3.Individual Voir Dire — Juror 245
187 lines[REDACTED]
(End of sidebar discussion.)
MR. WEINREB: We'll go on?
THE COURT: Yes, we'll go back on for the next person. I guess we probably should have ended that.
MR. BRUCK: I was right about the chickens.
THE COURT: You were.
MR. WEINREB: We're never going to hear the end of that. Every time an objection is granted he's going to say, "But I was right about the chickens."
(Laughter.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 245.
THE COURT: Okay, sidebar mode.
(Courtroom cleared.)
SIDEBAR CONFERENCE:
[REDACTED]
(End of sidebar discussion.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 245.
COURT CLERK: Juror 245.
COURT CLERK: Sir, come over here, please. Have a seat, if you would.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic so everybody can hear you, okay?
THE COURT: And adjust it as you want, up or down, whatever you want to do.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: So we appreciate you being here. Have you been able to follow my instructions I gave the last time to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Or as much as you can, to avoid any media reports and so on?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, thank you. So we're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave in the questionnaire. You have it there so you can follow along. I just wanted to ask -- we asked a little bit of family information, and you said your wife is in customer service?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Could you tell us for whom she works?
JUROR: She works for Woodworth. It's called Woodworth Auto Sales. She's in -- auto loan is the actual division that she works for.
THE COURT: And so it's a finance company for automobiles?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Yes, okay. And you are a medical interpreter?
JUROR: At this time, yes.
THE COURT: And you've been doing that for I guess a couple years?
JUROR: Just a couple years, correct.
THE COURT: Tell us about how much and how you use Facebook and Instagram.
JUROR: Instagram not so much. Facebook, every other day possibly, about every other day.
THE COURT: Do you post as well as see other people's postings --
JUROR: No. I very rarely --
THE COURT: -- or is it just viewing?
JUROR: Viewing for the most part.
THE COURT: Keeping up on the news?
JUROR: No. Keeping up with my friends.
THE COURT: That's what I meant.
JUROR: Oh, yes.
THE COURT: I'm being flip. Page 12, the top question, you have a close friend who's on the state police?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay, could you tell us a little bit about your relationship.
JUROR: Uhm, a very good friend of mine, best man in my wedding. We grew up together.
THE COURT: Okay, so virtually a lifelong friend?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Would having a close friend in a law enforcement position have any effect on your ability to be a critical judge of the evidence in this case? I mean, would you have any tendency to favor the law enforcement side of things because of your friend?
JUROR: It's difficult, hard to say, but I may favor the side of the law.
THE COURT: I suppose everybody does to some degree. I mean, that's why we live in a lawful society. The question is, would you give undue attention to what, say, Massachusetts state troopers would testify to as opposed to somebody else?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me direct you to -- oh, actually, I have to cut the audio again. Sorry about this.
COURT CLERK: Cut the audio.
(Courtroom cleared.)
SIDEBAR CONFERENCE:
[REDACTED]
(End of sidebar discussion.)
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 77, in this question we asked whether based on things you'd seen or read in the news media, whether you'd formed an opinion, first, that the defendant was guilty, and then some other possibilities that he's not guilty, and then about the penalty, but let me ask about the first one. Oh, we asked also further down that if you had answered "yes" to any of these questions, would you be able to set aside or would you be unable to set aside your opinion, if you were a juror in the case, and consider the guilt or innocence question based solely on the evidence in the case. So I gather from your answer that you have, based on the media, formed some opinion about the defendant, whether he's guilty?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Would you be able to put that aside and consider only the evidence presented in the course of the case in deciding the question of whether he should be found guilty by the jury or not? In other words, let me perhaps set the stage by reminding you of the law pertaining to criminal prosecutions. Any person who's charged with an offense, a criminal offense, is presumed to be innocent of the offense by the law unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by proving at trial by the evidence the fact of his guilt; and the jurors who are asked to consider those questions are asked to focus on the evidence produced, think about it, talk about it with themselves, and then decide whether the government has convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has in fact committed the crime that he's charged with. So that would be the obligation you would undertake if you were a juror in the case, and the question is, would you be able to be faithful to those principles and decide the question of guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence and the instructions in the case, or would you still be influenced by what you had learned before the case from the media or other things? Compartmentalize I guess is one way of asking it.
JUROR: It would be hard to isolate just to go by the evidence presented in the case. I've heard a lot of the media from before, a lot of news from before, and it's kind of difficult to set that aside and just isolate yourself based on just the evidence, so it would be a bit difficult for me to do that, in all honesty.
THE COURT: Would it make a difference if the evidence was similar to what you heard or different from what you heard?
JUROR: It might make a difference.
THE COURT: How?
JUROR: Uhm, well, there's a lot of facts that haven't been brought to light that would be probably brought to light in the courtroom that haven't been given to the news media. I mean, we only hear what we want to hear or what we're told. I know the courtroom has both sides. You get to hear both sides, the defense as much as the prosecution, so that would make a difference.
THE COURT: If at the end of the trial you were asked to decide whether on the evidence presented in the trial the government had convinced you or not, would you be able to answer that without reference to things outside the trial?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That was kind of a definite answer, I guess. Before you were a little unsure.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So, I guess, could you help us? What is your self-assessment, I guess?
JUROR: I'd have to go based on the evidence. There's a lot of media coverage on this, but based on the evidence, you know, on what would be presented in court, it would definitely allow me to make a better decision.
THE COURT: We asked some questions about your attitude towards the death penalty, both in general and perhaps particularly to this case. Turn to Page 23. Question 88 is where we begin, and we asked there, if you have any views about the death penalty in general, what are they? You said "None." Does that still represent your thinking on the matter?
JUROR: Yes. I don't think it, uhm, it makes a difference. I don't have any positive views about the death penalty, and I don't have any negative views.
THE COURT: Have you thought about it much?
JUROR: No, I honestly haven't really thought about the death sentence. I just don't know if anything positive would come of that, so it's not something that I really base any information on. I don't -- I don't tend to lean toward the death penalty.
THE COURT: Well, in the next question, 89, we asked you, on a spectrum from strongly opposed at 1 to strongly favor at 10, where do you think you might be? And you selected 7, which is a little on the favor side.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Then in the next question on the next page, we asked, if you could put that in words, was there a statement in the several letters suggested there that seemed to represent your views about the death penalty in a case involving someone who's been found guilty of murder, and you selected E.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Which is, "I am in favor of the death penalty, but I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release if I believed that that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case." Does that represent your view about the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes, pretty much. Every case is different. I think the death penalty in some cases, if there's a very heinous crime, uhm, may have me lean toward the death penalty.
THE COURT: But you would, I gather, come to that conclusion after considering the facts and the law in the particular case? Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes, that's fair.
THE COURT: In other words, you don't have sort of an automatic yes or no on either side --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- without hearing the particulars of the case?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: On the bottom of 25 we asked -- now it's getting from the sort of general case to perhaps this case -- "If you found this defendant guilty and you decided that the death penalty was appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty in this case?" You answered "Not sure." Can you tell us what you were thinking about when you made that selection.
JUROR: Uhm, again, I wasn't sure because I'm not -- every case is different, but we're talking specifically about this case. The death penalty in this case... I don't know. Everybody has -- as I stated there, everybody has their own opinion. My personal opinion would be, I would like to vote against the death penalty -- I wouldn't like to vote for the death penalty in this case. Uhm, I just don't believe in the death penalty. That's just my own personal opinion.
THE COURT: And that's sort of what the question is getting at. If you had concluded, following the evidence that you heard and the instructions and the law and so on and so forth, that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment as a -- well, let me just leave it at that -- if you concluded it was an appropriate punishment, could you then act on that conclusion and actually vote to impose the death penalty? I think that's what the question is asking.
JUROR: Yes, yes, if that's exactly what you're asking, then the answer is "yes," I could vote for the death penalty.
THE COURT: So just to be clear, on the condition that you had concluded based on your evaluation of the evidence that it was appropriate for this case, you would be able then to cast a vote that said this defendant should receive the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 96, we asked a similar question about life imprisonment. We said, "If you found the defendant guilty and you decided that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you vote for life in prison without the possibility of release?" You said "No." Could you explain that.
(Witness examining questionnaire.)
JUROR: I'm not, uhm -- I'm not sure I have the -- the -- a solid explanation for answering "no" to that particular question.
THE COURT: To be frank, one of the things that occurred to me was that it was a mistake. Was it?
JUROR: It could have easily been a mistake.
THE COURT: What would your answer today to that question be?
JUROR: Yes, I could go ahead, and, again, it's based on the evidence. Everything would have to be based on the evidence. I don't know if based on the evidence it would be -- it would be conscientious to vote for life imprisonment without parole, then I would be able to vote for that; but in the same token, I might be able to vote for the death penalty.
THE COURT: I guess, with respect to Question 96, I'm just curious whether you have any different or greater reservation about voting for life in prison without possibility of release than you have for voting for the death penalty. Do you understand the question?
JUROR: Yes. I would be -- I would probably be more apt to vote for life in prison without the possibility of parole.
THE COURT: That's all I have. Do you have anything?
MR. WEINREB: I think the parties feel this --
THE COURT: I'm not so sure.
MS. CLARKE: We'll go forward. Sorry, we just --
MR. WEINREB: Oh, okay. No, that's fine. Then I just wanted to ask a question.
THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I wanted to ask you a few more questions about the death penalty issue.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I wrote down your answer to one of the questions, and I may have written it down wrong. You tell me if I did, but you said, when you were asked about your answer to Question No. 95 -- can you take another look at that one.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So you said -- just take a moment to read it.
(Witness examining questionnaire.)
MR. WEINREB: So that question asked specifically about this case, and you said, "I wouldn't like to vote for the death penalty in this case. I don't believe in the death penalty."
JUROR: Correct.
MR. WEINREB: What did you mean by that?
JUROR: I -- I'm not -- I don't like the death penalty. That's just my personal opinion, and that's the reason the answer is marked "I'm not sure."
MR. WEINREB: Okay, so you say you don't like the death penalty, but let me ask you to turn your attention back to Question 89. So there you were asked to circle a number that represented your opinion about the death penalty from strongly opposed to strongly favor, and you circled 7, which is on the strongly favor side.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. WEINREB: So I'm confused by that. Maybe you could help me understand.
JUROR: On 89 we weren't speaking specifically about this case; is that correct?
MR. WEINREB: That's correct.
JUROR: Okay. Then that's the reason for the 7 because it would be -- it would have to be based on the crime. There are some crimes that may make me think or make me lean toward the death penalty more than other cases. It's all depending -- in my mind, it's all depending on what the case -- what's being presented, what's the case about. That's why.
MR. WEINREB: So have you already decided that in this case, you don't believe that the death penalty is the appropriate punishment?
MS. CLARKE: I object. That's asking for --
THE COURT: No, no. I think, because of trying to get the difference between 95 and 96, I think I'll allow it. Go ahead.
JUROR: So you're talking about -- I'm sorry?
MR. WEINREB: So are you already of the opinion that in this case, the death penalty isn't the appropriate sentence?
JUROR: No, no, I'm not -- I'm not at that -- I'm not answering that on that, that it's appropriate. It's, uhm, it's -- it's not appropriate.
MR. WEINREB: It's not appropriate in this case?
JUROR: It's not appropriate in this case.
MR. WEINREB: And you've made up your mind about that?
JUROR: No. I can't make up my mind because I don't have all the details of the case, and I apologize if I'm not -- if I'm wishy-washy.
MR. WEINREB: No, not at all.
JUROR: I'm trying to be as honest as I possibly can.
MR. WEINREB: And we appreciate that. Why is it not appropriate in this case?
JUROR: I just, uhm... I don't know. I don't have a solid answer for that. I just don't feel that it's -- that it's -- not that it's not appropriate. I just don't have enough, let's say, I guess, enough evidence to sway me in that -- toward that decision.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. In fact, so far, you have no evidence.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. WEINREB: So as the Judge explained earlier, there will be a trial in this case, and if you're picked as a juror, the first part of the trial will be to determine if the defendant actually committed any of these crimes or not; and only if the jury finds him guilty of the crime that carries the penalty, the possible penalty of death, will we go forward, and then there will be a second phase.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: And at that phase the jury will hear more evidence, and the government will offer evidence suggesting that the death penalty is an appropriate sentence, and the defense will offer evidence that the death penalty is not an appropriate sentence. At that point, when you enter that second phase of the trial, if we ever get there, will you have an open mind and be able to listen to the evidence and go whichever way the evidence tells you to go, or will your mind already be made up going into that second phase?
JUROR: No. I can go in that with an open mind.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And if you're convinced that the death sentence is an appropriate penalty, you're prepared to impose a sentence of death?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And if you believe that life imprisonment is the appropriate penalty, you're prepared to impose that sentence?
JUROR: Yes.
(Discussion between government attorneys.)
MR. WEINREB: Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: Could I have just one moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Discussion between defense counsel.)
MS. CLARKE: Okay, hi. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MS. CLARKE: And thank you for your answers and your consideration of the questions. You mentioned having a very good friend, in fact the best man at your wedding, is with the Mass. State Police.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Has he talked to you about this case at all?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: So you haven't heard his opinion one way or the other?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: There was a police officer -- the allegation is, a police officer was killed. Do you know if he has any relationship to that police officer?
JUROR: Not that I'm aware of.
MS. CLARKE: And do you know whether he was involved at all in the investigation of this case?
JUROR: No, I don't know.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Do you know what his general assignment is?
JUROR: I believe he works --
THE COURT: Is he in a cruiser?
JUROR: No, no, no. He's, I believe -- is this confidential, or does it matter?
THE COURT: I don't know. We'll take the precaution.
JUROR: I believe he works --
THE COURT: Cut the audio first.
JUROR: I apologize.
THE COURT: That's all right.
(Courtroom cleared.)
MS. CLARKE: It's a flick of a switch, sort of.
THE COURT: Just wait for a second.
SIDEBAR CONFERENCE:
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Back on.