2.Individual Voir Dire — Impartiality, Hardship, and Death-Penalty Views (Part 1)
888 linesCOURT CLERK: Juror No. 299.
COURT CLERK: Juror 299.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case with anybody and also to avoid, as much as possible, any news accounts about the case?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire that you filled out, and we're going to follow up on some of the answers you've given and get a little more information.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let me ask you -- first of all, you tell us that your wife is a nurse. I'm just curious where she works.
JUROR: She works at MIT.
THE COURT: Is there a health clinic there or --
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Was she working there at the time of the Marathon events?
JUROR: That's correct, yup.
THE COURT: You know that one of the charges in the case involves the death of an MIT police officer?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Do you know of her connection with the MIT police in any way? Does she interact with the MIT police force?
JUROR: Just the average worker, just going to work, nothing outside of the conventional means of seeing police officers working and --
THE COURT: I mean, one thing that may occur is somebody gets injured or something, the police might escort the person to the clinic and interact that way. Do you know if she has that kind of interaction?
JUROR: Not that I know of, unfortunately.
THE COURT: How long has she been at MIT?
JUROR: For close to five years.
THE COURT: As far as you know, did she have any personal relationship with the officer who was killed?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Actually, I should ask that a little bit different. I asked "as far as you know." Do you know that she didn't?
JUROR: I know that she did not.
THE COURT: Would her employment by MIT affect you in any way if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So let me ask about your own employment. I have to confess I had a little difficulty reading the handwriting. I'm looking at Page 10. It's Question 26, is where we asked for the employment. Looks like, on the first two lines, mental health staff?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Tell us about what you do and for whom.
JUROR: During the time, I worked as a mental health counselor for mentally retarded clients, and they range from the ages of, like, 25 to 60. So these are individuals with -- who have Down Syndrome, Klinefelter Syndrome, and the likes. And they just need assistance with their ADLs.
THE COURT: ADL, activities of daily life?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: The employer on the first line, I can't read.
JUROR: MAB Community Services.
THE COURT: What is that?
JUROR: Mass. Association For the Blind Community Services.
THE COURT: You're currently working there?
JUROR: I work as a per diem staff there, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. As per diem, how often per week do you work?
JUROR: I have not been picking up shifts from there.
THE COURT: Have not?
JUROR: No. The last time I picked up a shift was over two months ago.
THE COURT: Okay. So on Question 27, looks like you have two other things going. One is you're an Uber driver, which is interesting. You're our first Uber driver.
JUROR: Awesome. It's snowing outside. I wish I could be outside driving.
THE COURT: Would you be surging?
JUROR: Yes, yes. It's killing me. It's killing me so --
THE COURT: But -- so how much time per week do you do that?
JUROR: Seventy hours a week.
THE COURT: That's a lot.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: On a daily basis, what is the time you usually do?
JUROR: 3 a.m. in the morning up until around noontime. Then I come back around 4:00 and then until everything dies down and then do it again and again and again.
THE COURT: What's, under 27, the first entry?
JUROR: It's a start-up company that I'm currently working on right now. It's a financial tech company. I have a background in entrepreneurship, so that's what I'm doing right now.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me bring you back to Question 10 on Page 5 where we set out the schedule in the case, which we plan to, once we get going with the actual presentation of the case, would be a Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., four days a week, Fridays off, of course, weekends. How would that affect your ability to earn a living, I guess, is the best way to put it?
JUROR: Yeah. So the majority of the -- the thing of this, the majority of the time that I do, like, there's morning rush hour right at 9:00. It kind of dies, like, right around that time. So in order to get here on time, I have to actually kill an hour off my time. I also pick up my daughter from school at 4:00. There's a window of 30 minutes. She's in Dorchester. So from here and there, depending on how traffic is, I might get late. So I usually pick her up and then transfer her to my wife in Cambridge, who's coming halfway, and then I hit the road, you know. That's usually how I do it. So that's a challenge. The $34 parking is just not fun.
THE COURT: You'll get reimbursed for the parking. That's not the biggest issue. The issue is how much it would affect your life generally, I guess, on that kind of a schedule but also --
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- but also your pocket book.
JUROR: It will diminish my income because I do work with Uber. That would diminish my income. That would cut at least a good 20, 30 hours a week of my time. So that's going to be challenging, so for -- that's one of the reasons why, financially, I would opt not to be here, you know, because I've got to pay the bills.
THE COURT: That's why I'm asking the questions.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: There are some burdens that are tolerable. This is going to last for a while. And there are some that are pretty serious. So we really rely on you to tell us. If it's a kind of thing that you could tolerate for three or four months, that's one thing. But if you think it would be a significant hit, then we don't want to make people do that.
JUROR: Correct. One of the things that -- I have a 2015 car. It's a brand-new car. It's a pretty expensive bill. Everybody has nice cars with Uber, but they've got to pay the bill, and that's why I have to be on the road for so long. At first it was, like, okay, yeah.
THE COURT: I think it's too -- maybe the parties agree. I think we would be asking too much of you to ask you to sit on this case.
JUROR: Definitely.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 303.
COURT CLERK: Juror 303.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instruction to avoid any discussion of the case other than to tell people where you're going?
JUROR: Right. I've done the best that I can. I work in PR, so the industry kind of forces me to look at the news. But I didn't read any articles, but I saw some headlines every now and then.
THE COURT: Thank you. That's the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to follow up with some further questions.
Let me ask, on Page 6, Question 13, you said your wife is a Ph.D. student.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What's her field?
JUROR: Psychology. She's completing her dissertation now. She should be done in the spring on -- psychology is what she's doing.
THE COURT: Where is she studying?
JUROR: URI, University of Rhode Island.
THE COURT: As to yourself, you're -- you just said public relations, I guess, senior account executive. Tell us what your work is like.
JUROR: Sure. So work is different every day, obviously, as you can expect. So I work for -- can I say who I work for?
THE COURT: It's up to you.
JUROR: I work for a local firm in Boston, in the healthcare and life science industry. Basically work with a lot of local companies in the area and nationwide to help them generate awareness about their products or experts, physicians, whoever they are.
THE COURT: The form indicates you supervise other employees.
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: How many?
JUROR: It varies on every account so every client that I have. No less than probably, say, six.
THE COURT: Okay. I guess, inevitably, you use various social media.
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: Do you use it both personally and for business?
JUROR: I do, yes.
THE COURT: Does the company have a website, I presume?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And you post there, or are you active on the company website?
JUROR: They do have a blog, a company blog, which we are asked to provide blogs every now and then, probably once a quarter, if so, but they do have a social media, which we're active in as well.
THE COURT: So this is Question 30 on Page 11. You say you use Facebook rarely, Instagram daily, Twitter weekly.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And Google Plus rarely.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are those all a mix of business and personal?
JUROR: Correct, yes. Usually I use social for my own personal and then business for clients, pages or whatever they have.
THE COURT: So let me turn to Page 19. In Question 74, we asked what you thought or felt when you got the summons for this case. And you said, "Optimistic and intrigued." Would you tell us about those --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- reactions?
JUROR: Optimistic. I mean, any time -- I've been called for jury once more. It was probably about six or seven years ago. And it was an interesting experience. I wasn't sure I was going to hear anything. But I feel like any time you're chosen to do something like this in this country, to remain optimistic is probably your best bet. A lot of people, when they're called for jury duty, aren't excited about it and -- I'm sorry to say this in front of you but -- thank you.
THE COURT: You think I don't know?
(Laughter.)
JUROR: I'm sure that you do. I try to keep an open mind about it. Once I found out which trial it was, I was very intrigued, obviously. So that's -- those are my answers.
THE COURT: In the answer to your next question, you said your wife expressed her concern if you were on this case.
JUROR: She did. We live in the area, and she was just concerned about family well-being. If I would be gone for a good amount of time, obviously, you know, how we would care for a child. We have a daughter. She's 14 months old. And also just she expresses -- expressed -- how do I say -- interest in security as well, the safety of our family and me as well so --
THE COURT: Do you have those concerns?
JUROR: Not really, but I understand where she's coming from. I would probably have those concerns for her but not for myself.
THE COURT: Okay. We had set out earlier in the questionnaire the schedule we're going to follow. Basically four-day workweek generally, typically Monday through Thursday, 9 to 4 would be the jurors' time commitment here. I'm thinking in particular of child care. That is manageable for you in child care?
JUROR: That would be fine, yes. Just wasn't sure if we were going to be asked to be taken away basically.
THE COURT: Jurors sometimes have that question about sequestration. I'm not sure where it comes from. We rarely sequester jurors. There's no plan to sequester jurors in this case.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's turn to Page 20, Question 77. In this question we asked whether you had formed any opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not and, if so, what punishment might be imposed. We gave a choice of yes, no, and unsure. You selected "unsure" for each of those.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why you chose that answer?
JUROR: You know, I was around on that day. I was at work, obviously.
THE COURT: Which is where? What town?
JUROR: In Boston, Downtown Boston. So I, you know, heard what I've been in front of, basically some of the media and talks and just being around. But if it were to come down to a certain decision that I would have to make, I'm not positive that I could make one over the other. So I said "unsure" because at that point I didn't know. You know, after all of this time, a month after, and talking about it, I'm still a little weary about which choice I would make, but I am leaning in one area. I understand that there is, you know, things to be heard, facts to be presented and everything, but even with all of that, I'm slightly confident that I would go one way over the other.
THE COURT: I'm not sure I know what you mean. Since then you would -- would you change any of those answers?
JUROR: Probably.
THE COURT: What would you change?
JUROR: So what page is it on?
THE COURT: It's on 20.
JUROR: And it was No. 77?
THE COURT: Yeah. It was, as you see, a four-part.
JUROR: So Part (c) and (d), which were kind of -- seemed like the same question, just opposite. Would you like me to tell you how I would --
THE COURT: Let me first focus on (a) and (b) if we could.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Which asked whether you formed an opinion about whether he's guilty or not. As I'm sure you know, in a criminal prosecution, a defendant is presumed to be innocent unless the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at the trial.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: So the burden of proof of guilt would rest with the government; and if the government, to your satisfaction, persuades you beyond a reasonable doubt that, as a matter of fact, the defendant is guilty of one or more of the crimes he's charged with, then, of course, you would be justified in returning -- voting for a guilty verdict. But if the government failed to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the counts, then your duty would be, if you were not so convinced, to return a not guilty verdict. Would you be able to do that in this case?
JUROR: I think I would, yes.
THE COURT: So let's -- the other two questions relate to the -- your attitude toward the death penalty. And we have some other questions directed to that beginning at Page 23, so let's perhaps turn to those.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: So at Question 88, we asked -- you can take the clip off. We asked a general question. If you had any views about the death penalty, in general, what are they? And you wrote that you "don't feel I could or have the right to take someone's life." And you said, "I would not sentence anyone with the death penalty but then again I have never been in this position."
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: I guess you sort of indicated something similar now.
Does that still represent your general view about the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: Do you want to add to that at all or alter it in any way?
JUROR: No. I mean, it's basically what I was alluding to in the previous question. Just if it were to come down to that, for me, personally, I don't think --
THE COURT: Keep your voice up, please.
JUROR: Sure, sorry. I don't agree -- I don't think, for me, I would be able to do something like that, make that decision.
THE COURT: In Question 89, we asked you to put it on a numerical scale where you were from strongly opposed to strongly favor. You're not quite at the polar end but you're pretty close.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Would that still be your answer to Question 89?
JUROR: Most likely, yes. It would not change.
THE COURT: And then on Question 90, on the next page, we asked you to consider various formulations of attitudes and select what best represented your feelings about the death penalty in a case involving someone who is guilty of murder. And you actually circled two. I presume that indicated some ambivalence between the two?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You want to explain?
JUROR: I apologize for circling two. I understand that you wanted one.
When I came in that day -- I think it was January 5th -- I was taken aback and very off my game here. I didn't actually expect it to be the -- this trial. So I was obviously a bit unsure, unbalanced here for this Question 90. But, you know, unfortunately, having time to think about it, I agree with my (b). So if I could take (c) away, I would. But I just wanted to express and tell you why.
THE COURT: So (b) says that you're opposed to the death penalty, as you've said, and would have a difficult time voting to impose it even if the facts supported it. That's what your self-assessment would be, is that right?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: I guess the question is whether you could meaningfully consider the possibility of voting for the death penalty and act on that consideration if you thought it was an appropriate sentence given the facts of the case.
JUROR: Do you think I could or not?
THE COURT: I'm asking you if you could meaningfully consider the possibility of a death sentence.
JUROR: I don't know. I don't think I could.
THE COURT: We also asked you on Page 25 at the bottom of 95, "If you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty?" You said, "No." It sounds like that's what you're saying today.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. BRUCK: If I could. Thank you. Good morning.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. I just want to follow up on the discussion you just had with Judge O'Toole about the death penalty.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: And I'm not going to go over what you already said because I understand where you're coming from.
Remember when everyone came in and you filled out the forms and before that the judge gave you a talk about the jury system, all of you, and at the end, he said, "We need your help"? Do you remember that?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: And this morning he told you, Both the government and the defendant are entitled to a jury that does not have its mind firmly made up before hearing any of the evidence, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh, correct.
MR. BRUCK: Well, that's sort of the premise that I want to look at this. It sounds to me like the death penalty is way out of your comfort zone.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: But the question is whether jurors, when they're asked to do so, are capable of going out of their comfort zone and giving both sides a fair trial whether they want to or not. Now, if they're not, fine. But if you are, we need you to tell us that.
JUROR: Sure. To be honest, I don't think I am comfortable with the other choice that we would have.
MR. BRUCK: Just so I'm sure -- I get that you're not comfortable. The question is could you do it in an appropriate case?
JUROR: I don't believe that I could. I'm sorry.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
THE COURT: Anything? No. Thank you very much.
JUROR: Thank you.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, before the next juror comes in, Mr. Bruck formulated that last series of questions first citing to something that you had instructed the jurors when they first came in on January 5th, that quote, "We need your help." Yesterday he formulated a similar question, following it up immediately with a plea to a juror, somebody who has evidenced they're anti-death penalty bias, in order to basically plead with the person as if to say, We need your help.
That context, even those aren't the words that he asked of the juror, they were virtually the same when he asks basically, Can you weigh both of the positions and give meaningful consideration in the context of "we need your help." I think it's an objectionable question. I think that it's confusing in front of this juror, for example, who clearly was prepared to have raised it.
But that concern, it's a real one, and I think, going forward, we don't want to be objecting to legitimate questions to tease out whether somebody is a Witherspoon precluded juror. But, conversely, it ought not be done in a way that suggests to a juror that one side or another really wants a specific juror.
MR. BRUCK: I was using the Court's words. We early on asked that the Court not, in effect, tell the jury about their -- the fact that the system needs their help. The Court ruled otherwise. And I think it's perfectly appropriate to invoke the Court's language. It was balanced. I was saying, If you can't, tell us that. But if you can, jurors are supposed to go out of their comfort zone if they can.
THE COURT: Well, I do think the context is a little bit different from the general address that I gave to the group as a whole. This is kind of saying, "you," we need you as an individual juror. And it's a little pushy, I think.
I will say this: The juror will give an answer, and it will be evaluated by me as to whether it truly represents the juror's condition or not. So it's not necessarily that the answer automatically, to use that word, would control the outcome.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 306.
COURT CLERK: Juror 306.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also, as much as possible, to avoid any media accounts of the matters at hand?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
JUROR: Somewhat here and there but I haven't --
THE COURT: You have --
JUROR: I've seen things.
THE COURT: You get exposed to things. What we ask is that you put them aside.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: So tell us about your employment. You're a financial/operations analyst.
JUROR: Yup, for a consulting group in Boston so --
THE COURT: So what's the nature of what you do?
JUROR: Well, I'm starting a new job this week, actually, so it's actually inconvenient that I'm picked for this jury. Before I was doing healthcare claims, operations work. This new job I have is it's more of a financial analyst role so --
THE COURT: Well, is it for the same employer?
JUROR: Yeah, same employer, different side of the office.
THE COURT: What is the -- your current job entail?
JUROR: A financial analyst?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: I'm basically doing bank recs and cash receipts and stuff like, reporting and data entry. It's my first job out of college, so there's a lot of data entry work.
THE COURT: And you said something about you being concerned about it, service on the case.
JUROR: Yeah. Just because this is my first week in the job, and I kind of want to get acclimated, and it's kind of a hindrance to that so --
THE COURT: How serious a problem is it?
JUROR: I don't know. I feel like, if I were to have a option, I'd feel like I would rather be at the office. That's my first job.
THE COURT: Has anybody, any supervisor or anything, said something to you about being, say, disappointed that you have --
JUROR: No, no.
THE COURT: We've asked everybody about their use of social media, and you list Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, LinkedIn, those --
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: LinkedIn, I presume, is professionally related?
JUROR: Yup, yeah.
THE COURT: The others, personal or professional or both?
JUROR: Personal, yeah, personal.
THE COURT: So let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77, near the top. So in that question we asked, as you filled out the questionnaire, whether at that time you had formed an opinion about various matters including whether the defendant was guilty or not and, if so, what penalty might be imposed. And you answered that you had formed an opinion that he was guilty, and you are unsure about the penalty.
And then below that, we asked you, if you had answered yes to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt or punishment solely on the evidence presented in court, and you said "able." Could you tell us a little bit why you made those selections?
JUROR: At the time -- so I believe he's guilty to this day, but at the time of the questionnaire, I was unsure if, you know -- I still don't know if I think the death penalty is the correct option. As I stated, I think, somewhere else, I truly believe that in a sense that it could be the easy way out for the defendant. He could may want that. So that's why I said that.
But as far as this next part, again, at the time I said -- I thought about it a lot since I did this questionnaire. I don't know if I would be able to say he's not guilty. I think, no matter what, he's guilty, no matter what. As far as the death penalty, though, I still -- I wouldn't have an issue, you know, agreeing to the death penalty, but, yeah, it's the easy-way-out thing. I'm not sure. That's the main thing for me.
THE COURT: Well, let me --
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, I think we have --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: We're not agreed.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. BRUCK: We are not.
THE COURT: So let me ask you about forming -- of course, there's been a lot in the news about this event. Where were you when it occurred?
JUROR: I was in school at Bryant University.
THE COURT: In Rhode Island?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you follow it then?
JUROR: What's that?
THE COURT: You followed the news accounts of --
JUROR: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: So it's not surprising that people have impressions about the issues in the case. In any criminal prosecution, though, we proceed in accordance with some principles of laws, one of which is that the defendant is presumed to be innocent unless the government proves at trial that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: I understand that, yeah.
THE COURT: And so we ask jurors to focus on the evidence presented at the trial and decide whether that evidence convicts the defendant or not and not some other information that is different from the evidence.
So the question is whether, as a juror, you would be able to listen to the evidence presented in the course of the case and decide whether that evidence is --
JUROR: I honestly -- I could listen to it, but I honestly don't think that I could actually believe that that would be true and to follow along with saying he's not guilty. I know for a fact -- not for a fact, obviously, but I've formed my own opinion that he is guilty just by watching everything that happened, when it was happening, and just how much news coverage it got and stuff, but -- at this time, when I was doing this, the whole death penalty, life-in-prison thing, I'm still unsure. I was unsure about it. But as far as being guilty, I'm confident in my belief that he is, and I don't know if I could --
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: Could you let us confer for a moment?
THE COURT: Yeah.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. CLARKE: I think we're agreed, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
JUROR: Thanks.
[REDACTED]
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 308.
[REDACTED]
COURT CLERK: Juror 308.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning. How are you?
THE COURT: Good. Thank you for being here again.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case in substance other than to tell people where you're going?
JUROR: Yes. It's been difficult but, yes.
THE COURT: Why? Have people tried to talk to you about it?
JUROR: They'll just start talking in general, but, really, I just exit the room or ask them to stop.
THE COURT: Also, have you been trying to avoid any media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. I just want to follow up on a couple of the matters that you gave us in there. Tell us a little bit about your employment. You're running a program at Northeastern?
JUROR: Yes. I'm an associate director of a youth program. It's called YDIP, Youth Development Initiative Project. It's at Northeastern University. And we work with 20 families to sort of help them be -- have better parenting skills so that their kids could be successful.
THE COURT: What are the ages of the kids? Any age?
JUROR: Right now -- it's a cohort. So we start with sixth graders and follow them up until they graduate, twelfth grade.
THE COURT: How long have you been doing that?
JUROR: Five months.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Just started.
THE COURT: But you were at Northeastern before that in another capacity?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What were you doing then?
JUROR: I was working for the Public Safety Division at the time. It's now labeled "police department."
THE COURT: I see. What did you do for the Public Safety Department?
JUROR: I was a community service officer, also a dispatcher.
THE COURT: Two different job descriptions?
JUROR: It falls within the criteria, but if you get the training to become a dispatcher, then you're -- it's essentially an additional responsibility to the community service officer.
THE COURT: Tell me about the community service officer part.
JUROR: We patrol and maintain the safety of campus, and at times we have to work the front desk, call taking, taking emergency calls.
THE COURT: Is it a uniformed position? You wear a police uniform?
JUROR: Security.
THE COURT: Security. Police like?
JUROR: Yes, police like.
THE COURT: Carry a weapon?
JUROR: Yes, mace and baton, expandable baton.
THE COURT: How long did you do that?
JUROR: Five years.
THE COURT: You were actually doing that around the time -- during the time of the events of the Marathon, right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I think you said someplace that you were actually working dispatch at least at the end of that week.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Were you involved in some way in what was unfolding --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- as the dispatcher?
JUROR: The day of the capture, I was dispatching for 16 hours.
THE COURT: Do you remember particular things about what you were doing that related to the search going on and so on? What were you dispatching, I guess?
JUROR: Well, Northeastern was -- is close to the Boston Marathon event, and so a lot of our officers were forced to come into work and maintain the safety of the campus. But my primary role was to monitor Boston's channel, and that kind of monitors the whole area. So we were in communication with Boston Police and any local surrounding agencies.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you remember the hours that you were doing that on the 18th and 19th? Was it overnight or --
JUROR: 8 a.m. to midnight.
THE COURT: 8 a.m. to midnight on the 18th, which was the Thursday?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you work on the Friday?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that, you know, before midnight on the 18th, were you following activity in Watertown?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How many channels would you be monitoring?
JUROR: I can't be sure on the number, but I think it expands to three miles from the center of the campus, which is 360 Huntington Avenue.
THE COURT: Okay. So you would get broadcasts within that radius?
JUROR: Yup, Chelsea, Everett. I can't be sure of Watertown but --
THE COURT: It reaches as far as Chelsea?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Different subject. You use Facebook and Instagram pretty regularly?
JUROR: Yes, every day.
THE COURT: Do you use it professionally or personally?
JUROR: Personally mostly. Well, also professionally now. I have to monitor the youth program's Facebook.
THE COURT: The kids that are in the program, do you monitor them?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 34 -- I guess we're coming back to the security police issue. It says, the Everett Police, you worked there as well in 2013 and 2014?
JUROR: No. I reapplied for a volunteer position, and I also applied for the police department. And I already did an extensive background check with them.
THE COURT: But you -- so that was under the -- I think the question asked whether you applied for a job, and that was the --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 19. We asked what you -- your reaction was when you realized you had a summons for this case, and you said "cool." What were you thinking?
JUROR: Well, I just thought it would be nice to be a part of history. It seems like -- this case seems -- is very high profiled and very important to the community of Boston and maybe even extend to the community of New England. So I thought it was cool to be a part of history.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question you said you had the thought, if you were selected, you won't have a life. Did you regard it as burdensome to serve on this particularly given what your activities are?
JUROR: Well, I don't know too much about the person in question, but it seems a little bit nerve-racking to know that, you know, he might have connections other than what we know. And given the list of people that was on the other list --
THE COURT: So would you be concerned for your personal security? Is that what you're saying?
JUROR: At this time, no, but maybe in the long run.
THE COURT: Okay. On the next page, 20, Question 77, we asked whether you'd form any opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not and, if so, what the penalty might be. We gave you a choice of three boxes for each of those subparts. And you picked "unsure" for each of those. Can you tell us what you were thinking when you made those choices?
JUROR: Well, I picked "unsure" because I was working so -- that night of capture, so the whole time, you know, we were told, This is what we're looking for, and this is the person in question. But we were never given the evidence. And I can't base my decisions off of hearsay or what people were -- or what was going on that day because there's nothing factual at this time.
THE COURT: So I'm sure you understand that in a criminal prosecution when somebody is accused of a crime they're presumed innocent of a crime unless and until the government proves they're guilty by the evidence at the trial and proves that to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You know those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you have any personal difficulty in faithfully applying those principles if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: No, I wouldn't have any trouble with that.
THE COURT: In particular, if you thought as to any of the criminal charges -- and you know there are a number of ones -- the government had failed to prove a particular charge beyond a reasonable doubt, would you have any difficulty in returning a not guilty verdict for that particular count?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you have difficulty doing it?
JUROR: Difficult? I mean, I would have -- no. I think I would have to look at the evidence before I could convict or --
THE COURT: In other words, the burden is always on the government to prove a person guilty. A person accused doesn't have a burden to prove he's not guilty. If the government is successful in persuading the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the crime, then a guilty verdict would be appropriate. But if the government doesn't do that, then the law requires the jury to find the person not guilty. I guess that's my question. Would you be able to find him not guilty if you thought the government's proof had fallen short?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you think you could make your judgment in the case without being influenced by things you heard as you worked as a dispatcher on the 18th?
JUROR: I think dispatcher might have a little influence over my judgment just because I was working that day. But I'm not sure if that will be the case if I was to be selected as a juror because things will come up that I wasn't aware of.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you about Question 82. We asked if people participated in various ways in supporting the One Fund or Boston Strong and so on. You said you bought a T-shirt and bought a bracelet that said "Boston Strong." Do you still have those items?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you still use them?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How commonly?
JUROR: The T-shirt, I wear it every now and then if I have to work out. The T-shirt, I bought it because it was to fund-raise for Sean Collier's family so --
THE COURT: In any of your work in security or otherwise, have you had any direct contact with the MIT police?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Were they part of what you were monitoring on dispatch?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you hear dispatches about Sean Collier that night?
JUROR: No. I was not working the night of the incident.
THE COURT: Which night were you working?
JUROR: The night of the capture.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. I thought -- so it was the Friday rather than the Thursday? The events were Thursday into Friday.
JUROR: Thursday into Friday. So Friday, the day they captured, I worked from 8 a.m. to midnight.
THE COURT: I thought you said the other day before.
JUROR: Sorry. I was confused.
THE COURT: That was the day that everybody sheltered in place?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about the death penalty, your attitude towards it, beginning on Page 23, starting with Question 88. And in Question 88 it was a general question. If you have any views about the death penalty, in general, what are they? You said, "Not for and do not object to the death penalty," I guess, indicating --
JUROR: I'm still unsure, yeah.
THE COURT: Then in Question 89 we asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10. You put yourself sort of in the middle there.
JUROR: Yes, 5.
THE COURT: Then on the next page, we asked you if there was a statement under the several suggested that you thought captured your feelings or attitude about the death penalty in the case of someone who was guilty of murder -- you can take the clip off if you -- it's Page 24 that we're looking at right now.
JUROR: Okay. Got it.
THE COURT: So to this question you selected the statement letter (d). You said, "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 without the possibility of release whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: That's what you thought. At least when you filled out the questionnaire, that summarized your views?
JUROR: Yes, that still stands.
THE COURT: Is that still true?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You heard me explain this morning the penalty phase of the case that the government would argue shows aggravating factors and the defense would suggest mitigating factors. Would you be able to consider all that evidence and everything you've heard in the course of the case and, if you thought it was appropriate, choose the death penalty and, if you thought it was appropriate, choose life imprisonment without release?
JUROR: Yes, I can choose one or the other.
THE COURT: In Question 92, you wrote that you thought it was against your religion to cause someone's death. Would that religious belief interfere with your ability to decide that the death penalty ought to be imposed in the case?
JUROR: Well, the conservative point of view of my religion would suggest that we shouldn't cause -- be the cause of someone's death. But I'm conservative, so I wouldn't object to it.
THE COURT: So you -- well, all right. Let me go to the question at the bottom of the page, Question 95. If you found this defendant guilty and thought -- decided that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And at the time you indicated you weren't sure.
JUROR: Right. I'm still unsure.
THE COURT: Well, the question is not what would you do but what could you do. In other words, would you be prepared under the circumstances to vote for the death penalty if you thought it was appropriate, or is it the kind of thing you're not sure that you could do even if you thought it was the right thing to do? That's what the question is trying to get at.
JUROR: I think, based on the factual evidence, I will be able to make a definitive answer. But I'm still unsure about that. I don't know if I could vote yes or no.
THE COURT: Some people might not want to feel personally responsible for the fact that a person was sentenced to death. That's sort of what this question is getting at. Even if you intellectually believe that it was the right thing, could you personally do it, is the question.
JUROR: I'm still not sure.
THE COURT: That's fair. As I said, we want the answer you think is really the correct -- I mean, the true answer.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: On the other hand, on the next page, top of 96 we asked the other side of that question. If you found this defendant guilty and decided life imprisonment without possibility of release was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote for that? There you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You don't have any difficulty with that proposition.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Okay. Follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So I'm going to pick up where the judge left off. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So the way the questionnaire asks questions sometimes asks about just generally, you know, what are your feelings about the death penalty, and then it asks you about particularly whether you could actually do it. And so noticing some hesitation, is there something about -- you explained that your religious beliefs influence your view on the death penalty, is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And you also suggest in one of your answers, I think on 94, that there are family members or others close to you who share those religious beliefs. Is that fair to say?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It sounds like there's constellation of people around you who wouldn't support the death penalty, is that right?
JUROR: That's correct.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Do you think, given that, you know, constellation of people around you, that if, after the process plays out and you follow the law and you weigh the factors, the aggravating and the mitigating factors and you assess those facts, at some point you have to make your own judgment. Your judgment will lead to a consequence that would be either the death penalty or life imprisonment. Could you make that judgment?
JUROR: Yes. I will be able to make the judgment call.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Even knowing that if you -- it's your decision independently to sentence somebody to death, you think you can do that?
JUROR: Yeah. I'm still not comfortable with either side, yes or no.
MS. CLARKE: I'm not sure the question was all that clear.
THE COURT: Try again.
JUROR: Well, if -- you're asking if I could -- if he was convicted, if I could basically rule that his conviction is served as either the death penalty or the life imprisonment.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: If we get to that stage, those are the only two choices you'll have.
JUROR: Yes. I feel comfortable with the life imprisonment and saying yes to that, but I can't be sure, to be completely 100 percent comfortable with the death penalty. I think that's something not only that I grew up religiously believing that it's wrong, but it's also been something that's been debated in school for a long time. And I can recall on a paper that I wrote that I couldn't be too sure that I could sentence someone with the death penalty, but I wouldn't object to it for special crimes.
THE COURT: Let me ask it a slightly different way. You say you can't be sure you could do it. Can you be sure you couldn't do it?
JUROR: If it came down to it, I can do it.
MS. CLARKE: Can?
JUROR: Can.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Is there some -- why -- why do you have the confidence that you can do it? Is there something in your life that --
JUROR: Factual evidence. Basically, if -- there's no doubt that the Boston Marathon caused a lot of fear in the city. If the prosecution can prove that he was the cause of it and the cause of three people dying, then, yes, death penalty would seem appropriate.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. It's not a question of whether you would seek it in this case. It's a question of whether you, as a juror, could weigh the evidence. After somebody's been convicted of all those aggravating factors as well as whatever mitigating factors, which could include characteristics about the defendant himself, not about his actions, at the end of that, do you think you can say -- if you believe the facts and the law justify it --
JUROR: Right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: -- that you can say, I sentence this person to death?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Just one other point of clarification I wanted to make. It sounds like you were working later on the Friday, the 19th. And it sounds like it was after a suspect had already been identified, was that right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So it wasn't during any of the events that led to the crimes that are going to be on trial here?
JUROR: Right. I was on a day off when the incident occurred.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. That's all I have.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything?
MS. CLARKE: I think so. Hi. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MS. CLARKE: I guess I'm a little perplexed. I sort of feel your agony over the death penalty. But it sounds like with one of the answers to the prosecutor you said that you would impose the death penalty in this case if Mr. Tsarnaev were convicted. Did I hear that right?
JUROR: I'm just -- if he was to be convicted and I have to make the decision to rule death penalty, I would have to say that I can do it.
MS. CLARKE: You can do it?
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: I think that the judge has sort of made clear or will make clear that no juror ever has to vote for the death penalty.
JUROR: Right.
MS. CLARKE: All that is expected of a juror is that they will listen to the evidence, deliberate with their fellow jurors, and when it comes to punishment, make their own personal, moral judgment.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Is that where you are?
JUROR: Yes. That's where I stand. I can make my own --
MS. CLARKE: Consider the views of others, consider your own views, and then make up your mind?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And not automatically vote for death because it was the Boston Marathon bombing?
JUROR: Yes. I can make my own choice based on factual evidence and my personal beliefs.
MS. CLARKE: You have a lot of connections to security and police officers and applying for jobs and wanting to work in that area.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Did I hear you right about that?
JUROR: That's correct.
MS. CLARKE: Is there any concern about going back to that community if you were a juror here and you returned a life verdict? Would you have any concern about going back to that community and explaining your vote?
JUROR: Yes, I would have some concern.
MS. CLARKE: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, still -- like, I still have access to the police department. So they still, you know, welcome me, and I still work alongside with them. In fact, some of them still say, Hey, come back. And if an opportunity with the Everett Police Department was to open up, then I'd like to take it without restrictions.
THE COURT: I'm not sure she understood the question.
MS. CLARKE: Yes. Could I try it again?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: With that interest in going back to the police or working in the security field or with police officers, do you think that if you returned a verdict of life, not death in this case, it would make it hard for you to go back to that community?
JUROR: No, it wouldn't make it hard for me at all.
MS. CLARKE: Then I guess we were maybe on different planes there.
JUROR: Yeah. I was thinking more alongside this conversation after the trial. I think people will be curious and that -- you know, and question the decisions made by the jurors. And that would make it difficult especially if it wasn't what they expected. But as far as going back into the -- working into the field, it wouldn't be difficult.
MS. CLARKE: What do you think that community expects -- would expect of you sitting in the jury?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain that objection.
MS. CLARKE: What would be hard about the conversations that you would have after this trial?
JUROR: Well, we were on -- everybody was forced to work that day, so I think -- and people were -- I mean, we just are the initial responders and get forced to do our job and protect the community. And a lot of people said, you know, This is what we're looking for. They gave the description. They gave the nature of the crime. And people were searching for hours so --
MS. CLARKE: How do you think that that would influence you in deliberating in this case?
JUROR: I think I will be -- I will be able to make a decision based on facts.
MS. CLARKE: And go back to that same law enforcement community and justify it?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: If you were on a jury that -- I'm sorry. If you were on a jury that acquitted Mr. Tsarnaev, found him not guilty, could you go back to that community and explain that?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor. It suggests that she will be talking to them about the jury deliberations.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think we've explored it.
MS. CLARKE: You think I'm done?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you very much.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: We have to make a changeover with the stenographers at this point.
(Recess taken at 11:21 a.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 11:41 a.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 311.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 311.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat. And do me a favor and keep your voice up so everyone at the table can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
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: Yeah.
THE COURT: And also, as much as possible, avoid any media reports or --
JUROR: Yeah, to the best of my ability.
THE COURT: You see them, but you put them aside and hope when you see them?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the questions. And I just wanted to start with your employment.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tell us what you do.
JUROR: I'm a behavior therapist for children with autism.
THE COURT: And you work for an agency?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tell us about your relationship with the agency and how you work and --
JUROR: Well, like, it's called applied behavior analysis, but I'm a per-diem worker. And I'm also actually starting a new job next week.
THE COURT: Different from this one?
JUROR: Yeah, same job but different company. But, so, like, it's -- probably you're familiar with per diem. But when I don't work, I don't get paid.
THE COURT: That's what I was going to ask.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You put it in your form that you were per diem.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: When you are working for an agency, do you have work just about every day?
JUROR: Yeah, their sessions are about two hours each. Probably up to three a day you can have.
THE COURT: So on a given day you might have a session with one client in the morning and one midday, one later in the afternoon?
JUROR: Yeah. I go to their homes.
THE COURT: What would you average on a day?
JUROR: Five to six a full day, hours, yeah.
THE COURT: Five to six hours?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So I was counting clients. So two, three clients?
JUROR: Two, three clients a day.
THE COURT: And that would be five days a week?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So you only get paid if you do that?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Okay. It would be difficult, then, I assume, for you to serve for three months?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Could I inquire?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: You heard the judge say there will be no court on Fridays, and of course weekends are free. This is not an option to work -- and also, the court will end at four o'clock in the afternoon.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Are those options where you could rejigger your schedule and --
JUROR: I think four o'clock would be a little too late to start. But maybe weekends? I'm not sure with my new company how they work, really, because I haven't started it yet, and their hours and stuff. Potentially. I'm not sure.
MR. BRUCK: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. We're not going to ask you to serve.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Just leave it there.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 314.
COURT CLERK: Juror 314.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would.
Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: And if you could do me a favor, keep your voice up, speak into the mic so everyone around this table can hear you.
JUROR: Okay. Great.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also, as much as possible to avoid any media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Good. Thank you.
So that is the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: We're going to follow up on some answers. I want to start with your answer to Question 10 on page 5.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: And if -- there are two parts to that as I read it. If the first part is private, we can kill the audio, or if you're comfortable discussing it.
JUROR: No problem.
THE COURT: Okay. So this -- you say your wife is ill --
JUROR: Has rheumatoid arthritis.
THE COURT: -- and needs some help?
Can you tell us how that would be affected if you were serving as a juror in the case?
JUROR: It's just -- right now she's doing fine, so it's just a sporadic thing that comes up from time to time where she has some issues and had several surgeries over the years and things of that nature, so...
THE COURT: How would it impact your, say, daily schedule?
JUROR: More so just if -- you know, if I needed to help out with things if she was down for a period of time, but other than that, not.
THE COURT: Okay. The other part of the answer in 10 was about your work.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us about your work, first, before we get to any difficulties.
JUROR: Sure. I work in a reinsurance base with responsibilities across North America for a segment of our business. So a lot of travel, a lot of time on the road. In fact, when I got the call last night -- or when I called in last night, I was in New York City, so I scrambled back on the last train. I got in about one in the morning this morning, so...
THE COURT: We appreciate that. So --
JUROR: So, you know, the --
THE COURT: You do a lot of travel, is that it?
JUROR: Probably about half my time is on the road, yes.
THE COURT: And for what purposes? I mean, what --
JUROR: Clients as well as, you know, working with the team that I have that's spread across the country.
THE COURT: How many people do you supervise?
JUROR: There are about 12 in various capacities in something that could be -- you know, it's an issue, but it's not -- I'm not sure it would be the end of the world in terms of that situation.
THE COURT: In part we set the schedule that we anticipate following with an eye to perhaps providing some space for people to get back to work --
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: -- either later in the day, or particularly on a Friday to have a full day to attend to things.
JUROR: And my local office is right over on High Street, so...
THE COURT: So I guess the question is you know the schedule, Monday through Thursday, nine to four, generally. Is that something that you could -- while, you know, it would be inconvenient, is it something that would be tolerable for the time that we're expecting, three to four months?
JUROR: I think I could find a way to make it work, yes.
THE COURT: We asked about social media, and the only one you identified was LinkedIn?
JUROR: Yeah, I don't have a Facebook page. I don't -- my kids give me a hard time about that all the time, but I've stayed away from it for the most part.
THE COURT: How old are the kids?
JUROR: I think I actually have a Twitter account, but I don't think I've ever been on there.
Sixteen and 18. Two high school kids, yes.
THE COURT: And LinkedIn is for professional purposes, I gather?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: You have never, I guess, been a juror. You follow civil cases because they're related to your job. Is that it?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you follow any criminal cases?
JUROR: Not too much. You know, the occasional thing I'd see across the news and -- I guess from a business perspective, a 9/11-type event where that impacts us from a business standpoint, you know, things of that nature come up.
THE COURT: Any business connection to the marathon bombing?
JUROR: No, none.
THE COURT: So let me turn to page 20.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And Question 77.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In that question we asked whether you had formed an opinion about several different matters. A and B dealt with whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty, and to that you said you had formed an opinion that he was guilty and you checked the box "yes"; and then C and D were about what the penalty should be, and for that you chose the "unsure" box.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Then farther down just under that we asked, "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 that would be presented to you in court," and you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: Sure. About the "able" piece?
THE COURT: Well, both.
JUROR: Both?
THE COURT: How they fit together.
JUROR: In terms of the feelings on guilt, I think that just comes from the initial things in the news when the event happened and seeing all that. So that's kind of formed that perspective.
THE COURT: Let me just ask about that. You followed it as it was unfolding?
JUROR: Yeah, over the few days when everything was happening.
THE COURT: Did you have to shelter in place that day?
JUROR: I did not, no.
THE COURT: Where were you?
JUROR: I was actually home that day.
THE COURT: Okay. So I interrupted to ask that question.
JUROR: That's okay.
In terms of the "able" piece, as I thought about that, you know, most of my working life has kind of been analyzing risk and things of that nature, where you're taking in a set of facts and a set of information and kind of working through it as someone's trying to sell you on the idea. And, you know, you're then responsible for taking hold of, you know, what you feel about that and how you approach it.
So I kind of use that in my own mind as something where I thought that, while very different, a little bit akin to maybe what would happen in a trial scenario where you're getting different pieces of evidence and having to analyze that in your mind in terms of what actually happened and making a decision at the end of that process.
THE COURT: I'm sure you know this, but I'll just summarize it for you. In our system of criminal justice when the government accuses somebody of a crime, the person is presumed to be innocent of the crime unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at the trial, and proves it so the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the fact that he's guilty. And the jury's obligation is to weigh the evidence in the trial and see whether the government has fulfilled its burden or not. And if it has not, the obligation on the jury is to find the person -- the accused not guilty.
Do you understand all that?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Would you be able to faithfully apply those principles in practice if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: I think I could, yes. It's a -- you know, it's a scenario where, you know, as you laid out there, there would be the evidence presented, and that would have to show that, you know, it met the case for the needs before going in that direction.
THE COURT: At the bottom of page 20 you made a note about a coworker who was running and so on.
JUROR: Oh, yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us a little bit about that.
JUROR: Just somebody I work with locally in Boston who's run the marathon several years, and she happened to be running it that year. And as I said here, she finished probably 15, 20 minutes ahead of the events that happened that day.
THE COURT: And how do you know that?
JUROR: Just from knowing that she was running and speaking to her after the fact.
THE COURT: Was she in any way affected by the -- personally affected by the events?
JUROR: She was not, no.
THE COURT: And Question 82 on the next page, you made some contributions?
JUROR: I did. A friend was -- I guess it must have been the anniversary of the event. A friend was running the marathon that year for -- is it the MR8, I think -- the young boy who was killed on that day -- for the team that ran for him. So she was -- this woman was running for that team, and my wife and I had given some money to her for that.
THE COURT: So this is where you pledge to donate if the runner runs and so on?
JUROR: Correct. Exactly.
THE COURT: Do you remember how much it was?
JUROR: Maybe $50 or so. Less than a hundred.
THE COURT: And Boston Strong T-shirts?
JUROR: Yes. I believe my wife purchased some of those for myself and the kids.
THE COURT: Do you use yours?
JUROR: I don't think mine fit, actually. I don't think I've ever worn it.
THE COURT: Okay. Beginning at page 23, Question 88 we asked about views concerning the death penalty both in general and perhaps specifically. So Question 88 asks if you have any views on the death penalty, in general what are they, and you wrote, "Okay with death penalty for appropriate crimes."
JUROR: Yeah, I was thinking about that. As you -- I forget the terminology you used this morning. Is it aggravated?
THE COURT: Aggravating factors on the one hand and mitigating factors on the other hand.
JUROR: You know, obviously that's a tough one when you are making that -- or are asked to make that type of decision, but I believe in cases where there would be shown to have those type of aggregating [sic] factors that you mentioned, I believe that could be warranted in a case.
THE COURT: The next question, we asked you to indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 where you thought you might be from strongly opposed at number -- the death penalty at number 1 to strongly favor at number 10.
JUROR: I misread that at first, which is why that was crossed out there.
THE COURT: Well, the 1 is -- as the question is phrased, a 1 reflects a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed, and 10 reflects a belief that it should be imposed whenever a person has been convicted of intentional murder. You first picked 8 and then you changed that to 6.
JUROR: Then I reread the question. And as I said, I misread that when I initially read that.
THE COURT: As you look at it now, do you think that's still the right choice to reflect your views?
JUROR: In the 5 or 6 range, yes, again, with the caveat that those aggregating factors were shown to have existed in the case.
THE COURT: On the next page in Question 90 we set forth a number of statements, and you possibly -- we asked if you could select one that reflected best your views about the appropriateness of a death penalty in a case involving someone who's been found guilty of murder. You chose E that said you were in favor of the death penalty but could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release if you believed that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is that the best representation of your views from the selection here? And you could take a moment to review them.
JUROR: Sure. Thank you.
(Pause.)
JUROR: Actually, I may be between D and E there. I was just looking at "oppose" versus "in favor of," and as I look at them now, I can see the for/against, which as I've kind of explained in relation to the other answers I've given on that topic, that I could be open to it if the, you know, aggregating factors were there, and certainly if not, if mitigating factors were shown to have existed, be open to going with the life sentence as well on that front.
THE COURT: Yeah, I just want to be sure -- the factors that I'm referring to are aggravating factors. I think you've been saying "aggregating factors."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I just want to be sure that you understand that these -- they're aggravating in the sense that they distinguish this offense from other offenses and makes it more serious. That's the point.
JUROR: Yes. Warped terminology. I'm getting too close to "aggregating" and "aggravating," so I apologize.
THE COURT: Right. You probably do some aggregating in your work.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anyway...
So let me ask: You said you're a little bit more towards D than E or you want to put those two together and circle both of them at the same time or --
JUROR: Yeah, I think probably more towards D as I read it now. I may have -- looking at this question, I may have missed that one a little bit and just seen either "opposed" or "in favor of," which was, in my mind, the least of the in-favor-of scenario.
THE COURT: Okay. And just from what you said, it may be that the instructions that I gave this morning might have influenced you to have that view or not?
JUROR: No, I don't think so. No.
THE COURT: Okay. So just to be sure we understand where you are on this, you don't have a firm commitment to either the death penalty or life imprisonment, yet you could consider either as a possible outcome of your deliberations on the penalty phase?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Just to finish up on this, at the bottom of page 25 --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- and the top of 26 we'll get to second.
Question 95 we asked about this case, if you found this defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote to impose it, and you said yes.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Then in the next question we asked the other side of that: If you found him guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that penalty, and you said yes.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do those represent your --
JUROR: Those aren't contradicting themselves, are they? I think that goes towards kind of the D answer there in Question 90. So, yes, that's my...
THE COURT: Okay. That's what I have. Anybody else?
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, if I might?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon, sir. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case.
Just kind of following up on that 95 and 96, those answers about could you conscientiously vote for it or for life imprisonment, both of those you said yes, right? And again, you're shaking your head up and down, but for the court reporter you have to say either yes or no.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And at this point now you understand from hearing the judge's instructions that if the jury gets to this sentencing phase where the call is either life imprisonment or the death penalty, the jury will have already found the defendant guilty. You understand that, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And that's the time that we, the government, would be putting on evidence concerning these aggravating factors and the defense has the right to put on mitigating evidence as well. You understand that, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Going into that phase, would you be able to keep an open mind and consider all of the evidence before you decided what you thought was the appropriate punishment in the case?
JUROR: Yes, I could.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And I just want to follow up a little bit on your answer concerning 82 where you said that you contributed some money to the fund for the young boy that was killed, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: And you understand that's going to be some of the evidence in this case as well concerning that, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Is there anything about that that you feel would impact your ability to be fair and impartial in this case?
JUROR: No.
MR. MELLIN: Okay.
JUROR: That was a second, third, no relation of mine, just a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend kind of situation.
MR. MELLIN: Fair enough. And then I think, as you disclosed in the questionnaire, you didn't have any personal involvement or personal connection to the Boston Marathon on that day, correct?
JUROR: I did not.
MR. MELLIN: Okay.
And then finally, the Question 95 asks about you being able to conscientiously vote for the death penalty. If you believed that the aggravating evidence sufficiently outweighed the mitigating evidence to justify a sentence of death, would you be able to vote to sentence someone to death?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
MR. MELLIN: All right. Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: Hello. My name is Judy Clarke.
JUROR: Hello.
MS. CLARKE: I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. Good afternoon.
I wanted to follow up just a little bit because this is your chance to really sort of tell us if this is a hardship for you. And I don't think the judge talked to you about whether this would be a financial hardship, but you indicated that it was a potential financial hardship. Can you help us think about that?
JUROR: Only in the -- from the -- I put that in there. I'm not sure the perspective of my employer, how that all works, to be honest with you, in terms of --
MR. BRUCK: Whether you would be paid?
JUROR: -- if I'm gone for three or four months, how that would work.
MS. CLARKE: Have you talked to them about that?
JUROR: I have not, no.
MS. CLARKE: All right. So you don't know the answer to that?
JUROR: I do not.
MS. CLARKE: What happens -- I was a little concerned about your wife as well, and I'm glad that she's not in an episode now. But what happens if that flares up during this next three to four months? What would happen?
JUROR: It would be -- you know, I've got a 16- and 18-year-old at home that can bear some of that.
MS. CLARKE: Or could wreak some more havoc.
JUROR: True. We've got some other family. My wife's mother lives local, and my parents are not too far off as well. So we could have some other support systems to assist in that situation.
MS. CLARKE: It's really, really very generous of you to say that you can work it out. I think this is the one and only time that you really have to tell us whether or not this three to four months is something that you should have to bear.
MR. MELLIN: Objection, your Honor. The "should," and also, this has been asked and answered.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think we have the answers, actually.
MS. CLARKE: Do you feel like we've got the answers okay?
JUROR: I think so.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. And if your employer did not pay, could you go three months without --
JUROR: I could not.
MS. CLARKE: You could not?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: On Question 77, if I can take you there, I think that's page 20 -- yes, 20 -- and you mentioned -- are you with me yet?
JUROR: Yes, I am now.
MS. CLARKE: All right. In C and D, and I am not sure we covered that with you, you answered that you were unsure whether Mr. Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty. Could you tell us what you were thinking when you marked "unsure"?
JUROR: Well, I have not heard anything about the situation or what the evidence is, what would come out in the case, so it's hard to have a firm grasp of whether that's deserved or not in this situation at this point.
MS. CLARKE: And in 77A you had reached a conclusion that he was guilty but not a conclusion whether -- which punishment was appropriate?
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: Because you don't think you've heard the fullness of the story?
JUROR: Exactly, yes.
MS. CLARKE: In your answers about the death penalty -- and not to trick you, page 23, Question 88 -- you indicated that the death penalty was -- you were okay with the death penalty for appropriate crimes.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: Now, is that a little bit in conflict of your thinking about the crimes for the death penalty as opposed to the fullness of the picture for the death penalty? Does that question make sense?
JUROR: I understand what you're asking. I think it's a little bit of semantics, probably, in terms of the way I wrote it in there. And maybe more appropriate is instead of "crimes," "appropriate circumstances surrounding crimes that existed."
MS. CLARKE: And how did you come about your beliefs about the death penalty?
JUROR: I don't know that I have an answer for that, just what I've grown to believe in over the years. Nothing in particular that's driven me in that direction. Not an influenced situation on family, just my own personal feelings.
MS. CLARKE: Because of some case or some political discussion or discussion in Massachusetts about it?
JUROR: No.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor. He answered the question.
MS. CLARKE: I'm just trying to --
THE COURT: Well, he said no. I guess that's the end of that.
MS. CLARKE: Talked about in the family home at all?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
JUROR: With regards to the case?
MS. CLARKE: No, the death penalty.
JUROR: Just the death penalty in general? No, not really. No.
MS. CLARKE: Has the -- I'm sorry. You were about to say something?
JUROR: Yeah, I was going to say, you know, I'm sure in the past my wife and I have probably talked about it at some point in time, but I can't put my finger on any specific conversations that we've had along those lines.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. Conversations in the family home about this case?
JUROR: Just in relation to my involvement in these proceedings but not --
MS. CLARKE: Not before?
JUROR: Not before, no.
MS. CLARKE: I thought you indicated in 77, that's that series about guilty/not guilty, death/no death, that you had discussions with your wife about those issues.
JUROR: As they occurred? What questions are we looking at? Excuse me?
MS. CLARKE: 78.
JUROR: 78? That would be relating to, again, as I mentioned earlier, the time surrounding the events over the several days when things unfolded back at that point in time.
MS. CLARKE: Back in April of 2013?
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: All right. On Question 89, if I can flip you back forward, and I think the judge asked you about this, whether it was 6 or 8, and you had scratched out 8?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CLARKE: Can you help us understand how you were reading the question that made you go with 8 initially?
JUROR: I think I didn't read it in its completion when I first -- and it was -- I think I initially read it as would you be willing to consider the death penalty. And in that case it would have been further out in that line that I would consider it. But as I reread it and saw "for any case" --
MS. CLARKE: Okay.
JUROR: -- "whenever the defendant has been convicted," then that's -- then that's -- then I realized I had misread that.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. So you were thinking 8 if it was regarding this case and 6 --
JUROR: No. No.
MR. MELLIN: Objection, your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: No, that's not correct?
JUROR: No. I was thinking 8 in terms of my openness to the death penalty in general as a feeling, as a thought, not -- and as I reread it and said "whenever a defendant has been convicted of intentional murder," that was not the same feeling as I saw that, getting back to the mitigating and aggravating factors.
MS. CLARKE: Or aggregating the two of them together?
JUROR: Yes, exactly.
MS. CLARKE: Let me just ask you about the coworker who finished shortly ahead of the explosions.
JUROR: Sure.
MS. CLARKE: And you spoke with her after the fact.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CLARKE: Did she express any opinions to you?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: Go ahead. You could answer.
JUROR: Opinions regarding?
MS. CLARKE: What happened, what should happen?
JUROR: No, not at all. It was just at the time when it happened, it was just kind of a harried situation for her trying to get out of the area, frankly, was the genesis of the conversations that we had.
MS. CLARKE: Were you concerned for her safety when the explosions occurred?
JUROR: Yes, sure.
MS. CLARKE: And what did you do to check on her safety?
JUROR: We had had -- when you run the marathon, you have a timing device that's attached to your shoes or something of that nature, so we knew she had finished before that once we looked into the timing of it all.
MS. CLARKE: And it alleviated your concerns?
JUROR: It did.
MS. CLARKE: Can I just have one moment, your Honor?
(Pause.)
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: I just have a couple.
Just on sort of the last series, where is your office in Boston?
JUROR: We're at 125 High Street, just over the bridge.
THE COURT: And you apparently have a fair amount of longevity with the company.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Does that translate into seniority?
JUROR: Yes, it does.
THE COURT: It says you're a vice president. Can you give me some idea of where that is in the hierarchy of the management?
JUROR: We're set up, and we have basically three operating divisions. My boss runs all of North America for all our business within the division that I work on, and I'm responsible for a portion of that across North America.
THE COURT: How many vice presidents in the North American division? Of your rank, is what I'm getting at.
JUROR: I would probably be the most senior in our group. In terms of that title, there's probably 20.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thanks. I guess that's -- thank you.
JUROR: That's it?
THE COURT: Yes.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 318.
COURT CLERK: Juror 318.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, if you would. Have a seat.
Do me a favor, keep your voice up, speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: This is adjustable, and you can move it around.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case since we were last here?
JUROR: Oh, yes. Yes.
THE COURT: And how about avoiding media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
So that's the questionnaire that you filled out.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And we have some follow-ups on some of the answers. The first question I have is: You indicated that your husband is a chief of security?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us where he works?
JUROR: City Hall, Boston.
THE COURT: He's chief of security for the city hall or for something else?
JUROR: It's out of City Hall and it's -- he just started. He was a probation officer at West Roxbury court up until he just started in January at City Hall.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: So I don't know all the aspects of his job. It's for like different -- like the Boston Water & Sewer, he's connected to, that type of thing, in security in the hall.
THE COURT: So is he sort of in, I guess for lack of a better term, planning for security? Is that -- I'm not sure.
JUROR: Like events. If somebody's coming into downtown -- to be honest with you, he doesn't know all the aspects of his job yet either, it's that new to him. So it's a learning process for him now too.
THE COURT: Okay. Before that he was a probation officer?
JUROR: Yes, in West Roxbury court.
THE COURT: And how long did he do that?
JUROR: How long was he there?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Twelve years or so.
THE COURT: Okay. And anything before that?
JUROR: He was a constable for the City of Boston.
THE COURT: Working for the sheriff's department or in the --
JUROR: No, it was a private company.
THE COURT: He was --
JUROR: Bernie Whitten.
THE COURT: Okay. And then in terms of other family members, you have a brother who's a Boston police officer?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: How long has he been doing that?
JUROR: I believe my brother's been on the Boston police for over 30 years.
THE COURT: Any special assignments? What's his rank?
JUROR: I don't think he's ever gone up in the rank. Right now he's towards retirement. He's at the shooting range.
THE COURT: Do you know if he had any active participation in the marathon events?
JUROR: I believe he did. I believe he did. I believe most were called in to come down. What -- how big of a role he played, I don't know.
THE COURT: You haven't talked to him about what he might have done those days?
JUROR: My brother doesn't really get into specifics with his job. I mean, before where he is now, he was out in Roxbury, and he doesn't talk a lot about -- he's an ex-Marine, and you have to pull it out of him.
THE COURT: The strong, silent type?
JUROR: Yeah. He has seven daughters.
THE COURT: Maybe he can't get a word in edgewise.
JUROR: That could be the case.
THE COURT: And then you have a son who's a corrections officer. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where does he work?
JUROR: He works for the Norfolk County Sheriff's in Dedham.
THE COURT: How long has he been doing that?
JUROR: He's going into his third year.
THE COURT: And he's at county jail or the house of correction?
JUROR: Jail in Dedham. Norfolk.
THE COURT: And you're employed by the Town of Brookline?
JUROR: I am.
THE COURT: Looks like you have kind of two areas of responsibility, crossing guard and --
JUROR: Meter maid.
THE COURT: Is there a polite way of saying "meter maid"?
JUROR: There is. Meter maid.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Okay. How long have you been -- it says you've been doing it for a number of years?
JUROR: Fourteen years.
THE COURT: If you were called to serve on the case and were to be here four days a week from nine to four, would that be a problem for you employmentwise?
JUROR: Not at all.
THE COURT: No?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Do you know whether you would get paid or --
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: You would? Okay.
I'm looking at page 11 now, Question 31. One of your sons --
JUROR: I only have one son.
THE COURT: Okay. He was in the Navy and was at Guantanamo?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: As it was a -- this is post-9/11, I take it, so it was as it was being a facility for detention of --
JUROR: He never saw the prison side.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. Just on the naval base side?
JUROR: Yeah, he was a military police officer, but he never went over to the prison side.
THE COURT: So he didn't have anything to do with the detention facility?
JUROR: No. No.
THE COURT: Could we cut the audio?
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the jury:)