know, as far as like volunteering or something like that.
MS. CONRAD: So was it a conscious decision to leave that field or was it more just change in circumstances?
JUROR: I'd say change in circumstances because I made no money and my husband did, and so I didn't want to pay someone to raise my kids.
MS. CONRAD: I understand. You said, I think in answer to Mr. Mellin's question, about, you know, if the circumstances called for it. Can you tell us a little bit more about what kind of circumstances would be relevant to that in your mind?
JUROR: Well, I just think -- like an example just that would come to me -- I don't know. If the evidence just was, like, just completely that this was just a malicious act and this is the intention, then I guess that -- you know, if there was no way around it, you know, but I think -- just the facts would have to be there that I would really have to, you know, think about it. I couldn't just say no right away; I couldn't just say yes right away.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. You could or could not say yes right away?
JUROR: I think that I would have to have more information either way. I don't think it's a decision -- like I'm not somebody who's just going to say right at a cocktail party that, yes, somebody should be put to death or, no, they shouldn't. I need more information. I'm not going to just jump to that.
MS. CONRAD: And would you be able to consider facts regarding the defendant's background as well as facts regarding the crime in making that determination?
JUROR: Yeah, absolutely. I think that's probably where my thought process would be.
MS. CONRAD: Now, you said something about having children changing your view. Can you talk a little bit more about that?
JUROR: Well, I just think that as far as probably not being as naive and just thinking that -- you know, that sometimes bad things happen out there and there needs to be more consequence, whereas when I was younger and it was just myself, I probably didn't have that point of view.
MS. CONRAD: Would a case that involved the death of a child make it more difficult for you --
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CONRAD: You told us that -- well, you said on your form that you were unsure whether you'd formed -- the way the question is framed is a little bit difficult. If you'd look at page 20, Question 77. So it's a little confusing, but the way the question is actually written is it asks whether you'd formed an opinion about whether Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty, and your answer to that is "unsure."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CONRAD: So are you saying there that you're unsure whether he's guilty or you're unsure whether you formed an opinion?
JUROR: Well, I think they're one and the same because I don't have that information, you know, as far as if I just watched the television that day, then, you know, that wouldn't be -- I don't know. That's just not where I would come from, you know? I just don't feel like -- I am unsure as far as, like, what you're asking. Like I'm not someone who's going to say "guilty" or not "guilty."
MS. CONRAD: Sure. And I appreciate that and I really appreciate -- first of all, I want you to understand that we're really trying to find out how you feel. There are no right or wrong answers here, which is really the most important thing, is that you tell us as honestly as you can. And sometimes it's hard to know yourself how you feel about something.
And of course, we appreciate that you understand the legal concepts, but before you ever got your jury summons, did you have an opinion about whether Mr. Tsarnaev was guilty?
JUROR: From what I saw on TV?
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
JUROR: I guess, yes, I suppose that we knew that he was involved.
MS. CONRAD: And what was that based on?
JUROR: From the media. And like I started off, it's just -- you know, I don't always believe everything that I, you know, hear or see from the media, but it was from what the media coverage was telling us.
MS. CONRAD: And is there anything about that media coverage that stands out in your mind?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think so.
MS. CONRAD: Again, focusing on your state of mind, if you will, before you got your jury summons did you have an opinion about whether or not Mr. Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: That was just asked and answered.
MS. CONRAD: No, I asked about guilt; now I'm asking about the penalty.
THE COURT: This is about the death penalty.
MR. WEINREB: I withdraw that.
THE COURT: The C and D part is the question.
JUROR: I'm sorry. So what was your question?
MS. CONRAD: So my question is just before you got the jury summons did you have an opinion one way or the other about whether Mr. Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty?
JUROR: Honestly, I don't think I thought about it.
MS. CONRAD: And did you think about it after you received the summons?
JUROR: Yeah, I think so. I think that's because it was out there for -- you know, everybody obviously knew what this trial was going to be about.
MS. CONRAD: And when you thought about it at that point, did you form an opinion or did you have an opinion? And I'm not, again, asking whether you could put that opinion aside; I'm just asking whether you had an opinion.
JUROR: An opinion of?
MS. CONRAD: Whether he should receive the death penalty.
JUROR: No, I did not.
MS. CONRAD: You said in answer to Question 76, which is also on page 20, that you read news articles regarding the venue appeal?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CONRAD: And can you tell us a little bit about what you read?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: No, go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: So I'm sorry. I don't have my glasses. So the question is?
MS. CONRAD: Do you want to borrow mine?
JUROR: They made me leave me stuff outside.
So you want to know what I read specifically?
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
JUROR: Just that his lawyers were trying to change the venue because, obviously, you know, you were concerned about people on the North Shore and, you know, just us being probably more prejudice to the situation.
MS. CONRAD: Why do you mention the North Shore in particular?
JUROR: That's where I live. It wasn't in the article.
MS. CONRAD: And you read this after you got the summons?
JUROR: Oh, gee. I don't -- after I got the summons? Honestly, I probably wasn't conscious of the fact that that was even about this. I think as of January 5th I didn't even put two and two together, so I think I did. I think when I would just open, you know, my computer, it was there.
MS. CONRAD: Sure.
JUROR: To be honest, did I read the whole article? No.
MS. CONRAD: So you didn't realize -- am I understanding you correctly that you didn't realize that your jury summons was for this case until you came in on January 5th?
JUROR: Absolutely. Right.
MS. CONRAD: And so how did you feel about that?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained. We asked it in the questionnaire.
MS. CONRAD: Yes. But your -- let me go back, then, your Honor.
So your answer to Question 74 was not your reaction to being a juror in this case but just getting a jury summons in general.
JUROR: 74? "What did you think of..." Yeah. That's...
MS. CONRAD: So my question is: When you realized it was for this case, how did you feel?
JUROR: On January 5th?
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
JUROR: Probably a little stupid that I didn't realize it was that case because I think everybody else did.
MS. CONRAD: Not necessarily.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: But how did you feel about the possibility of being a juror in this case? I guess is what I'm asking.
JUROR: It probably gave me pause. I mean, I don't know if it -- you know, what the emotions that I had. I was just like, wow.
MS. CONRAD: And since then have you given that more thought?
JUROR: Honestly? Yeah. I'm supposed to go to Aruba in a couple of months. I was thinking, wow, you know, this is going to be a long -- the judge said that you could be here for a long time, so I thought, wow, it's a big commitment.
MS. CONRAD: Do you already have tickets for that?
JUROR: I do.
MS. CONRAD: You do?
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CONRAD: And they're already paid for?
JUROR: No, it's a company -- for my husband, so...
But that's probably the most thought I gave it.
MS. CONRAD: Your answer to Question 74, "Grateful to have a legal system in place"?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me a little bit more about?
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, objection. We've already gone over this.
THE COURT: Yes, I think that's plain enough, actually.
MS. CONRAD: May I just have a moment, your Honor?
(Pause.)
MS. CONRAD: On Question 89 -- and I'm sorry if you already answered this, I had a little trouble hearing -- but it looks like you crossed out 6 and changed it to 5?
JUROR: Okay. I'm sorry.
MS. CONRAD: It's on page 23. I'm sorry.
JUROR: Page 23? Page 23?
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, if that's a question, I object. That was asked and answered at length.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. I just didn't hear the answer if it was.
MR. WEINREB: Well, it will be in the transcript.
THE COURT: I think it shows that there was a -- the juror originally put 6 and changed it to 5. I'm not sure how much of a gradient change that is. They're both right in the middle.
MS. CONRAD: Well, one's -- they're two different answers.
THE COURT: Anyway, I think we can leave it as-is at this particular point.
MS. CONRAD: When you read about the venue, did you have any opinion about it?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CONRAD: In working with law enforcement and your experience with law enforcement, would anything about that experience affect how you would view testimony by a law enforcement officer?
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: Would you tend to give more -- more readily believe a law enforcement witness than a non-law enforcement witness?
MR. MELLIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Yeah. You know, I don't think we have to follow up on questions that were unambiguously answered in the questionnaire.
MS. CONRAD: Well, your Honor, respectfully, Mr. Mellin asked a number questions about work with law enforcement. I'm following up on those.
THE COURT: Well, that was about experience. But the question about crediting or discrediting law enforcement testimony because of its source was plainly in the questionnaire. We have an answer to that.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you very much.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)