3.Individual Voir Dire — Further Hardship and Impartiality Examination (Part 2)
896 lines[REDACTED]
(In open court:)
THE COURT: 271?
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 271.
COURT CLERK: Juror 271.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, come over here, if you would. Have a seat. And if you could talk into the mic so everyone at the table can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Okay. Thanks.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid discussion of the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes, I've avoided.
THE COURT: And also, as much as possible, avoid any media accounts or reports on the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to have some follow-up questions for you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You expressed some concern about being absent from your job for an extended period of time. Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Sure. I teach sixth grade, middle school, language arts, and it's a burden on my students to be absent. It's really hard to be out. It's hard to find a permanent sub who has my background and my education. And I've been teaching for 12 years. I teach in a challenging district that is not easy to find substitute teachers. We really struggle with that in my district. So it would be hard.
THE COURT: Would you continue to be compensated during a jury service?
JUROR: I don't believe so. I think there is a certain amount of days I'm compensated. That would all be on my contract, so I would have to read my contract. But I don't believe I would be compensated for very long.
THE COURT: Your husband is a teacher as well?
JUROR: He is.
THE COURT: Where does he teach?
JUROR: Waltham, Mass.
THE COURT: In --
JUROR: High school.
THE COURT: High school?
JUROR: Yeah, he teaches high school.
THE COURT: Any particular concentration of subject?
JUROR: Yeah, he teaches special education, kids with disabilities.
THE COURT: Use of social media? You use Facebook?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: That's it? None of the others, Instagram, Twitter or anything like that?
JUROR: I don't even know what those are. But, yes, Facebook.
THE COURT: How do you use it?
JUROR: Really to get informed about moms' groups now that I work. I stayed home for several years with my kids, and now that I work, I find out all stuff that's going on in the town. So I read it every day.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20 of your questionnaire. In Question 77 we asked whether based on things you'd seen or read, learned from other sources, whether you'd formed an opinion whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and to each of those questions you answered "unsure."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you explain that, why you made that choice?
JUROR: Sure. I don't know. I guess being in education for so long, I really try not to be judgmental. It's just how I've been. I've been a special educator for years and I've always fought for students' rights. Now I teach in a very challenging district, in a very challenging school. I believe that you need to be educated and informed before you make judgments.
Obviously, I've heard a lot about the case, clearly. I remember when I heard about it and where I was.
THE COURT: Where were you?
JUROR: I was in my car on my way to Costco in New Hampshire about to get off the Chelmsford exit when we received a phone call from a good friend. So I certainly remember details. I have family members who have ran the Boston Marathon, so only I know --
THE COURT: That year?
JUROR: No. My father ran it years ago. Yeah, years ago.
But I just feel like I like to be educated and I like to know what I'm talking about. Maybe that's my educator brain.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, I'm sure you know that in any criminal prosecution the burden is on the government to prove what it alleges, that the defendant is guilty. A defendant who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves otherwise by the evidence at trial, and proves it to a degree that the jurors are left with no reasonable doubt about whether the defendant is guilty of what he's charged with or not.
What we ask jurors to do is to listen to the evidence, at the end of the case evaluate it, talk about it with each other, and then decide whether the government has satisfied that burden of proof by the evidence or not. And if it has, the government is entitled to the verdict of guilty, but if it has not, the defendant is entitled to, and actually must be acquitted if the government has failed in its burden.
Do you understand those principles in criminal law?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you be able to faithfully apply those if you were a juror? Would you be able to, first of all, resolve the case on the evidence presented only without outside influence?
JUROR: I would hope. I think a really important factor for me is that I have a seven-and-a-half-year-old son and a six-year-old daughter. So I think for me that would be very challenging.
THE COURT: You're referring, I think, to the fact that one of the victims of the bombings was a child. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: Would that affect both your ability to assess guilt or innocence and the punishment or one or the other?
JUROR: It would concern me, yes, if --
THE COURT: I didn't ask the question very well. There may be two phases. The first would be to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Of course, if he's not guilty, that's the end of the matter. The second phase would be the penalty phase. What I'm asking is: You think you may be affected because there was a child victim involved.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: I'm asking: Would that be in the first phase or the second phase or both, that you think you might be affected in that way?
JUROR: I would say both. I would definitely think the first phase. I would say both. I would say -- yeah.
THE COURT: In Question 82 on page 21 you indicated that your husband has some Boston Strong items and so on and you also attended a book signing for, I guess, one of the victims?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that, what led you to go to the book signing?
JUROR: With all of the media attention and my kids being in school -- they're young but they're old enough to have heard things and heard people talking about it. We -- my husband and I thought very hard and long about how to present what had happened to them. When Jeff Baumann had come to Acton, which is next door to where I live, he was doing a book signing at a local bookstore that we frequent. It's a family-run bookstore. We thought that that might be the best way to present it instead of as this horrific tragedy, as maybe someone who had overcome something so horrific. And we thought since they were so young, that might be more appropriate to talk to them about what had happened and use that as a starting point for a conversation.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 274.
COURT CLERK: 274.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, if you would, please. Have a seat. Speak into the mic so everyone will hear you.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Actually, good afternoon.
Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And as much as possible to avoid any media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: So we're going to follow up on some of the questions -- answers you'd given to the questions in the questionnaire. Tell us about your employment a little bit.
JUROR: I'm a research analyst with a firm called InfoTrends in Weymouth, Mass. More than that?
THE COURT: What do you do?
JUROR: Okay. Sorry. I'm nervous.
I attend events sometimes, and I write, like, show reviews on them. And I analyze data; I write surveys, and I collect the results from the surveys; and I create graphs, PowerPoints, and I write reports about them. And we mostly deal with business office document technology. Some of our clients -- and like digital peripherals. So some of our clients including Riko, Toshiba, Samsung. I just went to a Samsung event a few months ago.
THE COURT: So you're analyzing their marketing efforts, is that what you're doing?
JUROR: So we come up with business strategies, we do some consulting work, and we come up with marketing strategies for our clients and do custom projects for them. Mostly I do business process automation, so I'm studying how much paper is used in offices. And we've done different verticals, so I've looked into healthcare, legal. Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. The company has a website that you sometimes blog on. Is that it?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: What frequency?
JUROR: Once a month.
THE COURT: Once a month?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And then personally you use Facebook, Twitter, Instagram?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: For social matters mostly?
JUROR: Yeah. Posting pictures of, like, places I go and stuff like that.
THE COURT: You indicated that you have a friend who's in the police. That's Question 34 on page 12. Could you tell us a little bit more about that? What police force, how close a friend and that sort of thing.
JUROR: A roommate from college, her boyfriend is a cop in -- they live in Rehoboth. He's a cop in Portsmouth and --
THE COURT: Rhode Island?
JUROR: Yeah. I went to school with them. We all went to school together. And a couple of his buddies who I'm also acquaintances with are cops too, all in Rhode Island also. One of them is a state cop and one of them is a cop in -- there's Portsmouth and Middleboro -- or Middletown. Sorry. Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Would you look at page 12? Looking at Question 36, it, first of all, notes that jurors are instructed that the testimony of law enforcement people is to be treated the same way, analyzed the same way, understood and criticized the same way as any other witness. They don't get any special consideration because they're law enforcement, either positively or negatively.
And then we asked if you had any concerns about your ability to do that and you said no, but then you wrote something that it seems like maybe there's a reservation on that, and I wondered if you could explain that.
JUROR: Yeah. I just feel like if they're a law enforcement person they should definitely be telling the truth. But, I mean, I guess they could lie too. I don't know.
THE COURT: Well, again, as the sort of text to the question indicates, what we ask witnesses to do is to take each witness who testifies individually and make some judgments about that particular person based on any variety of things, the content of the testimony, the manner of testifying and so on and so forth, but not to have any -- give any special consideration one way or the other, positively or negatively, to law enforcement people solely by reason of their office but to be -- to apply the same standards of judgment to a law enforcement witness as would be applied to any other witness.
And so the question is: Would you be able to do that? You say you have a number of friends who are on police forces. Would you be able to treat any law enforcement witness the same way you treat any non-law enforcement witness?
JUROR: Right. Yeah, I think so.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20. In Question 77 we asked whether you'd formed certain opinions based on things you'd seen or heard in the media or otherwise. You indicated that you thought you had -- that you had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty and you were unsure about the penalty.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: We then asked if you had an opinion about any of those matters -- this is in the text below the multiple-choice questions -- if you had an opinion, would you be able or unable to set it aside and base your decision based only on the evidence presented in the course of the case in court, and you said you thought you would be unable to do that.
Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I just -- I don't really see how he isn't guilty.
THE COURT: And that's actually what you indicated on the answer to Question 78, I guess, a little bit, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The question isn't just whether you think that, you have an opinion, the question is whether you could pay attention only to the evidence in the case and decide the issues presented in the case based on that body of evidence and not on things that you thought from other sources.
JUROR: I think it would be really hard not to consider how I already feel.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: We're satisfied, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 275.
COURT CLERK: 275.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, please have a seat. And do me a favor and speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, all right?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instruction to avoid discussion of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also to avoid as much as possible any media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
Tell me about your employment.
JUROR: So I am a business development manager for a company called Everbridge. And Everbridge provides mass and emergency notification systems. So I manage a team of 11 business development reps.
THE COURT: Business development being marketing and --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- sales?
JUROR: Yeah, pretty much sales.
So basically I'm a sales manager, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell me a little bit about the product?
JUROR: So it's -- the City of Boston uses Everbridge to send out weather alerts. So if you have the snow emergencies or anything like that, that's what the city will use. A lot of hospitals and corporations will use us for employee safety and sending messages out in the case of an emergency.
THE COURT: Is it software that you provide or software and hardware or what --
JUROR: It's software, yup. Yup. Cloud.
THE COURT: And it's somebody else's hardware?
JUROR: It's cloud-based, so you could access it from anything, phone, website.
THE COURT: So you say the City of Boston uses it, including the Boston Police Department?
JUROR: Including the Boston Police Department, yes.
THE COURT: I think you said in the questionnaire it was used actually during the events of the Marathon bombing.
JUROR: Yes, the police used us to coordinate with the first responders during the bombing. The City of Watertown is also a client, so they used us for sending out notifications to the citizens for the shelter in place. A lot of the local corporations and hospitals would use our system to ensure, like I said, employee safety because the cell towers went down, so they needed other ways to make sure the staff was safe.
THE COURT: When you say "use our services" or "use us," does that involve active participation by Everbridge employees or is this if you have the software, you can do it? In other words, is there interaction between someone using the system and employees of Everbridge when it's being used?
JUROR: It depends on the department, I guess. So for -- if you're in the support, sort of customer service departments, then you'd be involved. And, you know, for us, we were -- obviously it was a pretty unique case from when we were using it during that time, so there were discussions about using the service and, you know, how the first responders were using it to kind of coordinate and keep up to date with what was going on.
THE COURT: Were you involved in interacting with anybody who was a first responder or the Boston police or anything?
JUROR: Not personally, no.
THE COURT: Are there people in your circle at work who were, typically you'd come into contact with on a regular basis at work?
JUROR: I believe so, yeah. We had -- so my department had pretty much the only TV in the office, so during that time I was at work and most people came in the back and, you know, discussing it amongst ourselves. And there were customer support people back there talking about how the system was used. And our company would -- also used our service to send out notifications to all the staff later that week, too, for the shelter in place. And our office was based in Waltham at the time.
THE COURT: You use social media, Facebook, Instagram --
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: -- for social matters?
JUROR: Yup. Yup.
THE COURT: Not for professional?
JUROR: I use LinkedIn for professional purposes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20 of the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: In that question we asked whether you had -- based on things you'd seen or heard or read in the media whether you had formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not and, if so, whether he should receive the death penalty or not. You indicated you had formed an opinion based on those sources that he was guilty and that he should receive the death penalty.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And then below that, the question went on to say, If you answered yes to any of these questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence presented to you in court, and you picked "able." Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yes. So I think the more, as I thought about this trial, it's probably swayed more so to "unable" just due to the sort of personal nature of it with the company I work for, you know, speaking with emergency preparedness coordinators, you know, marketing materials for how our company used it during the Boston bombings, you know, I was very active on some online sites trying to help with the manhunt. So it might be a little bit tougher than I originally thought to --
MR. BRUCK: We're satisfied, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 281.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 281.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, have a seat over here and speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instruction to avoid talking about the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And also to avoid any exposure to media accounts in the case?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're just going to follow up on some of the questions and answers you gave.
Are you currently working?
JUROR: I'm plowing right now for the Town of Waltham.
THE COURT: Plowing?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: That should be lucrative.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You say "right now."
JUROR: Right now. I mean --
THE COURT: Is that a stopgap kind of thing?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You're just available and can do it?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: According to -- I'm looking at page 10, if you want to look at it. We asked about employment. And you had last worked -- well, the date range was 2014 to 2014.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So it looks like it had finished then. I couldn't quite read where it was you were working.
JUROR: It was Cavicchio Greenhouses.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: Cavicchio Greenhouses.
THE COURT: A nursery?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And that ended -- was that seasonal employment?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Question 27, you indicated you were a student.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Are you currently a student?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where?
JUROR: At Middlesex Community College.
THE COURT: Full time?
JUROR: Not right now. I haven't registered for classes and I don't think I will this semester. I think I ran out of time.
THE COURT: So you'll do some plowing, and if something else comes along, you'll look for that?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: If you had to serve on this case for, say, three or four months, would that be a financial hardship for you?
JUROR: Not really, no.
THE COURT: Why not?
JUROR: Well, I --
THE COURT: Do you live at home or --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: We asked about social media use. You indicated Facebook, Instagram, Twitter all rarely used.
JUROR: Yeah, I don't really use -- just it's on my phone.
THE COURT: You have a close friend who's in the Marines?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Tell us how close.
JUROR: I, like, grew up with him.
THE COURT: And he spent four months in Afghanistan?
JUROR: That should be nine.
THE COURT: Nine?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Did he -- he himself participate in combat operations as far as you know?
JUROR: I don't think it was combat operations but I know he was overseas.
THE COURT: Do you know what he did?
JUROR: I think they were training people.
THE COURT: Has he -- is he back now? Is he in the U.S.?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is he around here?
JUROR: He's in Shrewsbury.
THE COURT: Is he out of the Marines?
JUROR: No, he's not out of the Marines yet. He's in the reserves.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you and he talked about his time in Afghanistan in any detail?
JUROR: Not in great detail, no.
THE COURT: I'd like you to take a look at page 20, Question 77.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: There we asked whether based on things you had seen or heard you had formed an opinion about various matters including whether the defendant was guilty, and you said yes, and then about the potential penalty, and you said you were unsure about that. And then below that we asked if you had answered "yes" to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base any decision about guilt or punishment based only on the evidence presented in the course of the trial in court, and you checked the box "able"; you thought you could set it aside?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, all I know is what I saw briefly on the news when he was captured right after the events, after the bombing, but that's really all I know. So I guess there could be more information I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. So you understand in our criminal justice system that a person who's accused of a crime is presumed innocent of the crime unless the government proves him guilty by the evidence at trial --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and that the proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. And if there is a reasonable doubt or if the proof is otherwise insufficient, it's the obligation of the jury to find the person not guilty of the crime.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: In other words, the question is never which side has convinced me, but has the government convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that he's guilty.
Do you understand that?
JUROR: I understand that.
THE COURT: Would you be able to apply those principles if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: I think so, yes.
THE COURT: In Question 82 you indicated you own a Boston Strong T-shirt?
JUROR: Yeah. They were selling them at a place I was at so I just bought one.
THE COURT: Any other participation in support of events or anything like that?
JUROR: Not really, no.
THE COURT: Beginning on page 23 at Question 88 we asked some questions about attitudes towards the death penalty, and 88 asked in general terms if you had views about the death penalty, and you said "none."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Then in 89 we asked if you could put on a scale from strongly opposed to strongly favor where you might be as to whether the death penalty should be imposed whenever someone had been convicted of intentional murder, and you picked 8.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So a tendency to favor it, I guess?
JUROR: Yeah, I'd say so.
THE COURT: Then in Question 90 we asked if you could select which statement of the several proposed closest -- came closest to describing your own feelings about the death penalty in a case of someone who has been proved guilty of murder, you selected D which is, "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it or I could vote to impose life imprisonment without the possibility of release, whichever I believe was called for by the law and" -- "the facts and the law in the case."
Does that represent your view?
JUROR: Yeah, D or E, in between the two.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. I was going to ask about E because E sounds a little more consistent with the previous answer.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: But the question is whether you would be -- if you found somebody guilty of murder -- that's the premise. You don't get to the penalty unless -- you're at that stage, right? So if you found the person guilty of murder, you would be open to the possibility of either voting for the death penalty or voting for life imprisonment without the possibility of release instead of the death penalty depending on how you evaluated the presentations that were made in the course of that trial?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is that fair?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to say "yes" or "no."
JUROR: Yes. Yes. Sorry.
Although now looking at it again and thinking about it, I probably would change that to E if I could.
THE COURT: Then looking at the bottom of page 25 -- some of these questions obviously are asking similar things in different ways just to try to see how...
Question 95 asks if you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote to impose that penalty, and you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And is that still your view?
JUROR: It is.
THE COURT: Then at the top of the next page there's a related question: 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, and you said "yes" to that as well.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: No questions, your Honor.
THE COURT: No questions? Go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: I think it's afternoon.
JUROR: Almost.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's attorneys and I just would like to follow up on a few of the questions the judge asked you, if that's okay.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: You -- right now you're living at home. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: With your folks?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Have you and your parents talked about this case?
JUROR: Not really, no.
MR. BRUCK: You don't know whether they have any opinions about --
JUROR: We don't really talk about it, so...
MR. BRUCK: I don't mean now. I mean at any time since the time of the bombing.
JUROR: Well, I don't really watch much news. My parents do. We don't talk about the news either.
MR. BRUCK: So you don't know how they feel about --
JUROR: I could guess maybe but I'm not sure.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You told us about your friend who's served in Afghanistan with the Marines and now he's in the Marines reserve?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: You have not discussed the Marathon bombing with him at all, at any time at all?
JUROR: Not really, no.
MR. BRUCK: What do you mean "not really"?
JUROR: Well, I mean, everyone just brought it up and then, like, yeah, that sucks. Like that's awful, it's horrible, but not really, like, in detailed discussion about anything.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Do you remember when that was, when people just brought it up?
JUROR: Not really. It wasn't recent.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Of course there's nothing wrong with that.
JUROR: I understand that.
MR. BRUCK: I mean, there's probably very few people in Boston who haven't talked about it, right?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Now, there may be evidence in this case that the motive or part of the motive for the bombing was retaliation for -- or opposition to what our Marines and soldiers have been doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: Did you know that?
JUROR: I didn't know that, no.
MR. BRUCK: Well, given the fact that you have a close friend who's served over there and is back here now and you see him, do you think your relationship with him might affect the way you look at the decisions that the jury would have to make in this case if there was evidence like that?
JUROR: Somewhat.
MR. BRUCK: How do you mean? Can you tell me more?
JUROR: Well, I don't know. I might be more likely to find him guilty in that situation.
MR. BRUCK: And what about if he was -- if you found him guilty and you had to decide between the death penalty and life imprisonment, do you think your loyalty to your friendship with your -- with your friend might affect the way you looked at the punishment too if there was evidence like I described?
JUROR: I do consider loyalty to my friends a little bit more important than most things, so maybe.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
JUROR: Not having been put in a situation like that, I can't tell.
MR. BRUCK: Sure. Well, that's why we're asking you these questions, because as Judge O'Toole has told you, the law is that if you can, a juror is supposed to put everything to one side.
JUROR: Yeah, I understand.
MR. BRUCK: But the law doesn't ask more of people than they're capable of doing, and we're all human.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: And you're the only one who knows that sitting here. So that's why it's terribly important for you to really look inside.
JUROR: I understand.
MR. BRUCK: Are you telling me that you think your friendship might interfere with your ability to be a fair juror in this case?
JUROR: I think I could put it out of the way, at least for the case.
MR. BRUCK: How sure are you?
JUROR: 85 percent sure.
MR. BRUCK: 85 percent?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: That's a very exact statistic. Does that mean there's some chance you couldn't but you'd do your best?
JUROR: Yeah, I think there's a slim chance I couldn't, 15 percent-ish.
MR. BRUCK: Now, the judge asked you about the death penalty, and you've put on the form and you've told him that you're unsure how you feel about the death penalty in this case.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: As you sit here today, do you lean one way or another on whether the death penalty is appropriate in this case?
JUROR: I'm leaning more towards the death penalty is appropriate.
MR. BRUCK: You are?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell me a little bit more about that? Why is that?
JUROR: Well, just with that many charges that could get the death penalty, I would think that's probably more likely that that would be the right outcome.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And do you think -- I guess maybe the question is if you were on trial and -- would you be satisfied with a juror who had about the frame of mind you have?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
MR. BRUCK: That's the question from Irving v. --
THE COURT: I know. But the circumstances are very different. I think I'll sustain the objection.
MR. BRUCK: Would it take evidence from the defense to change your mind about whether the death penalty should be imposed?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: That's sustained. I mean, I explained the penalty phase and the process earlier.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: Do you think that the death penalty should be imposed whenever it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty of an intentional murder?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. He needs to be instructed first before he can answer that.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's right. I agree with that.
MR. BRUCK: Well, I'll rephrase it.
Understanding that there's a whole second trial at which you'd consider mitigating and aggravating facts, remember, the judge told you about that this morning when you were in the jury box, but now I'm asking about what you think.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: I object to the extent that suggests there's a difference between what he might think and what he might do in the jury box. That's a bad question, I think.
THE COURT: Well, start again.
MR. BRUCK: He hurt my feelings.
MR. WEINREB: A well-meaning question but...
MR. BRUCK: Thank you.
I guess what I'm getting at is whether your own personal feelings about the death penalty -- as you said are very supportive of capital punishment -- would they cause you to automatically vote for the death penalty once it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty of an intentional murder?
JUROR: I think that there are very few circumstances where I wouldn't go for capital punishment.
MR. BRUCK: You say "very few."
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell us what --
JUROR: I can't think of anything off the top of my head, no, but, I mean, there could be something that...
MR. BRUCK: Well, I don't want to ask the same question twice --
JUROR: I don't want to make it absolute. I can't say absolutely yes or absolutely no, but...
MR. BRUCK: But you cannot think of example of an intentional murderer --
JUROR: Intentional, no.
MR. BRUCK: -- that you would not give the death penalty to?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And that's understanding how the system is set up?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. WEINREB: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
(Break to change reporters, 12:37 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 283. Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here filling out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instruction to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Also, as much as possible, to avoid any media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. So we're going to follow up on some of the answers in the questionnaire.
You're currently a grad student?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: At MIT?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So what does that mean in terms of your daily life?
JUROR: It means I go to campus and I do research, and I take maybe one class a semester.
THE COURT: Are you taking a class this semester?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So what -- give us an idea of the kind of research you do and how you do it on a daily basis. What do you do?
JUROR: I do research in computer science in the field of databases. And so my research mostly consists of writing code, meeting with my collaborators on campus and via teleconference and writing papers to submit to international conferences.
THE COURT: Is any of this research time-sensitive or any deadlines or things like that? What I'm getting at, sort of sometimes research is supported by grants.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The grant may have a time frame, a delivery date, things like that. Do those things apply?
JUROR: Yes. Yeah, I do have some deadlines coming up in the next month or so, and also, like you said, research is time-sensitive. If I were to lose, say, three to five months of research time, then I could -- potentially some other researchers somewhere in the world could be -- could do work that would put my -- the work I've done so far, make it irrelevant.
THE COURT: Do you work on the research projects by yourself or with a team? I think you said something about a team.
JUROR: With a team.
THE COURT: How big is the team?
JUROR: Four people, four or five people.
THE COURT: All grad students?
JUROR: Three grad students, two professors.
THE COURT: Okay. Staying on the MIT theme, you know that one of the charges in the case relates to the death of an MIT police officer. You're at MIT now. I think you said one of the support things you did after the Marathon events was to have -- I think it was -- was it a T-shirt, an MIT Strong T-shirt?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does the fact that there was an MIT police officer killed in the events, would that have an effect on your ability to be a fair and impartial in this particular case?
JUROR: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us why you don't think so.
JUROR: I did not know the police officer. None of the -- none of my close friends knew -- I know people -- or I know of people who knew him, and I think I could set aside my connection with MIT for this case, if necessary.
THE COURT: Do you do any blogging or posting on websites as part of the -- your research duties at all?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We asked about social media, and you indicate that, as a personal matter, I guess, you use Facebook and Twitter?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Twitter, just personal?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77. In this question we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read or learned from any source, had you formed an opinion the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should be punished by the death penalty or not. The first two, guilty or not guilty, you said, no, you had not formed an opinion. And as to -- or -- anyway, you selected the box "no." And then on the next two you selected the box "unsure." Let me ask you about the first two, (a) and (b). Have you formed an opinion about whether the defendant is guilty or not?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You've heard things about the events, I gather?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But that hasn't led you to form any opinions?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Is that -- can you tell us why? I mean, in other words, have you purposely -- sort of consciously avoided drawing -- forming an opinion?
JUROR: I think that I haven't seen all the evidence -- certainly I followed the news after the events happened, but there's a lot of information out there that I just haven't seen, haven't had access to, that I feel could weigh in either way. So I haven't formed an opinion on that.
THE COURT: You probably understand that in a criminal prosecution, when someone is accused of a crime, the person is presumed to be not guilty or innocent unless and until the government proves the person is guilty of the crime charged and does that by the evidence at trial to the extent that the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the fact of guilt is true. You understand that's the general framework in which we conduct prosecution?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The burden is always with the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and if the government does that, it's entitled to a verdict of guilty. But if it fails to do that, the defendant is entitled to be and must be acquitted; do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So if you, after evaluating the evidence on any of the charges, concluded that the government had failed to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of that offense, would you be able to find the defendant not guilty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: With respect to the death penalty, let me go over to Page 23. We asked, beginning with Question 88, some general questions -- some questions about the death penalty, beginning with a general one, which is 88, about whether you had any views. You said you generally oppose the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have anything to add to that? Is that a sufficient statement of your view?
JUROR: I think that's a sufficient statement of my view.
THE COURT: Then we asked you to circle on the scale, from strongly opposed to strongly favor, where you might be as to whether the death penalty should be imposed when someone has been convicted of intentional murder. You selected 3, which is on the opposed side of the spectrum but not all the way. That, you think, is a good indicator of the strength of your views on this?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And in the next one, 90, on the next page, we asked if you could find a statement among the several proposed that seemed to come closest to your feelings about the death penalty when somebody has been proved guilty of murder. You selected (b), and you said, "I'm opposed to the death penalty and would have a difficult time voting to impose it even if the facts supported it." Does that represent your view?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Could you tell us a little bit more about your thought that you would have a difficult time even if you thought the facts supported it?
JUROR: So I personally oppose the death penalty, but I feel that if I were ordered by, you know, the judge to consider it under specific criteria that I would be able to make a decision either way. But I personally would have a hard time coming to terms with that decision.
THE COURT: But would you be genuinely open to a decision in favor of it if the facts and the -- as you evaluated them with your fellow jurors and by yourself, led you to think that in this -- in the circumstances you're thinking about it was an appropriate penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you'd look at Question 95, at the bottom of Page 25, we asked -- now, this is sort of focusing not on general views about the death penalty but proposing a hypothetical about this case. If you found the defendant -- this defendant guilty and decided the death penalty was appropriate for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you said, "I'm not sure." I just want to see how that relates to the last questions we were talking about. It -- in other words, let me -- and correct me if I'm understanding you wrong. To the other questions, you seemed to be saying you would have a difficult time, but if you came to the point where you thought it was appropriate, you could do it. That indicated sort of overcoming the difficulty that you would have.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: This puts it more in equipoise. It's a little harder -- I'm just wondering if there's any inconsistency there or if this is consistent with what you were saying before.
JUROR: I feel this response is consistent with what I put before.
THE COURT: The next page, just to finish it off, there's sort of a reciprocal question. "If you found him guilty and you thought that life imprisonment without the possible of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that penalty? And you said "yes." And that's without, I guess, reservation?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Yes. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
I wanted to follow up on a few of your answers. One thing I was having a little trouble figuring out from when you were talking about your job as a researcher, so are you -- is this a paid position?
JUROR: Yes. I am paid a stipend by the university.
MR. WEINREB: Will you continue to be paid if you serve on this jury?
JUROR: I don't know. I asked my employer about that, and no one -- this is something that has never come up for them before so they're not sure.
MR. WEINREB: But you're paid out of the grant?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you have reason to believe the grant says anything about jury service?
JUROR: No, I have -- I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: If money from the grant couldn't be used to pay you to be a juror -- or pay you if you're not researching, if you're being a juror instead, would that be a financial hardship for you?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Would you be able to pay your bills?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: Or pay your mortgage?
JUROR: (Shakes head.)
MR. WEINREB: Is that a concern for you as you sit here today?
JUROR: This is actually not something that I thought about before you brought it up so I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: Take a moment. But let me know -- one of the things we're concerned about is whether -- when we ask people about various kinds of hardship is whether it's the kind of hardship that's going to be a real distraction for them in the jury box, make them worried, sort of distract them from what's going on in the courtroom. So that's where I'm leaning with this, is now that you've had a moment to think about it, is that possible?
JUROR: That could be a possibility. That is a thing I would need to follow up with my employer. And I was told by my employer that there is probably mechanisms in place that they can draw upon, but I have been given no concrete answers.
MR. WEINREB: Well, let's talk then about the research itself.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: So is this research you've been working on for some time?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: How long?
JUROR: This particular project, for about six months.
MR. WEINREB: And you said that if you had to take four or five months to be -- or three or four months even to be a juror, there would be a risk that somebody else would publish first.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Now -- and then the judge asked you, Well, do you have other people working with you on this, and you said you did.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I guess the final question is: Does that -- the fact that there are other people working with you on it, does that take away that concern, or is that concern still there that somebody else would still publish first?
JUROR: That concern is still there. If you take away a third of the manpower, then the research is also affected.
MR. WEINREB: So it would affect you, and it would affect your colleagues in that sense?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Is that something that you would be concerned about if you were sitting on the jury?
JUROR: Yes. But if I were sitting on the jury, I would probably also be working in the evenings on my research as well.
MR. WEINREB: Would that be sufficient to take care of all your concerns?
JUROR: Yes. I mean, I wouldn't be able to work 100 percent on my research, obviously, but for the main projects that I'm a part of, that would be sufficient.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So it addressed a concern about the need to publish on time?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So to speak?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: You said that you're a computer science major at MIT?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: You work in a building at the corner of Vassar and Main Streets?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Is that the Stata Center?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: You're aware that Officer Sean Collier was murdered right outside the Stata Center, just feet away?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you know the spot where he was murdered?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Do you go by there?
JUROR: Occasionally, I do go by there.
MR. WEINREB: You know that there's a courtyard there?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Let me take a step back. I anticipate in this trial there will be a lot of testimony about that area.
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: I don't understand the objection.
MS. CONRAD: Well, this whole area. I'm objecting to this whole area. I'm not sure where this is going.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
MR. WEINREB: There will be a lot of testimony about that particular location. And do you have personal knowledge of that location?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Is that something you will bring with you into the jury box?
JUROR: Could you clarify that?
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So if you hear testimony about that location and it disagrees with your personal observations of it, is that something that would cause you problems in evaluating -- in believing the testimony, the mere -- the fact that your own personal knowledge of it from outside of the courtroom conflicted with what you heard on the witness stand?
MS. CONRAD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, sustained. It's just too speculative.
MR. WEINREB: Are you capable of completely putting out of your mind all the information -- all the personal experience you have with that location?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: I think that's -- I don't think this is going in a productive direction.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. You know there's a courtyard there?
THE COURT: So, I mean, I don't know what the evidence you have in mind is. Is it about lines of sight or something like that? Is that -- physical arrangement?
MR. WEINREB: Yes. It's -- it's not just about lines of sight. That whole -- a lot happened in that whole area. There's surveillance video.
MS. CONRAD: Objection, your Honor. This could apply to --
THE COURT: I don't think we have to go into this. I mean, you know, somebody could be a juror in a crime committed on Main Street. The fact that they're familiar with Main Street shouldn't be an impediment. I think we can go to a different area.
MR. WEINREB: Excuse me one moment.
So turning your attention back to Question 88 for a moment, if you don't mind.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Could you say -- can you tell us why you generally oppose the death penalty?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
JUROR: I think it's hard to say that I would have the authority to end someone's life and to put someone to death. I don't know what -- I don't feel like I have that power.
MR. WEINREB: Well, you do understand that if you were -- if you were to sit on a jury in a death penalty case, then you would be potentially given that power? If the defendant is found guilty of a capital crime, then you have to decide, along with 11 other people, whether he lives or dies.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And so can you -- how do you reconcile that with saying you don't believe you have that power? Are you saying -- I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you don't believe you should have that power or you couldn't exercise the power?
JUROR: Yes. I mean, I don't feel like I should have that power.
MR. WEINREB: Do you believe that that feeling, that you don't believe you should have the power, would make it impossible for you to exercise the power?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: I think you said earlier that, although you don't believe in the death penalty, you could follow the rules of a capital case as they were explained to you. And it's obvious you understand that the rules are that you can vote one way or the other on the death penalty or life imprisonment.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: But you understand that there will be no -- you won't be given a formula or some set of criteria where, if they are met, you must vote for the death penalty or, alternatively, that you must not. So it's not like there are going to be a set of rules where you can just sort of follow them and arrive at the death penalty decision.
MS. CONRAD: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
MR. WEINREB: It's always going to be up to you in the end to weigh aggravating factors and mitigating factors and decide whether, in your view, the death penalty is appropriate. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So knowing that, can you -- do you still -- is it still your answer that you could apply the death penalty in a case where the facts, in your view, supported it?
JUROR: If the facts, in my view, supported it, then, yes, I could.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And by "the facts," we're talking about the facts that would be presented to you in court during the trial?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Were you at MIT on the night that Sean Collier was murdered?
JUROR: I was on -- I was not in the Stata Center. I was on campus.
MR. WEINREB: Were you in the area --
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: -- where it occurred?
Thank you very much.
MS. CONRAD: I have no questions. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ma'am.
We'll take a break for lunch, come back at 2.
(Luncheon recess taken at 1:00 p.m.)
(The Court entered the courtroom at 2:05 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 286. Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid discussing the substance of the case?
JUROR: I have.
THE COURT: And as much as possible, to avoid any media accounts?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you. Tell us about your work.
JUROR: I'm a general manager of a restaurant.
THE COURT: And you've been doing that for a couple of years?
JUROR: No. I've been doing it for about a year and a half. I've been with the same restaurant for about 24 years.
THE COURT: So you were recently promoted to general manager?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: How big -- how many staff people do you supervise?
JUROR: About 50.
THE COURT: We asked a little bit about social media you use. You use what? Facebook?
JUROR: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram.
THE COURT: Mostly for family or social?
JUROR: Yeah, just social. Facebook, I keep up with friends and relatives. Twitter, I watch TV and kind of tweet while I'm watching TV with other people that are watching the same programs that I'm watching.
THE COURT: Does that include news programs?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You have prior jury experience in the Suffolk Superior Court?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: That was a civil commitment? Was that what it was? What was it?
JUROR: It was a --
THE COURT: A patient?
JUROR: Right. He was kind of -- I guess they had stated that he wasn't going to be allowed back out into the public, and he was kind of appealing, I guess, that decision.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: Probably about four years ago.
THE COURT: What was the decision?
JUROR: He was sent back to Bridgewater State Hospital.
THE COURT: So if you'd turn to Page 20, I want to direct your attention to Question 77. In that question we asked whether, based on what you'd seen or read in the media or heard from any other source, had you formed an opinion the defendant was guilty or not guilty or should receive the death penalty or should not receive the death penalty. To each of those you answered, no, you hadn't formed an opinion.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Is that accurate?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You probably have seen things about the case?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: But that hasn't led you to form any --
JUROR: I'll tell you, I watch the news. I've seen reports of the -- everything on the news. When I read those questions, I was kind of -- you know, you're putting it on me, and I don't feel I knew enough of the facts to base a decision. I assume while I'm watching the news that I'm -- the police or whatever have done -- they got who they were looking for. I kind of left it at that. When it was being pinpointed at me, I wasn't comfortable with the information I knew to make an accurate decision.
THE COURT: You know that in a criminal prosecution anybody who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent, not guilty, unless the government proves otherwise, proves the person guilty by evidence at the trial.
JUROR: I understand.
THE COURT: The evidence has to be convincing to the degree of -- the jurors would be convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Corollary of that is, if the jurors are not so convinced, it's their obligation to find the government has failed its burden of proof and to find the defendant not guilty.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Would you be able to faithfully apply those principles if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: I would.
THE COURT: With respect to guilt or innocence?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: You say you went to the Boston Strong concert at the Garden and bought a T-shirt there?
JUROR: Yeah. Actually, I was -- I realized afterwards that I bought the T-shirt actually for the concert. I thought, when I was filling out the questionnaire, that I had bought it at the concert. But I bought it to attend the concert.
THE COURT: Do you still use it?
JUROR: No. I'm not really a T-shirt -- I'll tell you the last time I remember wearing it was at Disney World a year and a half ago only because so many people commented on it when we were there, but I'm not really a T-shirt, jeans-type person.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about attitudes towards the death penalty in general and perhaps more particularly. If you'd turn to Page 23, with Question 88, we started by asking you if you had any views about the death penalty in general, what are they, and you said you don't really have any.
JUROR: I don't.
THE COURT: Is it something you've thought about over the years or not thought about it over the years?
JUROR: I never really thought it. It doesn't really apply to me or my life. That maybe sounds selfish, but I just -- if it doesn't apply to me, I don't really give it much thought.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question, we asked you to indicate where you thought you might fall on a numerical scale from 1 to 10, from strongly opposed to strongly favor. You're sort of in the middle.
JUROR: I'm in the middle, yeah.
THE COURT: And then Question 90 on the next page, there's a series of propositions that go from opposition -- strong opposition to strongly in favor. And we asked you to pick the statement that might best capture your own point of view on this. And you've selected (d), which is, "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it, or I could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case." That's what you selected then. Does that -- today, that does seem to still be the way you would be on the scale of things?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You heard me this morning talk about how there would be a penalty phase and there would be presentations probably about aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Would you be able to listen to all that evidence and in the end decide which, assuming -- of course, you don't get to the penalty phase until you found the defendant guilty of intentional murder. That's the premise. Would you be able in the penalty phase then to consider all the aggravating, mitigating circumstances, anything else that seemed important to you and be able to choose in either direction depending on how you weighed the evidence?
JUROR: I could.
THE COURT: The bottom of 25, Question 95, and then 96 on the top of the next page, we asked first -- now, these are not about general views about the death penalty but kind of bring you to this case. If you found this defendant guilty and you decided that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You said "yes."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The other side of that is the next question. If you found him guilty and decided on the other hand that life imprisonment without possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote to impose that --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- punishment?
Okay. Anything? Mr. Mellin.
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case. I want to go right where Judge O'Toole was asking questions about the death penalty. If we can just kind of see if we can dig down a little bit on that. You say you were kind of not for it, not against it. But where -- when you think about it, I mean, what impressions do you have of the death penalty?
JUROR: I don't really have any. I mean, I could -- it doesn't bother me. I don't feel like -- I guess I don't feel like I'm the one that's sentencing somebody to death or prison for the rest of their life. It's their own actions that are determining that factor. If I'm following the law or whatever -- it's kind of the same thing with my job. I fire people, and they're, like, How can you do that to somebody? I'm, like, I didn't do that. They did that. They consciously made the effort to not come to work or to steal or be late or whatever. I feel the same way with being a juror, being told to follow the law and what I've heard, and I'll decide that by what I've heard in the courtroom.
MR. MELLIN: You've heard a little bit about how this process works. But if the jury does find the defendant guilty of one of these capital offenses, the jury would go on to decide whether it will be life imprisonment or death penalty; do you understand that?
JUROR: I do.
MR. MELLIN: So it really is going to be up to the jurors to make the call between does the evidence support the death penalty or does it support life imprisonment. And it's going to be a call that you will have to make. And if you believe that the aggravating factors sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factors to justify a sentence of death, would you actually be able to vote to sentence someone to death?
JUROR: I could.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
JUROR: You're welcome.
MS. CLARKE: Hi. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MS. CLARKE: You're a supervisor?
JUROR: I'm a general manager, supervisor.
MS. CLARKE: A big supervisor --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: -- of a good number of people, it sounded like. A jury, everybody is sort of equal. Have you thought about how that might work for you?
JUROR: No. I mean, I kind of almost prefer it. I don't like being the center of attention. I kind of actually like being -- it would be more comfortable for me actually.
MS. CLARKE: Can you help us understand that a little bit more? More comfortable --
JUROR: I took the position. It was offered to me. I actually said no six times to my boss. I didn't want the position. I didn't want the responsibility. I was kind of guilted, I guess, into it, but they didn't have anybody else that they felt comfortable doing it. I've had a problem with that decision since the day that I've taken the job. I've played the lottery more in the last year and a half then -- hoping for that retirement. It's not a comfortable position for me. It's -- so being level with everybody and equal with everybody is a lot more comfortable for me personally.
MS. CLARKE: Not having anybody to boss around?
JUROR: Right, or being responsible for somebody.
MS. CLARKE: Well, it's huge responsibility being on a jury deciding whether somebody is going to live or die based on their actions or not. How do you think you would cope with that responsibility?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: No. I think you can answer that. Go ahead if you're able to.
JUROR: Yeah. I don't feel like I would have an issue with it. I've done -- it hasn't been a death penalty case before, but I've been on a case before and I've had no problem.
MS. CLARKE: With your prior jury service? You said that was a positive experience, I think.
JUROR: Yeah. Actually, it's, like, when you were giving our instructions on day one, you have this sense of pride coming out of there, whatever, that you've done something very important. Somebody like myself, I haven't really gone to college. I was a waitress for years. I feel the same way when I come out of the voting booth every time I vote. It's something very important that I've done. It's probably one of the most important things that I will do in my life.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. At the restaurant, did your employees or coworkers, colleagues, talk about the Boston Marathon bombing when it happened?
JUROR: No. I work 20 miles out of the city. We were actually really busy. I was a waitress at the time. I was kind of like joking with my boss I wanted to go home. Boston was -- I live in Boston, and Boston was on lockdown. I'm, like, I have to go home. We're on lockdown. We were really busy. All the restaurants around rely on people coming from public transportation. It was shut down. We were already there and open. It's a breakfast restaurant so all -- we open at 7 a.m. We were all there at 6:00 in the morning. Yeah, we were busy. We were working.
MS. CLARKE: But you knew about it?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah.
MS. CLARKE: Over the course of time, have people there talked with you about it?
JUROR: No, not really.
MS. CLARKE: All right.
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Family or friends talk with you about the Marathon bombing?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Or any of the events of that week?
JUROR: No. I remember talking to my kids about it explaining situations with them. There was something else going on at UMass Boston when the bombing was all going on. I was a lot more concerned about what was going on there. I guess it ended up being like a -- I can't think of the word but an explosion of an AC unit or something.
MS. CLARKE: Oh.
JUROR: I have a brother that works over there, so I was more concerned about what was going on over there than what was actually going on in Downtown Boston.
MS. CLARKE: All right. You've just not had any conversations really about this case? I mean, before the judge instructed you.
JUROR: Before, yeah. I mean, maybe in general or something but not really. It didn't really -- I don't attend the Marathon. I don't go into Downtown Boston. I didn't know anybody that was affected from it. Maybe just in general. You know, I mean, just in general. Hey, did you hear what happened at the Marathon?, something like that.
MS. CLARKE: I think you said in the questionnaire that you'd read a moderate amount of the press coverage. That's Question 73 if you wanted to take a look. Can you tell us what stands out in your mind that you read about it?
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I object.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think so.
MR. WEINREB: We've already plowed this ground.
THE COURT: She's already indicated what her attention was to it. I think that's enough.
MS. CLARKE: You mentioned you went to Disney World, I guess the Florida --
JUROR: Right.
MS. CLARKE: -- version of it. And people commented on your Boston Strong shirt. What were those conversations like?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: You can summarize what people may have said.
JUROR: It was more or less, like, Oh, cool. Cool shirt. They would point or whatever. It was -- my boyfriend and I attended the concert together. It only stood out in my mind because I had worn it that day, and then the very next day, he wore his. I said, Oh, you just got jealous about all the attention I got yesterday from my shirt. But there were people, like, Cool shirt, high five. They'd walk by and be like, Hey.
MS. CLARKE: He did get the appropriate attention, I take it?
JUROR: He did.
MS. CLARKE: And was one up on you, I take it?
JUROR: Right.
MS. CLARKE: Let me go back to your job very quickly. You're a general manager. If you're in trial here for three or four months, do you get paid okay?
JUROR: You know, it's not something I discussed with my boss. She's not on-site. I'm the only one on-site. She knows about my service here. I just kind of, I guess, taken it into my own that we're here Monday through Thursday. I could really work Friday, Saturday, Sunday. And we're not here on holidays. Most of my job is, when everybody else isn't at work, that's when I work. I work weekends. I work holidays so -- and they'll have to cover, you know, or not cover, whatever.
MS. CLARKE: So you're not evaluating this as a hardship for you if you were to actually serve?
JUROR: No. I could probably squeeze in most of my hours with the schedule of the court.
MS. CLARKE: All right. Just one second, Judge.
Thank you very much.
JUROR: You're welcome.
THE COURT: That's it. Thank you. Just leave that there.
COURT CLERK: Juror 288. Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: Since you were here last, have you been able to follow the instructions not to discuss the case with anyone except to tell them you're here?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And also to avoid any media reports?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: So we have your questionnaire. That's the one you filled out. I'm going to follow up on some of the information you gave us. You can see I'm turned to the page where you've listed your employment. It looks like you're doing kind of two different jobs at the same time. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: You're a supermarket deli clerk, and you also do work as a massage therapist.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: How do you work that out?
JUROR: I work part time for both jobs. I'm subcontracted as a massage therapist.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
JUROR: It means that I can make my own hours, so, like, I -- basically I have a set schedule at Market Basket, and I work during, like, the mornings during the week. And then I massage on the weekends and some nights.
THE COURT: We had asked in Question 10, which is on Page 5, whether serving on a case of this length would represent any serious hardship to you including, of course, financial hardship. You said "no" there. But I notice later on, in answer to Question 75, which begins on Page 19 and then goes over, actually, to Page 27 where it's completed, we asked, when you got a summons for the jury service, what kinds of things did you say to others or they say to you. And you said, "I said that I couldn't believe you could be called for that long. How can anyone be without work for that long and still afford to pay rent and other bills?" And you said, "Others told me that this case would be part of history."
I guess the question is: Would you be impacted by the inability to earn enough to pay rent and other bills?
JUROR: To pay other bills, yes. But I'm lucky enough to live with my mom still, so I don't pay rent. I'm --
THE COURT: So I guess I'm trying to -- I take it that -- I think you said you're sort of a subcontractor as a massage therapist, so you get paid for the services. You give somebody a massage. Then you get a payment for that. So it's, as you work, you get paid. If you don't work, you presumably don't get paid.
JUROR: Don't get paid.
THE COURT: At the supermarket, are you an hourly employee?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So it would be pretty much the same thing?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: If you work, you get paid; if you don't, you don't?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: I understand, for both kinds of jobs, you could have, say, hours other than 9 to 5 on a regular basis, either evenings and weekend. What I'm trying to get at is how much of a burden it would be for you to be asked to serve on this case. We don't want somebody to take a serious financial hit in order to serve on the case. But you're the best one to tell us how tough it would be.
JUROR: The only reason that it wouldn't be hard for me is because I could still work weekends. I can make my own hours with the massage. So that's helpful for me. But it obviously, like, even just coming in for jury duty has been hard. Like, I didn't really make enough money in the past month to pay my bills, so I had to borrow from my mom. But --
THE COURT: Well, you had told us you didn't think it was a hardship.
JUROR: I shouldn't have wrote that.
THE COURT: It seems like it might be, and so I'm just trying to -- but you're the one that's going to feel it. I just --
JUROR: I'm already feeling it.
THE COURT: I guess is that a reason why this isn't the case for you? Or do you think you could do it and --
JUROR: I don't know. I think that I could probably handle it because I could continue to work. I just, like --
THE COURT: Here's what we don't want. We don't want you to get six weeks into the case and then say, I've got to go.
JUROR: Yeah. Well --
THE COURT: You know? But you're the best judge of that. We're hearing what you say, but you've got to be the one that says, That's too much for me or I can handle that. And it's --
JUROR: I think that the hardest part right now is not knowing when I have to be here so I can't, like, tell my boss.
THE COURT: We're in this process where it's not regulated.
JUROR: I had to call out three days this week because we were supposed to be here Monday and then Tuesday.
THE COURT: Blame Mother Nature.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: That would be -- it would be a different story once you were on a regular schedule and you could predict that --
JUROR: Yeah, because I --
THE COURT: -- you have to be in court Monday through Thursday next week?
JUROR: Only because I could tell them, and then I could work opposite from when I was here.
THE COURT: Okay. You use Facebook, it says, weekly.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Compared to some people, that's not that much, I guess. What do you do on Facebook?
JUROR: Just, like, checking on people.
THE COURT: Do much posting yourself?
JUROR: Not really. Sometimes. I like to post pictures.
THE COURT: You have an uncle who's a police officer?
JUROR: He was. He's retired.
THE COURT: Or was. I see. Where was he a police officer?
JUROR: In Amesbury, Massachusetts.
THE COURT: How long did he do that?
JUROR: I'm not really that sure. It was, like, his career so --
THE COURT: And he retired, I guess, 2012? That's what you put on the --
JUROR: I'm pretty sure it was 2012.
THE COURT: Is he doing anything now?
JUROR: No. He's in Florida.
THE COURT: So if you'd look at Page 20, Question 77, near the top, in this we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the news media or from other sources, had you -- at the time you filled out this form, the questionnaire, had you formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty or not guilty and then whether he should receive the death penalty or not receive the death penalty. Let's take the (a) and (b) part first. You said "unsure" as to whether you had formed an opinion that he was guilty or that he was not guilty. Can you explain what you were thinking when you chose "unsure" as your answer?
JUROR: I wasn't really -- like, I haven't seen that much about it in the news. I was in Virginia. I was living down there when it happened. And so I, like, didn't have internet or cable, so I didn't actually hear that much about it. And so I really don't know. Like, I didn't follow the case. I didn't pay attention to it.
THE COURT: Did you know that had happened?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Even though you don't know that much?
JUROR: I knew that happened. My brother was in Boston when it happened.
THE COURT: Okay. Were the news reports carried in Virginia about it?
JUROR: I'm sure they were. But, like I say, I didn't have cable.
THE COURT: I see. So you understand that in our criminal justice system a person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of the crime unless and until the government proves that he's guilty of it by evidence at the trial that convinces the jury that, in fact, he committed the crime charged and that they're convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to faithfully apply those principles, hold the government to its burden of proof?
JUROR: I think so.
THE COURT: And if the government failed in its burden of proof as to any of the charges, would you be able to find the defendant not guilty?
JUROR: I think so.
THE COURT: I just want to -- before moving to some other questions, at the bottom of the page, you say your brother was at the Red Sox game. I presume you mean the day of the Marathon.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: When he heard what happened.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: First of all, how do you know that?
JUROR: Because he told me.
THE COURT: When?
JUROR: Because he's my brother. Recently. I actually didn't even know.
THE COURT: He didn't tell you at the time?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: He didn't say, You won't believe what happened today?
JUROR: No. I actually heard from my mom.
THE COURT: Did he tell you anything about things he saw, heard?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about attitudes towards the death penalty, and they begin on Page 23, at No. 88. That's a general question. If you have any views about the death penalty in general, what are they? And you wrote, "I don't agree with the death penalty." Is that a fair statement?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything you want to add to that as a general proposition, what you think generally about it?
JUROR: I just think that -- I don't really know. The death penalty is, like -- I don't know. I just feel like when people serve, like, a sentence in jail, they actually have to deal with what they did. And the death penalty is kind of like getting them out of that. They don't have to, like, sit there and think about it.
THE COURT: So your opposition is not because you think it's --
JUROR: Cruel.
THE COURT: -- unusually cruel?
JUROR: Well, it is cruel but --
THE COURT: But that's not the basis of your reservation? Your reservation is that isn't severe enough?
You have to answer verbally for the court reporter. You can't shake your head.
JUROR: It isn't severe enough.
THE COURT: In Question 89 we asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10, strongly oppose; 10 is strongly favor. You selected 2.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is that put -- you think that gets the flavor of your opposition?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: If you look at Page 24, Question 90, we asked if you would agree with one of the statements that had different positions about the death penalty and what might happen. You chose (c). "I am opposed to the death penalty but I could vote to impose it if I believe the facts and the law in the particular case called for it."
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Does that accurately sum up your view about it?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: While you were opposed to it and have some --
JUROR: I guess, like -- is it okay if I --
THE COURT: Yes, go ahead. I want to hear from you.
JUROR: I understand that in some cases the death penalty, like, should be used. I just like -- I feel like some people, like, don't -- I don't know. I don't really know how to explain it. Like, it's not that, like, I think the death penalty isn't, like, severe enough. I think that, like, it's allowing them to, like -- it's, like, escape -- I don't know how to say it. But I do believe that, like, I could, like -- I don't know.
THE COURT: Well --
JUROR: I get really nervous talking in front of people.
THE COURT: Understandable. Let me ask you this: Is this something that you -- your position on the death penalty is something you had thought of before we asked you these questions or --
JUROR: Not really.
THE COURT: -- is this something you were reacting to when you filled out the questionnaire?
JUROR: I was reacting to it when I filled it out.
THE COURT: Not having thought about it much before?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Have you thought about it much since filling out the questionnaire?
JUROR: A little bit, not that much.
THE COURT: One thing -- that's why I guess we're asking the questions whether this really does represent your views. I mean, we understand the circumstances under which you are asked to do this, to fill out the questionnaire. Has your thinking changed in any way from, say, letter (c) -- why don't you look at it -- which is the one you selected? And if it has changed, if you'd tell us how. And if it hasn't, that's fine, too. You can tell us that.
Actually, as do you that, you might look at some of the others as well. Don't just focus on that. Review them and see if that still does best represent where you think you are.
JUROR: I think that I could change that to (d).
THE COURT: (d)?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: (d) is, "I am not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it" --
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: -- "or vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release, whichever I believe was called for by the facts and the law of the case"?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You think that's a better statement of your views than (c)?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you heard me this morning describe the so-called penalty phase, potential penalty phase of a death penalty case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: This morning?
Of course, you only get to the penalty phase if you've convicted the person of intentional murder.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: So if (d) is your view, then is it the case that you would make the decision between the alternatives: on the one hand, the possibility of a sentence of death; on the other hand, the possibility of a sentence of life without possibility of release? You'd make that decision, evaluating the evidences in the penalty phase, and go where you were led by that evidence?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any reservations about that?
JUROR: Honestly, like, the whole thing makes me kind of nervous. I don't --
THE COURT: Yeah. It's serious issues.
JUROR: I don't want to be the -- you know, I don't know. I feel like anybody -- nobody wants to be the person to, like, put somebody to death, you know.
THE COURT: Well, let's turn to the next page, 25, on that subject. The question at the bottom of the page, 95, if you found the defendant guilty and if you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for it? That brings up what you were just talking about. You said "yes" then. Are you less sure now?
JUROR: I'm a little bit less sure. I think, like, I could do it.
THE COURT: Reluctantly?
JUROR: No, I don't think it would be reluctant, you know, depending on, like, the evidence.
THE COURT: We asked the other side of that question at the top of the next page. If you found him guilty and you decided life imprisonment without possibility of release was appropriate as punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for that? And you said "yes" to that as well.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Any reservations about that?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Just a few questions. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just wanted to follow up on a couple things. First, can you just clarify, when were you living in Virginia?
JUROR: I was there in 2012 and the beginning to, like, middle of 2013.
MR. WEINREB: And then you moved back?
JUROR: Yeah. I was basically -- like, I lived down there with my ex-boyfriend. We were on his family farm. So I wasn't, like, really living there, but I was down there.
MR. WEINREB: Since you've moved back, you've been here?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. WEINREB: On the issue of the death penalty, if I could turn you back to your answer to 88 for a minute. So for a bit there, I thought I understood what you were saying, but now I'm not so sure based on what you said later. So let me just ask you again. So you wrote, "I don't agree with the death penalty." And I thought I heard you say that you don't agree with it because you think that it's not a harsh enough punishment.
But then later on you talked about how -- it sounded like the reason you would be -- you were saying that you would be hesitant to impose the death penalty is that because it is a harsh sentence.
JUROR: Well, of course, it's harsh, but it's harsh for, like, me to say, like, that you should be sentenced to death. But I almost feel like it's not harsh enough for the person that's committed the crime. I don't think that really makes sense, but --
MR. WEINREB: Is life imprisonment harsher?
JUROR: I believe so.
MR. WEINREB: But you said you would have no problem imposing a sentence of life imprisonment, but you would have a problem imposing a sentence of death?
JUROR: No. I said "yes" to both.
MR. WEINREB: I thought just now you said you were -- you said that -- well, let me ask you: So you think that they're both -- are they equally bad, or is one harsher than the other?
JUROR: I think that, like, for a person to serve life in prison, it's harsher for them because they have to deal with their consequences. But, like, for the community, it's harsher for the death penalty.
MR. WEINREB: And what about for you?
JUROR: I think that serving life in prison is harsher because you have to deal with what you did.
MR. WEINREB: I guess I don't mean how do you feel about it.
MR. BRUCK: I think we've covered this. I object to going over this.
THE COURT: I don't know. Let me hear the question. We have been over the territory, but maybe this is a new question. I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: I guess what I'm trying to understand is -- the judge explained that at the sentencing phase you weigh aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors are factors the government believes justify a sentence of death, and mitigating factors are factors that the defense believes justify a sentence of life imprisonment instead of death.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: So if you found that the aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors, so this was a particularly heinous crime, would you be more inclined to impose a life sentence because that's the harsher sentence in your view?
JUROR: No, because that's -- the death penalty is what is, like -- what is -- like, that's what the charges are -- the consequence of the charge is the death penalty. I, like, agree with that. I agree with our government.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So if I understand you correctly, your understanding of the -- of the sentencing phase is that society considers the death penalty worse than --
MR. BRUCK: I object to this. We're getting into the same area again.
THE COURT: Well, yeah, yeah. I think we should leave it.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So let me return for a minute to another question and make sure I understood your answer to that correctly. One of the things you said in your follow-up is that -- to Question 19 -- so this is on your Page 27, the very last page -- well, the second-to-last page, I guess.
So you talked about that your sibling helped you grow into a compassionate, honest, loving person, all of which are qualities that I'm sure you bring to whatever you do.
MR. BRUCK: I object to -- this isn't a question.
THE COURT: Yeah. Get a question.
MR. WEINREB: And the question is: Would those qualities, in your mind, impair your ability to actually sentence someone to death --
MR. BRUCK: Objection.
MR. WEINREB: -- if you believed that the facts of the case justified a death sentence?
THE COURT: No. You can answer that.
JUROR: I'm not really sure.
MR. WEINREB: So it's possible that you could decide that the facts justified a death sentence, but you wouldn't be able to do it?
MR. BRUCK: This is leading.
THE COURT: That was leading.
MR. BRUCK: I think we've been over this.
THE COURT: You don't have to answer.
MR. WEINREB: So let me just ask you again then. If the facts justified a death sentence and -- in your mind, and after -- would you actually be able to do it, to sentence someone to death knowing that that was something you could never take back and that you and the 11 other people would be responsible for his receiving the death penalty?
THE COURT: That's too argumentative, I think.
This really comes back to Question 95 and we talked a little bit about when I asked you. If you found this defendant guilty of a capital crime and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate sentence, could you conscientiously vote for it? On the form you said "yes." Earlier here this afternoon you indicated that maybe you weren't sure. I think maybe people are wondering where you end up having thought about that a little bit. Are you a yes or are you a not sure or are you a no?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
THE COURT: You're a not sure. Okay. I think we'll leave it at that.
MR. WEINREB: Thanks very much.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: I just want to clarify the last thing we talked about just so I'm sure we're talking about apples and apples.
I'm David Bruck, by the way. I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's attorneys.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: I just want to be sure that the judge and everybody understands -- that we all understand your feelings about the death penalty. I know this is all a new subject, so it's not surprising that it's hard. But I think the question that everyone really is asking you in different ways is, if you heard all of the evidence, all of the reason in favor of the death penalty, all of the evidence in favor of life imprisonment, and you -- you yourself came to the conclusion that the death penalty was the right sentence, could you go ahead and vote for the death penalty based on your conclusion that it was the right thing to do?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
MR. BRUCK: When you say you're not sure, is that because you don't know what the evidence is or is it because you don't know if you could vote for the death penalty even if you decided that it was right?
JUROR: I really just, like -- I don't know if it's the evidence or if it's just that I couldn't -- like, I don't know if I could handle that. I just don't know.
MR. BRUCK: Then is it something that you wouldn't know until you got in the situation?
JUROR: Maybe.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. That's everybody who's asked --
THE COURT: Yeah. The answer was "maybe," which is probably the best answer.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. But you've told us that the death penalty is not something you oppose --
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Leading.
MR. BRUCK: That's all.
THE COURT: I think we're done. Thank you very much. Just leave the clip there.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 292.