Day 14 - February 5, 2015

Judge O'Toole explained that jurors would decide guilt first and consider capital punishment only after a capital conviction. He described the different proof requirements for aggravating and mitigating factors, the unanimity required for death, and the principle that a death sentence is never required. Prospective jurors also received instructions on public questioning, sensitive personal information, and avoiding outside influence. Individual questioning addressed publicity, existing beliefs about guilt, capital-punishment views, law-enforcement connections, and financial hardship. Juror No. 306 expressed difficulty setting aside a media-based belief in guilt; counsel later reported an agreement without stating its terms. Juror No. 324 asked to be shown that his existing belief in guilt was wrong and agreed that this placed the burden on the defendant. Other jurors expressed moral or religious opposition to death or uncertainty about personally voting for it. The judge limited some questioning and required certain questions to be rephrased. Lost-income concerns led him to decline to ask Juror No. 299 to serve and to excuse Juror No. 311. At sidebar, the judge denied the hardship challenge to Juror No. 314 amid a disputed claim of an excusal agreement. He reserved decision on Juror No. 318 and requested social-media material the defense believed concerned her husband. The defense sought to retain Juror No. 324 despite guilt bias, linking that choice to venue concerns and perceived favorability on punishment. The judge rejected the asserted tradeoff, found the answers unreliable, and excused him. Jurors Nos. 323, 328, and 337 were also excused. The defense preserved a constitutional objection concerning economic-status differences after Juror No. 328's hardship excusal.