3.Individual Voir Dire — Impartiality, Hardship, and Capital Sentencing (Part 2)
1,294 lines(In open court:)
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at page 20 and Question 77.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: In that question we asked jurors whether you'd seen or read anything in the news media that led you to have an opinion now -- or when you filled out the questionnaire and now -- that the defendant is guilty or not and, if so, whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and you checked "unsure" as to whether you had an opinion that he was guilty and also "unsure" as to the penalty. You checked "no" as to whether you had an opinion that he was not guilty.
I wonder if you can tell us what you were thinking when you made those answers.
JUROR: As far as if -- on the first one, please say again or --
THE COURT: Yeah. So in Part A it says based on things you'd seen in the media or otherwise had you formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty, and you checked "unsure."
JUROR: Yes. If I was unsure he was guilty? You can't go just by what you see in the media; you have to go by what you know -- knowing of the case. I mean, I'm not unsure of -- sure, you know, what the trial would be like.
THE COURT: All right. So you probably understand that a person who's accused of a crime by the government is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves the defendant guilty at trial by producing enough evidence to convince the jury of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you understand that --
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: -- basic principle?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: What the question is getting at is -- and it may be understandable that people have things that they've seen in the media that gives them some impression about what happened, but the question is whether you'd be prepared to reserve judgment and make your judgment based on the trial evidence and not on other ideas or information you had from other sources.
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: And so if you thought on any of the various charges that it made -- if you thought the government had failed to prove the defendant guilty by the evidence at trial, would you be prepared to vote to find him not guilty?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, as to the C and D, that asked about the death penalty. If you'd turn to page 23, we asked a series of questions to see if we could get jurors' attitudes about the death penalty. In Question 88 we asked if you had any views about the death penalty in general, what are they, and you said, "I think it is fair."
Do you want to tell us a little bit more about that?
JUROR: I think there are so many processes you got to go through to get a death penalty sentence that I think by that time -- I mean, it's not like 50 years ago, you didn't have all the different -- I don't know, maybe all the different DNA and all that different evidence that is presented now, that I think it's more -- I don't know. I think the outcome would be more -- you know, I don't know what the word is I'm searching for. More, you know, reasonable to say if everyone sees that that's the evidence then, yeah, maybe the evidence is fair.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question we asked you to circle a number that you thought applied to you on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 reflects a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed and 10 reflects a belief it should be imposed whenever the defendant is convicted of a murder, and you selected 6. Can you tell us anything about why you selected 6?
JUROR: I don't know. I think it depends on the person's background, if there was other reasoning behind why they committed a crime or, you know, other circumstances, you know, their upbringing. Maybe something happened to them that maybe they just didn't have a fair shake either, you know, type of thing, you know, kind of getting a bad rap, you know, type of thing, they shouldn't have -- it's not always cut and dry, I don't think, you know? There's a little bit of wiggle room in everything, I guess.
THE COURT: Okay. Turn to the next page, 24, Question 90. Question 90 sets forth a number of different positions somebody might have on the death penalty and asks if there's one that you thought would best describe your own view, and you selected D. It says, "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 possibility of release, whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Do you think that represents your view of the matter?
JUROR: Yes. I mean, my personal view is I wouldn't want to be in jail for the rest of my life. So if that was the case, I would prefer to have the death penalty. If I was in those shoes, I would rather be -- than, you know, spend the rest of my life in jail. So that's how I feel about it.
THE COURT: Well, let me just come back to statement D.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: That indicates that you don't have a strong preconceived idea in either direction; that you're open to either --
JUROR: I'm open to either/or. I mean, I would prefer -- type person to prefer not to spend the rest of my life in jail, but if that's what the person would want, that's what they would want. I mean, I can't judge somebody else's feeling.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to go to the next page at the bottom, Question 95. That asks about this defendant. If you found him guilty and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you said "yes."
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. On top of the next page we asked the related question. If you found the defendant guilty and decided instead that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for life imprisonment?
JUROR: Yeah, absolutely.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. WEINREB: My name's Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors.
I wanted to follow up for a minute on your answer to Question 88, which is on page 23.
JUROR: Yup.
MR. WEINREB: So if -- just so I'm clear, so if a defendant were -- you heard the judge explain that there will be two phases in this trial. In the first phase it will just be about whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of any of the crimes he's charged with, and at the end of that phase if the jury finds him guilty of one of the charges that's a capital crime, that carries a possible sentence of the death penalty, then you have a whole second phase to determine if the death penalty is the appropriate sentence.
Do you understand all that?
JUROR: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah.
MR. WEINREB: So the question is: Going into that phase, that second phase, would you have an open mind -- not necessarily in this case, but in any case -- would you have an open mind about whether the person should get the death penalty or not depending on what the evidence was?
JUROR: Absolutely, yeah.
MR. WEINREB: All right. And the judge instructed you earlier that you'll hear evidence of aggravating factors. That's evidence that the government believes makes this a case where the death penalty is appropriate. And then you'll also hear evidence of mitigating factors. That's evidence that the defense believes is a case that makes life imprisonment the appropriate sentence, because those are the only two choices.
And the question is: Could you give meaningful consideration to both the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors and weigh them in determining ultimately what you think is the appropriate sentence?
JUROR: Yeah, I believe I could. Yeah. I don't -- I don't see why not. I think it's appropriate to hear from both sides and kind of go from there what -- you know.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thanks very much.
JUROR: Yeah, sure.
MS. CLARKE: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MS. CLARKE: My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. And I just wanted to follow up on a few questions.
JUROR: Sure.
MS. CLARKE: I guess I was a little concerned, and I want to make sure you have your chance to tell us how much of a hardship serving would be because, as I heard you, you have a lot of -- you have care responsibilities for a child, a wife that travels and a job.
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: And I think really what the judge was trying to get at is: Is that going to be a hardship on you to be sitting in here for four months?
JUROR: Yeah, it will be difficult. Yeah. I want to say, yeah, obviously it will be difficult. I mean, it's -- I mean, I wouldn't lose my house; I would lose my income, that type of stuff. But, yeah, I probably will have to make less fishing trips in the summertime or a couple less vacations, not go to Disney in the fall. That kind of stuff, yeah.
MS. CLARKE: So it doesn't sound like it's too much for you to bear?
JUROR: Yeah. I mean...
MS. CLARKE: Because it's your shot at telling us.
JUROR: I mean, if I would have to lose work for four months, I think I would probably survive, not that I -- it would be tight. It would be a struggle, but, yeah, financially we could make it.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Let me turn to Question 77 on page 20 again.
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: And you marked -- I think that you talked about this a little bit, but you marked "unsure" on guilty and "unsure" on the death penalty. Have you ever had an opinion about either one of those, Mr. Tsarnaev's guilt or whether or not he should get the death penalty?
JUROR: On him particularly? No. On other people, yeah.
MS. CLARKE: On other people in the news?
JUROR: Well, yeah. I mean like --
MR. WEINREB: Objection. I don't think he needs to tell us who he thought other --
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's right. I don't think we need it.
MS. CLARKE: So on Mr. Tsarnaev, you've never formed an opinion, either before filling out the survey, the questionnaire, or after?
JUROR: Honestly? Yeah. I mean, you -- probably, yeah, from what you seen in the news, yeah, I kind of -- I wouldn't say formed an opinion, but from what you see in the news at that time, you would think, yeah, he was the person that was there, involved.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Okay. And regarding the death penalty?
JUROR: Oh, no, not at all.
MS. CLARKE: Based on what you've seen or heard in the news?
JUROR: No, no, not on the death penalty. As far as involved, yes.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. You mentioned -- let me see if I can find it -- on page 19, Question 70, up at the top of page 19 --
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: -- that you listen to the Howie Carr Show two or three times a week?
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: Have there been any presentations on that show about this case or about the Tsarnaev family?
JUROR: No, no. He's just -- not that I know of. I read the Herald, you know, like his show. Not that I know of.
MS. CLARKE: And have you heard him talk about or read anything that he's written about the Tsarnaev family?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And what is that?
JUROR: What I've read about his family?
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
JUROR: Or what Howie's talked about his family?
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
JUROR: I think he's mentioned his parents' background and stuff.
MS. CLARKE: Can you tell us what you remember about that?
JUROR: I know something that he said his mother went back to -- or got caught shoplifting or something at the mall, or one of the family members. So that's what I remember.
MS. CLARKE: Does that influence you in any way?
JUROR: No, not really.
MS. CLARKE: What was your reaction when you heard that?
JUROR: More comical.
MS. CLARKE: More comical? Is that sort of what the Howie Carr Show --
JUROR: Yeah, absolutely. If you're from Boston, you know Howie Carr.
MS. CLARKE: You know Howie Carr?
JUROR: Absolutely.
MS. CLARKE: Even if you're not from Boston I think you know Howie Carr.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to 88 again at page 23. I keep flipping you back and forth in the questionnaire. It's a test of dexterity.
JUROR: Absolutely.
MS. CLARKE: And when you talked to the judge about what you meant by "I think it's fair," it sounded like you thought it was fair because of the ability to be certain as to someone's guilt? Am I hearing you right?
JUROR: Yeah, I don't think it's -- I think it's fair because of the ability now that you can prove it. I mean, I think if you can prove something that's really -- the person, you know, absolutely did it and, you know, there's no, you know, 100 percent -- you can't say absolutely fair, then, yeah, I think it's somewhat fair, I guess. I wouldn't want to be in jail for life, so...
MS. CLARKE: And how does -- you've said that a few times, and I'm sure there are people that share that opinion. How does that affect you sitting in a capital trial, your own view that --
JUROR: I don't really think it affects me in any kind of way. It's just a personal belief. I think everybody believes -- just like if you were sick and you were on -- you want to take life support away, it's just the way you feel, you wouldn't want to be -- I wouldn't want to be on life support for the rest of my life. You know, quality of life. It's basically quality of life is what I look at.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. You're just expressing your personal opinion how it would affect you?
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: And the idea that the death penalty is fair because we can be more certain nowadays, that kind of makes it sound like you're more focused on the crime in making your decision about the death penalty. Did I get that wrong?
JUROR: Focused on the crime? More the crime than the individual, I would say. More -- I mean, I think it's -- yeah, I guess you could focus more on the crime than on the person. That's my thought on it.
MS. CLARKE: Well, in a capital trial where we don't get to the penalty phase unless the person has been convicted of a deliberate, intentional murder, no excuse, no justification, right --
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: -- so in that kind of situation, where would you be on the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor, because I think the no excuse/no justification tends to conflate questions of the -- those are -- she's using them in the legal sense. But when it comes to the penalty phase, those will be argued as being mitigating factors.
THE COURT: Well, okay. I think -- I don't know if I agree with all of that, but I do think the question could be confusing to a layperson. Maybe you could ask it again.
MS. CLARKE: I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, you know, some people will say, "If it was self-defense, then I wouldn't give the death penalty." Of course if there was self-defense it wouldn't be --
JUROR: A death penalty case. Understandable
MS. CLARKE: Right. It wouldn't be deliberate and intentional murder, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: So the question is: If there is a conviction of a deliberate, intentional, premeditated murder, where would you come out?
JUROR: Honestly, I would come out if -- probably for it if -- if -- if the person -- I would say if the person wants it. But you can't say you want or don't want the death penalty. But I would probably go for it. Yeah, I would.
MS. CLARKE: Based on the crime alone?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's too leading.
My --
MS. CLARKE: I think I would let the Court --
THE COURT: Earlier you heard me say that in the penalty phase -- of course you have somebody who's already been convicted, is found guilty by the jury of intentional murder, right? That's the premise. You don't get to the penalty phase unless you have a person convicted of that.
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: So then the question is: What is the appropriate punishment? And as I said, there will be a presentation by the government of things that aggravate the offense and therefore call for maybe the more serious penalty, and there will be a presentation by the defense -- did I say by "the defense"? By the government if I said that wrong -- aggravating by government, mitigating by the defense.
JUROR: It's just hard to see how you would feel about it at that point after you've gone through. You don't know.
THE COURT: I think the question is: If you're considering all of that, are you thinking about the events of the crime itself alone, or are you thinking about the individual and what that person deserves or doesn't deserve alone based on their characteristics, or are you thinking about both things as balancing against each other, I guess? Do you understand what I'm saying?
JUROR: Yeah, I understand. It's just you can't make that determination until you've kind of gone -- kind of known more about what was behind, you know, the circumstances of everything. I mean, it's hard to say --
THE COURT: Well, earlier I think you said something about upbringing and things like that. Is that a category of things you might --
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't say "upbringing." I mean, yeah, I mean, if you was kind of beaten 24 hours a day and stuck in a closet for, you know, all your life, that's kind of -- you're going to -- that's...
(Pause.)
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
JUROR: That's fine. Thank you.
THE COURT: All set? All right. Thank you. Just leave the questionnaire there.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 379.
COURT CLERK: Juror 379.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here. Have a seat. And if you could do me a favor and keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone around here can hear you, okay? The mic is adjustable so you can move it around.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the case, substantively, with anyone?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to say yes or no for the court reporter.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And have you also been able to avoid media reporting about the case, largely?
JUROR: Largely.
THE COURT: Yeah. If you see it, you turn away from it?
JUROR: Pretty much.
THE COURT: Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I'm a fitness instructor and a personal trainer.
THE COURT: At a health club in a hotel?
JUROR: Health club, yes.
THE COURT: And what's your schedule like?
JUROR: I have private clients a few days a week at another facility where I teach yoga, and I have two classes a week in the evening.
Do you want the specific times or --
THE COURT: Just a general idea of your schedule, that's all.
JUROR: And my other clients are just varied based on when I have people for personal training.
THE COURT: Do you have regular hours at the health club where you --
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: -- are a fitness instructor?
JUROR: About ten hours a week.
THE COURT: That, of course, is the questionnaire that you filled out before. And so we're following up on some of the things -- I just want to ask you if you'd look at page 5, Question 10. In there we set out what we anticipate what the schedule for the case would be. And it would likely be a lengthy case, may last several months. We asked if it would be a special hardship on you to serve on that schedule and you said "no."
I'm just asking in light of what you told us about your work and the hours and so on, would it be difficult for you to maintain your work and serve on the case or could you rearrange your hours and --
JUROR: I don't know why I put "no." I must have been in a rush to get out. It's a huge -- it would be very difficult. I have a lot of people that rely on me. I also volunteer through the Council on Aging and bring older people to medical appointments, and they completely rely on me. So it would be very difficult. And not to mention my husband owns his own business, so we rely on this money that I would bring in when I teach my classes and things, so I don't know why I put "no."
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. That's it.
COURT CLERK: Just leave that right here, ma'am. Thanks.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 385.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 385.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, if you would. Have a seat. Yeah, right over here.
And if you would do me a favor, keep your voice up, speak into the mic so everyone around here can hear you, all right?
JUROR: Okay, I'll try.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the case with other people?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible avoid reading or hearing any media reports on the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. We all have copies, and we're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave, all right?
You were born in Moscow, Russia?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And lived there until the early '90s, I guess?
JUROR: 1990 we came here. 25 years ago.
THE COURT: I assume you speak and understand Russian?
JUROR: Oh, yeah.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about your employment. Tell us what you do and for whom.
JUROR: I'm epidemiologist analyst.
COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I'm epidemiologist analyst. I do medical research. My accent. I'm sorry.
And I do research for Veteran Affairs now, the government.
THE COURT: If you look at page 10 of the questionnaire --
JUROR: Yes?
THE COURT: -- that's where we -- in 26 at the top, we ask you to list your employment. And the VA, the Veterans Administration, is the top one. What's the next word?
JUROR: "MAVERIC." This is the name of the research institute. Massachusetts Veteran Research Institute.
THE COURT: I see. Okay. And where's that located? What town, what city?
JUROR: Here in Boston. In Jamaica Plain.
THE COURT: Okay. Oh, at the Jamaica VA?
JUROR: Yes. I work not far from there.
THE COURT: And before that you worked -- is that a private company?
JUROR: Optima. It's part of the -- it's also the same thing, medical research, but Optima was a big insurance company under the umbrella of United Care, I think.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. And then before that you were -- is it BWH? Is that Brigham and Women's Hospital?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Doing similar work?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me go back to -- well, you don't necessarily have to look. Page 6. Your husband is also a statistical programmer?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where does he work?
JUROR: Brigham and Women's. About 20 years there.
THE COURT: And what kind of work does he do?
JUROR: The same.
THE COURT: Give us an idea, what is it?
JUROR: This is medical research, what they do at Brigham, and he is a leading programmer -- statistical programmer.
THE COURT: Does he work across departments, that is, medical departments? You said you were in epidemiology.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is he in a particular --
JUROR: He is in general medical -- I think a general medical department, but they do research, medical research. He works with doctors, but he's not a doctor. He's close, a statistician.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked about -- and this is at the bottom of page 10 and the top of page 11 -- about the use of social media, like Facebook and stuff like that. You don't use any of those things?
JUROR: I don't use Facebook. But I do online, check news regularly.
THE COURT: Regular --
JUROR: Yeah. I'm pretty aware of what happened in the world.
THE COURT: That just reminds me. Do you still have relatives living in Russia?
JUROR: Not too much. I mean, I have one, but more friends than relatives.
THE COURT: People you still stay in contact with?
JUROR: Yes. Not very close -- not very close, but, yes, from time to time, friends.
THE COURT: So how would you stay -- one thought I had was people sometimes do that through Facebook, but you do it other ways. How do you do it?
JUROR: Skype.
THE COURT: Skype?
JUROR: Skype, and we also call. But I have my brother living in Israel, and also communicate with him by Skype and phone.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about Question 77 on page 20. In this question we asked whether you had, based on things you had seen or read in the media or otherwise, formed an opinion that this defendant is guilty or not guilty or that he should be sentenced to death or not, and as to each of those we gave you the choice of "yes," "no" and "unsure." To each of those you checked "unsure," okay? You can --
JUROR: Yes, I did. But I certainly think that he's probably guilty, but I'm not -- I cannot tell for sure. About the death penalty? I cannot make the decision, one or another side right now. Of course it's a very difficult one, and I'm not sure what to say on that.
THE COURT: Right. I want to come back to that, but I want to talk about first whether you have formed an opinion that he's guilty or not, and you say that you think probably that is the case. Further down in the question, after the multiple choice A, B, C, D, we asked if you answered "yes," which you didn't on the form, but I take what you're saying now is equivalent to saying "yes" to Part A, that you think you do have an opinion, to some degree, anyway. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes, to some degree. That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. So then we ask if you had an opinion, would you be able to set it aside and base your decision on guilt based solely on the evidence presented in the course of the trial here in the court, and you checked the box and said "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yeah, I can do it because I could look at it -- like maybe change some opinion which I had before based on some facts. But I can also tell you that maybe I'm not a good choice for this role because I take it very personal, all what happened. And I put it in question. First of all, my husband runs marathons, and he could be there. I could be waiting for him. He could be a runner.
Also, it's very personal for me because, as you already heard, I came here 25 years ago from Moscow as an immigrant with two boys -- two young boys. So everything here is very, you know, disturbing for me, and I take it very personal. And also, my brother who's in Israel -- and I am certainly very against the extremism, Muslim extremism, because of that. So I don't think I'm a good choice.
THE COURT: How -- how long has your brother been in Israel?
JUROR: 26 years.
THE COURT: About the same time? You all left --
JUROR: Yeah, he left, like, one year before us.
THE COURT: What is his employment or profession?
JUROR: He's an artist. He's also -- he's an artist and he doesn't work. He's like -- now he's 60- -- he was 68 -- 69 years yesterday, so...
THE COURT: So you think that because of the pattern of your immigration with two young boys kind of matches what you understand the family of Mr. Tsarnaev has?
JUROR: Yes. I think I take it very personally. I know what brainwashing could be. It's very disturbing, I can tell you.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. We appreciate that. Just leave that there.
COURT CLERK: Just leave that there. We'll take care of it.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 386.
COURT CLERK: Juror 386.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would. Have a seat. Do me a favor, keep your voice up, speak into the mic so everyone around the table can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible to avoid any media accounts or reporting?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up with some further questions about some of your answers, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Looking at -- on page 10, Question 26, tell us a little bit about what your work is. You work for Central Boston Elder Services?
JUROR: I'm sorry. Page?
THE COURT: Ten.
JUROR: Yes, I work at Central Boston Elder Services.
THE COURT: Tell us what that organization is.
JUROR: We provide services to elderly people. Like we contract --
THE COURT: Is it a private, nonprofit organization?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you describe your position there as case manager. Tell us a little bit about what you do --
JUROR: I visit --
THE COURT: On, you know, a daily, weekly basis, what sorts of things you do.
JUROR: I usually visit elderly people, make sure they have everything they need. If I see anything that I think they need, like a walker, cane, handheld shower, some things that they might need, I address that.
THE COURT: You visit them in their homes?
JUROR: In their homes.
THE COURT: What would your weekly schedule be like?
JUROR: Usually I do about eight visits weekly, and on some days I visit, some days I do notes, progress notes.
THE COURT: And that's generally in the Boston area?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Your answer to Question 26 says that you had previously been a senior pastor?
JUROR: Senior pastor in Puerto Rico.
THE COURT: In Puerto Rico? Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JUROR: Well, I used to be a pastor of a small church, about 35 people, and we used to work out in the street, working with drug addicts, alcoholics, people, preaching the gospel, taking them to rehab centers.
THE COURT: And that -- so that was before you moved up to the Boston area?
JUROR: Before I moved to Boston, yeah.
THE COURT: When you came here, then you started working for the Elder Services?
JUROR: That's correct. I've been here for five years now.
THE COURT: You'll see at the bottom of page 10 and the top of the next page we asked about social media, and you said you use Facebook to chat with family and friends in Puerto Rico?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And also daily thoughts. Can you tell us what you had in mind --
JUROR: I just write some poems and things, and I share with my family and friends.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77. In this question we asked whether -- as a result of things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources, whether you'd formed an opinion whether the defendant is guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not. And you answered that you had an opinion that he was guilty, and further down in D that you had an opinion that he should not receive the death penalty.
We then asked further down in the question that if you answered "yes" to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside that opinion.
JUROR: Where was that? I'm sorry.
THE COURT: This part right here.
JUROR: 79?
THE COURT: No, no, above 78. Right above 78. The second half of Question 77.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Do you see where it begins, "If you answered 'yes' to any of the questions"? There's no number in front of it.
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Right. And you'd answered "yes" to Part A and Part D, right, above, in 77?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do you see you checked "yes" for A and D?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay? So we asked then in the next paragraph, if you answered "yes," would you be able or unable to set aside the opinion you said you had and base a decision of guilt or punishment based solely on the evidence presented to you in court, and we gave you a choice between "able" and "unable," and you said "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You would be able to do that.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yes, it's just if I'm going to judge what I saw, what they said on TV, I might think he's guilty. But after what I heard, the evidence and all that, I might change my mind. So that's when I say "yes."
And what was the other one?
THE COURT: No, that was it. That's what I wanted to ask you about. So let me just go a little further with that. You understand that in our criminal justice system a person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty, or innocent, of the crime unless and until the government proves he's guilty by the evidence produced at trial.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.
You understand those principles?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So what we ask jurors to do is -- even if they have some ideas about the matter beforehand from publicity and so on -- to focus their attention on the evidence at trial and make a judgment limited to the evidence at trial and not by other things.
JUROR: Right. Correct.
THE COURT: And by your answer, you're indicating that you think you're able to do that if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: Yes, yes, I am.
THE COURT: I get confused between questionnaires. Have you had any experience as a juror either here or in Puerto Rico?
JUROR: No. I was going to -- they called me when I first got here, but my English was limited, so I couldn't serve.
THE COURT: Well, it's not very limited now.
JUROR: Yes.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: So let me turn to the death penalty questions. And beginning on page 23 at Paragraph 88 -- not paragraph, Question 88.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We first asked if you have any views on the death penalty in general, what are they, and you wrote, "I believe it's too easy to a person to die or receive the death penalty after committing a crime like this one."
JUROR: Yes. Because I think it's -- for me, you know, a person who committed a crime like this should be thinking about what they did the rest of their life instead of, you know, kill them. I think that's worse.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. In the next question we asked to see if you could put yourself on a numerical scale from 1 to 10, where 1 represented a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed and 10 to believe it should always be imposed whenever a person is convicted of intentional murder, and you selected 1, which as the question was phrased, would indicate that you believe it should never be imposed. Is that your view or --
JUROR: Yes, that's what I believe.
THE COURT: If you go to the next page, Question 90, we set out a series of possible statements and asked you to choose one that best described your feelings about the death penalty in a case where someone had been proved guilty of murder, and you selected C, "I'm opposed to the death penalty but I could vote to impose it if I believed that the facts and the law in a particular case called for it."
JUROR: Yes. What I'm trying to say is if the -- if I'm in a trial like, say, this one and everybody vote that the person should receive the death penalty, well, I'll go with it. That's what I'm trying to --
THE COURT: Well, it seems -- let me say -- I know the questions are kind of formed differently, but in the previous question you said you would never do it, and now in this question you say you might do it. And I guess that's what I'm trying to --
JUROR: Oh, maybe I misunderstood the question. What I'm trying to say that I -- if the -- if the jurors decided -- decided that the person should receive the death penalty, I will have to agree with that. That's what I'm trying to --
THE COURT: Well, you understand you'd be instructed that your decision would be your own decision, not what other people decide, and you would be not only free but required to make your own decision about it and not necessarily vote with the majority or even everybody else. I mean, you could take your own position even if it was different from all the other jurors. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You don't have to agree with them.
So that's why we're asking you for your views, because your views are important, as any juror's views are. But you don't have to defer to anybody. What you do have to do, what we expect you to do, is listen to all the evidence in the case, including the evidence at the penalty phase, and make a judgment based on your own assessment of that regardless of what other jurors think.
Are you clear about that?
JUROR: Yes, I think I misunderstood that.
THE COURT: All right. So now understanding that, you are free to make your own decision even if all the other jurors think otherwise, the question, I guess, is: Would you change your answer to Question 90 or would you --
JUROR: Now that I understand better, let me see which one is the one --
THE COURT: Yeah, take your time. Read through all of them.
(Pause.)
JUROR: I'll say A.
THE COURT: A, which is, "I'm opposed to the death penalty and will never vote to impose it in any case no matter what the facts"?
JUROR: Yeah, I would say that.
THE COURT: That's pretty -- okay. Okay. I'll...
MR. WEINREB: Good morning. Or actually, good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors.
I just wanted to also point your attention to on page 25, Question 95 at the bottom. If you could just reread that question.
JUROR: 95?
MR. WEINREB: Yes, please.
JUROR: You want me to read out loud?
MR. WEINREB: No. No, just to yourself.
(Pause.)
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Is that still your answer today?
JUROR: That's my answer, yeah.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: Good afternoon. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers, and I just had a few questions. And I don't want it to be a tug-of-war; I just want to sort of get at where you are on the death penalty.
The judge will give you, the jury, instructions that they're to deliberate and talk about and weigh the evidence in the penalty phase.
Does that make sense to you?
JUROR: I'm sorry. Can you do that again?
MS. CLARKE: The judge will tell you that as a juror you have an obligation to talk with your fellow jurors about the evidence. Does that make sense?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CLARKE: Do you think you could do that?
JUROR: Talk with the jurors about --
MS. CLARKE: -- the evidence.
Maybe I'll take you back to Question 77, page 20. You got it? Question 77A.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: And you remember talking to the judge about that question, and he was --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: -- telling you that -- or asking you whether you would be able to set aside that opinion, listen to the evidence and talk to the rest of your juror friends, people in the jury box with you, right --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CLARKE: -- and change your opinion?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That wasn't the question. The question was: If you heard the evidence at trial, could you change your opinion? I don't think it had anything to do with talking to the other jurors.
MS. CLARKE: All right. I'll try to get it right.
THE COURT: I put that in later.
(Laughter.)
MS. CLARKE: I thought you had "friends" in there somewhere.
You told the judge that you could listen to the evidence at the trial and change your opinion, right?
JUROR: I definitely said yes.
MS. CLARKE: So that's sort of the same question on the death penalty. Would you be able to listen to the evidence presented by both sides and fairly consider both sides?
JUROR: Of course.
MS. CLARKE: So in sitting with the jury, would you be able to consider the government's position that the death penalty should be imposed?
JUROR: Well, my opinion is that, you know, what I believe, it shouldn't be imposed, but if the government -- if the government decided to do that, I cannot oppose that, if they're going to --
MS. CLARKE: Well, that's not really the question. I mean, I think we all understand that you're opposed to the death penalty yourself personally, and that, if given a choice, you wouldn't have a death penalty in this country.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CLARKE: But that's not the question. The question is whether or not you can fairly consider the arguments for the death penalty as well as the arguments against the death penalty in a case.
JUROR: Oh, yes.
MS. CLARKE: You can --
JUROR: I got to hear all the evidence, and after that I can make my mind about -- if he's guilty or not or -- you know, if he's guilty or not, but not about the death penalty. Do you know what I mean? I believe there's two things -- two different things.
MS. CLARKE: Two different questions. One is whether he's guilty or not, and that's a decision that the jury makes.
JUROR: Right.
MS. CLARKE: And then the second decision the jury makes if they find him guilty is whether or not to impose life imprisonment without the possibility of release or the death penalty, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And the question is whether or not your views against the death penalty would allow you to still consider the arguments for the death penalty as well as the arguments against the death penalty.
JUROR: I believe that I can hear all the evidence and then decide if he's guilty or not --
MS. CLARKE: And --
JUROR: -- until there.
MS. CLARKE: And then the second question is whether or not you can, in the second phase of the trial, consider the evidence for the death penalty and the evidence against the death penalty.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. The question's now been asked several times.
JUROR: Yes, I already answered the question.
THE COURT: Go ahead and answer it if you can.
JUROR: Yes, I don't believe in the death penalty.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Thank you very much, sir. Just leave the form there.
JUROR: Thank you so much.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 390.
COURT CLERK: Juror 390.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat. Do me a favor and keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone around the table can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here have you been able to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible avoid the media reporting and accounts about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Thanks. So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up with some questions about some of the answers you've given.
I want to start with what you do for a living. I'm looking at page 10, Question 26. This says that you are a medical assistant at Mass. General Hospital?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You began in 2013?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you remember what month?
JUROR: October 1st.
THE COURT: 2013?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you were not there in April 2013 when the marathon events happened?
JUROR: No; I was in school.
THE COURT: And school was Bunker Hill?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you remember what you -- during that week when things were happening were you at school or were you home?
JUROR: No, I was home.
THE COURT: Was school off that week? I know for grade schools it is but --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- it was for community college as well?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So tell me about your work as a medical assistant.
JUROR: I work in the cancer center at MGH. I do vital signs, assist with bone marrow biopsies, thyroid biopsies, and lobotomy.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn back to page 5 and Question 10. In this question we outlined the schedule the case would take and also pointed out it's likely to be a long case, and the estimate there was three to four months. That is an estimate, but it's very possible. We then asked if that schedule would cause you any special hardship that would make it difficult for you to serve in the case.
I'm just wondering how it would impact your employment if you were on a case on that schedule that would last three or four months.
JUROR: Well, I spoke to my supervisor about it just saying I was a potential juror, and they were okay with it.
THE COURT: You'll continue to get paid?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked -- this is -- if you want to look at it, it's page 11, Question 30. We asked about use of social media. You said Instagram every day.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you both a sender and a receiver?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Some people look more than they post.
JUROR: No, I do both.
THE COURT: Social things? Just friends and family kinds of things?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You don't use it for work or anything?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Your sister served as a Marine?
JUROR: Yes, she's currently still a Marine.
THE COURT: She is?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: What have her assignments been, do you know, or deployments? Has she been over in Iraq and Afghanistan?
JUROR: Yes, from 2012 to 2013.
THE COURT: Where?
JUROR: Afghanistan.
THE COURT: And she's back now?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where is she stationed?
JUROR: San Diego.
THE COURT: Did she see combat, do you know, when she was over there?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Have you talked to her about it?
JUROR: She doesn't talk much about it.
THE COURT: And you don't press?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at page 20 and Question 77. In this question we asked jurors whether as a result of things they'd seen or read in the media or elsewhere, whether they formed any opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and we gave you a choice of "yes," "no" or "unsure," and you checked "unsure" as to each of those.
Can you tell us why you made that decision?
JUROR: I don't like to base it off of what other people have said.
THE COURT: Excuse me?
JUROR: I don't like to base it off of what other people have said, so I'm unsure.
THE COURT: Okay. So if you were -- let me back up.
You understand that in the criminal process that if a person is accused of a crime, a person is presumed innocent, or not guilty, of the crime unless and until the government proves a person guilty by the evidence at trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury.
You understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And so what we ask jurors to do is to focus on the evidence produced at trial and consider that and make judgments about it, and if they're convinced by the government -- by the government's evidence or all the evidence in the case that the person is guilty and they're convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they're justified in returning a verdict of guilty, but if they're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of what crime is accused -- the person is accused of, it's the obligation of the jury then to vote not guilty.
Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you -- if you on any particular charge were not convinced the government had satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be able to vote not guilty?
JUROR: If I wasn't convinced?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Would you be able to vote not guilty?
JUROR: Not guilty.
THE COURT: Yeah. We asked some questions about the death penalty beginning on page 23 at Question 88, and the first one, 88, was a question whether you had any views on the death penalty in general, and if so, what they were, and you said "none."
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: No general views pro or con?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: But then in the next question we asked, pick a number on the scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed and 10 reflects a belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever a defendant's been convicted of intentional murder, and you picked 10.
JUROR: Right. Like I don't have any strong beliefs against the death penalty, but there are consequences. So if you do commit a murder, then you should be held responsible for that. But I'm just saying that, like, I have nothing against the death penalty.
THE COURT: So you thought Question 88 was asking whether you had any negative opinions about the death penalty?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. I think we meant to ask either way.
In -- well, let me ask you to go to the next page. Here, rather than asking you to select a number on the scale, we asked you to select a statement if you thought it best described your feelings about the death penalty in a case where someone has been proved guilty of murder. And you understand that we don't reach the question of a penalty unless somebody's been convicted of a murder, right? I mean, that's the premise to get to the penalty question, right?
So here on this question you selected statement D which was, "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it or I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release, whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
That sort of indicates you could go either way.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Let me go back to Question 89 because if you look at 89 where you said "strongly favor" -- do you see that, you circled 10?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: If you look right above it, it says "A 10 reflects a belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder." That means more or less always. And that's a little different from D. So maybe -- the questions aren't perfect and it could be subject to interpretation, so tell us -- reconcile for us, I guess, what seems to be a difference between 89 and 90.
JUROR: Well, my thing is, it's just I guess I can go either way depending on if he was guilty or not depending on what evidence was brought against him.
THE COURT: We're not talking about guilt now; we're talking a person who has been convicted of murder, okay? So now we've moved on to the second phase, which is the penalty phase, what punishment should be imposed on this person who is guilty of murder.
JUROR: Yeah, if he's guilty, I would impose the death penalty.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: If that makes any sense.
THE COURT: Okay. So you heard me this morning talk about the penalty phase where there would be an opportunity for both sides to present evidence about what the appropriate punishment should be, the death penalty or life imprisonment, and that the government would present evidence -- aggravating factors that it would argue justify the death penalty and the defense would have the opportunity to present evidence of mitigating factors that would suggest the death penalty is not the right punishment and life imprisonment is.
Do you remember those instructions?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And as I said, after hearing all that, the jurors would be asked to decide what is the right penalty for this case for a person who has been convicted of this crime. Are you saying that you would or would not be able to consider both mitigating and aggravating factors?
JUROR: No, I would be able to consider both.
THE COURT: What I'm trying to get at is whether you think you would automatically go in one direction or another without considering the evidence or whether you'd consider --
JUROR: No, I would consider the evidence.
THE COURT: The reason I'm pressing you a little bit on this is because you -- I want to be sure we understand what you're telling us because earlier I think you said that if the person was guilty of murder, you would impose the death penalty. Do you see the possible conflict between those positions?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you tell us where you really are?
JUROR: It's just really in the middle, like it's -- I guess it all depends on the evidence brought against him. I mean, that's all I can really say.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 25 at the bottom, Question 95. There we asked if you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for it. And you said "yes," right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And that is your answer to that question?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And then on the top of the next page, if you found him guilty and you decided that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of release. You said "yes" to that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And is that still your answer?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you, your Honor.
Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: Hi. My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. If I could, I would just like to follow up on a few of your answers.
So the goal here, as the judge explained, is to determine whether someone can be fair and impartial in sitting as a juror, meaning judge the case on the evidence and not on things that you hear outside of the courtroom or that sort of thing. And I notice one of the things that you mentioned on your questionnaire is that you have a seven-year-old boy.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Yeah. So you may hear evidence in this case -- in fact, you will hear evidence that one of the victims of the marathon bombings was an eight-year-old boy.
Would the fact that you have a seven-year-old boy prevent you from being a fair and impartial juror in this case?
JUROR: It might make it difficult.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So that's understandable. And what we're trying to get at here is whether you can judge the case based on the evidence, and the judge -- and basically on the facts and the law. So the judge will explain -- you'll hear facts in the courtroom; the judge will explain the law to you. Jurors aren't expected to not have personal lives, not have a background, but they are expected to compartmentalize to some degree and sort of put aside --
MR. BRUCK: I want to object to the long explanation. He should ask the question.
THE COURT: Yeah, yeah, I think you should ask the question.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So the question is simply: Will you be able to follow the law as the judge gives it to you and judge the case on the facts?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Now let me ask the same question about your relatives who have had Army service. So, again, you may hear evidence in this case that one of the motives for the marathon bombing was to essentially punish America for its actions in places like Afghanistan and Iraq and to advance the cause of terrorists.
And the question is, again, you know, you'll hear evidence about that and you may believe it and you may not believe it, you may believe some of it or not believe some of it, but the question is: Will you be able to decide the case based, again, on the evidence that you hear in the courtroom despite the fact that you've had siblings who have served?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So now I want to follow up just a bit on what you said about the death penalty. And trust me, you're not alone in finding the process a little confusing, but...
So at the risk of repeating what's been said before, I'll say it again. So this trial may have two phases. So the first phase is just like any other trial; it's to determine if the defendant's guilty or innocent, or guilty or not guilty. And at the end of that process, the jurors will vote. And if they find the defendant guilty of a capital crime, meaning a crime that carries a potential sentence of death, then there will be a second phase of the trial, but if they find the defendant guilty, that means that the jury will have found the defendant guilty of a deliberate, intentional, premeditated murder, and the question then becomes -- so then during the second phase the question is: What should the penalty be for that murder? Should the penalty be life imprisonment or should it be the death penalty? We're not talking about this case now; I'm talking about any death penalty case.
And in the second phase you hear evidence about that. Again, the government puts on evidence that it believes shows that this is the kind of crime, or the kind of defendant, who should deserve the death penalty, and the defense puts on evidence that it thinks shows that this is the kind of crime or the kind of defendant that should not -- does not deserve the death penalty, should get life imprisonment without release instead.
Do you understand all that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: All right. So the question is: Would you go into that second phase with your mind already made up about what the penalty should be or could you hear the evidence and meaningfully consider all of it and weigh it before determining what the penalty should be?
JUROR: I would want to hear both evidence to see what my decision would be.
THE COURT: Would you just say it a little louder? I think some of us had a problem --
JUROR: I would listen to both evidence in order to determine what my decision would be.
MR. WEINREB: Thanks very much.
JUROR: You're welcome.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Not quite finished. Not quite finished.
MR. BRUCK: One more person wants to ask you some questions, and that's me. My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. Is it okay if I ask you a few more questions?
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: I know you've already been through the mill. Thank you.
You now work at Mass. General?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: You weren't working there at the time?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: At the time of the bombing?
JUROR: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell me what you were doing on April 15th, 2013? You said you were a student. Can you tell me how you heard about the bombing?
JUROR: I remember being at home and seeing it on the news, and from there just watching it.
MR. BRUCK: And did you have any concerns about people that you thought might be there?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: You didn't know anyone?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Have you since learned that there were people that you knew that were along the route of the marathon or --
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: -- witnessing it?
How about on the -- on April 19th, the day where there was the manhunt. Do you remember that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Where were you that day?
JUROR: I was home because they said everybody was supposed to stay home. I was home because on the news it said that everyone should be home. So I was watching the whole thing at home.
MR. BRUCK: So you had to stay at home that day because of the manhunt?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. The -- and with your child?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Your child was home that day too?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Did you find that you had to explain to him what this was all about, what's going on?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Was he frightened?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: No, go ahead. You could have it.
MR. BRUCK: Was he alarmed?
JUROR: I think he was more confused. He didn't really understand.
MR. BRUCK: Did you find it hard to explain what was happening?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Like any parent?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Is it something that he has talked about since then?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: You've been asked now already about evidence that the motive for the bombing may have been retribution for what our troops have been doing in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and you told us about your sister. Now that you've had a little bit of chance to think about it, do you think that your sister's time over there, the risks that anyone takes when they're in harm's way in Afghanistan, that that might affect the way you look at this case at all?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Are you sure?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And I want to ask you again -- and what I'm talking about now -- you told the judge originally -- and you filled out part of the form to suggest that if you're sure that someone was guilty of intentional murder that you would always favor the death penalty as the punishment so long as it was clear, you were satisfied that they really committed an intentional murder. And there's been some back-and-forth about that.
Is that how you feel?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Now, you've heard us explain, the judge explain, Mr. Weinreb explain, that it's a two-part trial, and the first part is to see whether or not the person's really guilty, and if they are guilty, then there's a second hearing which is to decide whether the person should get the death penalty or life imprisonment. And of course people bring their own views and feelings into that, and the point of all these questions is just to find out what your views and feelings are rather than to tell you what you should think. So that's what I'm trying to do.
If you were a juror in the second part and there would be evidence presented by both sides in favor of the death penalty or against it, but we want to know what you think, if you were convinced that a person had committed an intentional, deliberate murder, no doubt in your mind, and you had to decide after hearing all the evidence at the second part of the trial whether to impose the death penalty or whether to impose life imprisonment, would you always vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: That's how you really feel when we've been through all of this understanding that there would be evidence presented going both ways?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That's a leading question.
MR. BRUCK: I think we're pretty much done. Thank you.
THE COURT: Finished? All right. Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 391.
COURT CLERK: Juror 391.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would, please. Have a seat. And do me a favor and keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone around the table can hear you.
JUROR: All right.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: I've avoided the substance of the case. People have talked about --
THE COURT: Knowing that you're --
JUROR: Right. Right.
THE COURT: -- here but --
JUROR: Right. But we haven't talked about the substance.
THE COURT: And as much as possible to avoid any media reporting of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the answers that you gave us there, and you can follow along, I guess.
Let me start with your employment. This is page 10, Paragraph -- I mean Question 26.
JUROR: Okay. Yup?
THE COURT: And you're a -- you manage customer support for a medical imaging company?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Tell us what that involves. Your job, I mean.
JUROR: Oh, I have a team of support engineers. We have servers in about 100 hospitals around the country that manage transfer of medical images between hospitals. And so I have a five-person team and we -- you know, whenever there's a problem with it, we're upgrading, fixing, configuring servers and that sort of thing. So it's IT basically.
THE COURT: Okay. Earlier on on page 5 we had given jurors an outline of the schedule we anticipate and the projection that the case could take three or four months --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- and asked if it presented a special hardship, and you answered it does not impose any special hardship.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I am the sole income for my house, I guess. I don't know what my employer would do in terms of -- you know, in terms of three or four months. But -- and my wife is sick. That's why she's not working. But I'd assume my employer would be fine, but I don't know that, actually. So my hardship is basically --
THE COURT: Have you raised it?
JUROR: I think they'll be fine, but I don't know that.
THE COURT: You're a salaried employee?
JUROR: I am a salaried employee, yes. So I need to be sure I'm employed and I have health insurance for my wife and things like that.
THE COURT: I understand she's currently unemployed. The implication was that she had worked in the past. What kind of work did she do?
JUROR: She worked for her parents selling handbags. And right now she has a heart condition, so she's sort of unable to work right now.
THE COURT: I was just getting at the field. She was in retail sales?
JUROR: Retail sales, yeah.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at the bottom of page -- go back to page 10, and the last question we asked if you logged or posted messages or opinions. You said you don't really post anymore?
JUROR: Oh, no, no. I mean, I didn't post to websites or anything like that. I was at one point a journalist and did writing and stuff like that, but I haven't done that for ten years or so. New York Media.
THE COURT: What --
JUROR: They're all technical publications, so I would be writing about technical things usually.
THE COURT: You speak a little Russian or understand a little Russian?
JUROR: I took Russian in college. I mean, I can kind of read Cyrillic from time to time and occasionally pick out words and phrases and stuff, so...
THE COURT: Nothing you currently use?
JUROR: Nothing I currently use, no. Basically college, and I'd been to Russia way back in high school.
THE COURT: Where did you go?
JUROR: I went to St. Petersburg and I went to Moscow.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77. Here we asked jurors whether -- based on things they'd seen or read in the media or elsewise, whether they had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty or that he was not guilty, and then whether the juror had found -- formed an opinion about the death penalty.
You checked the box "yes" for that you had formed an opinion that he was guilty, and "no" the corresponding -- reciprocal answer, I guess.
JUROR: Right. Right. Right.
THE COURT: And then "unsure" about the death penalty.
Then below that we asked, "If you answered yes to any of the questions," and you did answer "yes" to A, "would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt solely on the evidence that would be presented in court," and you checked the box "able."
JUROR: Yeah. I guess my point there was I do come in essentially, based on news media and that sort of thing, feeling that he's guilty, but I could be persuaded, I guess, is the -- I guess the question ultimately is could you -- I'm starting from guilt instead of sort of presumed innocence towards guilt -- you know -- I'm not starting with presumed innocence; I am starting with presumed guilt, but I could be kind of persuaded towards innocence, I guess, which I realize is not the point of the --
THE COURT: Right. It's backwards.
JUROR: It's backwards, but it is how I kind of feel at this point, so...
THE COURT: You think that you would effectively shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that he wasn't guilty?
JUROR: I think so, yes, so -- which I realize is not the answer, but that's -- I think that's what I would have to kind of -- but I feel I could if someone made a case, so...
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think the parties are content.
THE COURT: Okay. You also -- let me just ask this: You were very close to the events that day, the day of -- the end of the week.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The manhunt.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: I think you even said you were awakened by shooting?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Okay. Thanks.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Hold on just a minute. 393?
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Yes. I guess I was looking at my watch.
THE COURT: Well, I'm looking at a couple of things. You haven't talked about her. I mean, look at Question 26 and Question 98.
MR. WEINREB: We've proposed her.
THE COURT: I'll talk to her if you want but...
(Counsel confer off the record.)
THE COURT: You know, if there's any doubt...
MR. BRUCK: I think we should explore hardship, if that's the issue.
THE COURT: Have her come in? She's here. We might as well do it, but I have a suspicion.
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 393.
COURT CLERK: Juror 393.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
JUROR: Yes.
COURT CLERK: And do me a favor, keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, all right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance of the case with other people?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And as much as possible to avoid exposure to media reporting?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you filled out.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And we're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave there.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm first looking at page 10 and Question 26 where we ask you about your current employment.
JUROR: I'm retired.
THE COURT: Oh, you're retired?
JUROR: Yes. It will be a year this April. I don't work anymore.
THE COURT: And you had written in you were at Countryside Nursing Home, and it carried through to 2015, so...
JUROR: No, that's wrong. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: So you retired last year sometime?
JUROR: Yes, it was a year ago this April. So 2014.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. So we also asked jurors about whether you used any social media like Facebook or Instagram or anything.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You don't?
You served on a jury in the state court a couple of years ago?
JUROR: In Framingham, yes.
THE COURT: And that was a criminal case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Your husband has passed away?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What kind of work did he do before he passed away?
JUROR: He was a postal worker before he passed away.
THE COURT: I'd like you to look in the form -- in the questionnaire to page 20, Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: There we asked whether as a result of things you'd seen in the news or learned about the -- things about this case from any source had you formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not. As to the first two questions, A and B, which are had you formed an opinion that he was guilty or that he was not guilty, you checked the box "unsure."
JUROR: And I am.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I am unsure. I don't know much about this case. I never really got into it. I don't know much about it at all.
THE COURT: Okay. You know from your prior juror service, I assume, that in a criminal case a defendant is presumed innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves the person guilty of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at the trial?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And a juror would be asked to listen to the evidence produced in the case and at the end, in deliberation with fellow jurors, decide whether the government had carried its burden of proof, in which case the person could be found guilty, or had failed to carry its burden of proof, in which case the jury will be obliged to find the person not guilty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty in applying those principles faithfully if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty doing that?
JUROR: No, I don't think so. No.
THE COURT: In other words, could you listen to the evidence and reserve judgment whether the government had satisfied its burden of proof or not until you had heard all the evidence and discussed it with your fellow jurors?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm going to come to the death penalty questions in a minute. Actually, right now.
I want to turn to page 23. We asked a series of questions beginning on page 23 about juror attitudes about the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 88 was if you had any general views about the death penalty, what are they. You wrote, "It's not right to kill."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Could you expand on that? Could you tell us what you had in mind when you wrote that?
JUROR: Well, maybe it's because I'm Catholic and thou shall not kill. I don't believe --
THE COURT: I just want to be clear. You're talking about the jury or the government doing the killing rather than a defendant? In other words, it's not right to kill. Somebody might say that about a defendant charged with murder.
JUROR: Right. Yes.
THE COURT: Or someone might say the government should not -- as a matter of moral position, the government should not have the right to kill people. I'm not sure which you're talking about.
JUROR: Let me just -- I see what you're saying, though. I see what you're saying about that. Well --
THE COURT: In other words --
JUROR: That's just my -- my -- that's just what I believe. I don't believe in killing anybody.
THE COURT: Right. So do you think the government does not have the right to put somebody to death?
JUROR: I don't know about the government.
THE COURT: Well, that's what the death penalty would be, the government putting somebody to death.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And the process of law, but it still would be the authority of the government to put somebody to death.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that what you're talking about when you said it's not right to kill?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you look at the next question, 89, we asked you to circle a number that indicated your opinion, and 1 reflected a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed and 10 reflected the belief that it should be imposed whenever a person has been convicted of willful murder, okay? That's what the question asked.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You selected 1, it should never be imposed?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you'd look at the next page, Question 90 asked if you could find among the selections presented a statement that best described your feeling about the death penalty in a case where someone had been proven guilty of murder. You didn't select anything. So I wondered if I could ask you to just take a minute and read through those.
JUROR: Excuse me. What page again?
THE COURT: This is page 24. Two at a time.
Would you read through Question 90, and when you're finished let us know, and then we'll ask you if you think there's a statement there that represents your view. Question 90.
JUROR: I'm reading it. 91. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: It starts at the top.
(Pause.)
JUROR: Most of this I don't remember from when I was here last month.
THE COURT: Take your time because it's kind of an involved question and we want to be sure we get a good answer.
(Pause.)
JUROR: I just don't know what to say.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to go to page 25. At the bottom of page 25, Question 95, we asked if the defendant was found guilty and you decided that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you said "no."
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why you chose that answer?
JUROR: To be honest, I just don't know. I just think it's wrong.
THE COURT: Would you ever be open to the possibility of imposing the death penalty in a case, or are you kind of absolutely against it?
JUROR: I don't know if I would be against it if it -- you know, I'd have to see. You know, I'd have to --
THE COURT: Well, you heard me this morning describe if a person was convicted of a crime for which the death penalty was a possibility, we would proceed to a second phase.
JUROR: Okay. I understand. Yes.
THE COURT: Right? And in that phase the government -- certain principles of law apply to when a death penalty may be imposed by a jury. The government would try to show that this was one of those cases because, among other things, there were particularly aggravating factors that made it a worse crime than other murders might be.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay? In the same phase of the trial the defense would likely present evidence that there were features about this crime or about the defendant himself personally that made the death penalty an inappropriate punishment and that life imprisonment was the proper punishment. So you'd have aggravating factors and mitigating factors.
The jurors would be asked to consider all of that evidence and then each individual juror would be asked to decide whether she thought that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment or life in prison without possibility of release was the appropriate punishment.
Would you be able to listen to the evidence, consider it and reserve judgment about which penalty is imposed until you're finished?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: And if you thought that the death penalty was the right penalty, could you vote to impose it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Can I just ask one thing before -- we can come back -- the last question. You indicated on page 26 in Question 98 that you were concerned about transportation?
JUROR: I don't drive yet. I hope to get a license this summer.
THE COURT: Well, that will be too late for the case.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: How did you get here today?
JUROR: My son-in-law took me.
THE COURT: I think there's probably public transportation from Framingham.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you explored that? I think there's both buses and maybe trains.
JUROR: Yes, there is.
THE COURT: Would that satisfy --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I'd just like to ask you a few follow-up questions.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: So I'd just like to review some of these questions relating to the death penalty to make sure I understand what your views are.
So with respect to Question 88, if you'd take a look at that. It's on page 23. That's the one where you wrote "It's not right to kill."
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And then 89 you wrote that on a scale of 1 to 10, about your feelings about the death penalty, that you strongly oppose it.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So nobody's asking you to -- you're entitled to your views. Here the questions aren't -- it seemed earlier when you were asked about some of these things you were having a little trouble figuring out the reasons.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And you're entitled to your views about the death penalty. You don't have to give any reasons for them. Your views are yours. What we're trying to figure out here is whether -- if you were a juror in a death penalty case, whether your feelings are so strong that they would cause you to vote against the death penalty in every case. In other words, if you're a juror in a death penalty case, at the end of the whole case you personally have to make a decision about whether to vote to impose the death penalty on somebody.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Given your strong feelings that you're opposed to it, that it's not right to kill, could you still vote, if you believed it was the appropriate sentence, to send someone to death?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And can you give us an example of what would be -- something that would be --
MR. BRUCK: I object to this. That's not required.
THE COURT: Yes, sustained.
MR. WEINREB: Can you imagine cases in which you would find the death penalty to be appropriate enough that you could vote to send -- give someone the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes. If I knew what was going on, if they explained everything to me, you know, why he should be put to death. What I'm saying is I don't know anything about this case. I don't know much about it at all.
MR. WEINREB: Of course. And nobody's asking about this case or whether this defendant should get the death penalty. This is a different question.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Which is when you say you could do it, I guess what I'm trying to get at here is: Is it just a theoretical possibility or can you imagine cases on -- can you imagine that there would be a case --
MR. BRUCK: Asked and answered.
MR. WEINREB: -- in which you heard all the evidence and at the end of it you decided that it was appropriate to -- for you to vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MR. WEINREB: Let me direct your attention to Question 95 now on page 25. So that question -- I thought maybe you were struggling to read it before.
JUROR: Which one?
MR. WEINREB: Question 95 at the bottom of page 25.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I'll just read it out loud. So the question is, "If you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty" -- so now we're talking about this case. "If you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for Mr. Tsarnaev, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty," and you wrote "no."
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Is that true?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: You could not vote for it?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: May I?
THE COURT: Yeah, in a minute.
So I understand your answer to that. You answered that before. But you've also answered that you could. And so we know that it's hard to speculate. You haven't heard the evidence that you ultimately will hear. We're not asking you to commit to one position or another.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: This is really kind of an assessment of whether your beliefs are such that you envision the possibility that if you found the right facts to be the case, that you could decide to vote affirmatively in favor of the death penalty and, therefore, support the imposition of the death penalty. Could you do that? That's the question.
JUROR: No. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Bruck?
MR. BRUCK: Thank you. Good afternoon. You've never, I'm sure -- my name is David Bruck. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's attorneys. And I've just got a few more questions so that we're all completely sure we understand your feelings about this.
You've served on a jury before?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: So you know that jurors, if they possibly can, have to have an open mind?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And that's what all of this is about. That's what all of these questions about the death penalty are about.
Could you have an open mind about the death penalty on the one hand or life in prison on the other?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. The last question that Mr. Weinreb was asking you, and I know the judge was asking you, was if you approached the sentencing part of the trial with an open mind and you decided that the death penalty was the right punishment to impose after hearing all the evidence in the case, could you vote for that verdict if -- do you see what I'm asking?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Could you vote for it?
JUROR: Yes, I could.
MR. BRUCK: And on the other hand, if you found that life imprisonment was the right thing after you considered all the evidence --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: -- could you vote for life imprisonment if that was what the evidence told you the right thing was?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: So would your vote depend on the evidence in the case?
JUROR: Yes, it would.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And your beliefs about the death penalty, would that stop you from voting the way the evidence convinced you you should vote?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You'd be guided by the evidence?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, that's leading.
MR. BRUCK: And that's all I have. Thank you.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, can we --
THE COURT: No, I think we've been over it.
Thank you very much.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll talk about...
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: I think we'll take a break at this point. Two o'clock okay?
MR. BRUCK: Sure.
THE COURT: About 45 minutes?
MS. CLARKE: Yes, no, yes, no.
THE COURT: Are you sure?
(Laughter.)
MS. CLARKE: I'm unsure.
MR. BRUCK: May I follow up?
THE COURT: We're off.
(The Court exits the courtroom and there is a recess in the proceedings at 1:13 p.m.)
(After the recess:)
(The Court entered the courtroom at 2:10 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 394.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 394.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat right here.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: I have done my best to do so.
THE COURT: How good was that?
JUROR: Pretty good.
THE COURT: And also avoid any media coverage?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Thank you. So we're just following up on some of the answers you gave us. Tell us a little bit about your work as a teacher.
JUROR: I'm a preschool teacher. I teach children ages between three and five.
THE COURT: And we asked about social media. You seem not to be a user of social media.
JUROR: I am not.
THE COURT: Question 31 on Page 11, you indicated that the daughter of your best friend is in the Army Reserves and served in Afghanistan for ten months.
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: How recently was that, do you know?
JUROR: Two years ago.
THE COURT: Did she see -- I guess you said it in the next question. She didn't see combat. She was in a noncombat role?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: On the next page, in Question 35, you say you have a friend who works in a state prison.
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Massachusetts?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In what capacity?
JUROR: It's the Plymouth --
THE COURT: What's the friend do?
JUROR: They work in the agricultural area, the farm. They were in the control room before that.
THE COURT: Okay. What do they do in the agricultural unit?
JUROR: The prisoners come and they --
THE COURT: They supervise --
JUROR: They supervise the prisoners.
THE COURT: He or she --
JUROR: He.
THE COURT: -- supervises prisoners doing agricultural things?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: The next question, we asked whether you would have a tendency to give greater or lesser weight to testimony from somebody who's a law enforcement officer. You said you thought you would.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I believe just growing up it's the authority and believing in those who are entitled -- those who are law enforcement officers and believing in that they're there to protect us, and we do as we're told.
THE COURT: Well, in a trial, of course, you're evaluating evidence given by any number of people in a wide range of occupations and so on. You think you would not be able to be a critical judge of law enforcement testimony the way you would be of other professions?
JUROR: Most likely.
THE COURT: You would not be able?
JUROR: I would not be able to.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 19, Question 75. We asked whether you had said things to people when you learned that you might have service on this case. And you wrote that, "I have said that the defendant is guilty. I could not be impartial."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Is that your frame of mind?
JUROR: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: You don't think that could be changed?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 395.
COURT CLERK: Juror 395.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat if you would.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance of the case with other people?
JUROR: Pretty much, yes.
THE COURT: Tell me how much "pretty much" is?
JUROR: I've been in situations but have gotten up and excused myself.
THE COURT: Good. And similarly with media reports about the case, have you been able to turn away if you've run across one?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You're employed as a legal executive assistant for a law firm in Boston.
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Looks like you've been doing it for quite awhile.
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: So you now support actually the managing director. Is that what they call the partner in charge?
JUROR: Yes, yes, in the corporate division.
THE COURT: I see. Managing of the corporate?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you been supporting people in the corporate side mostly in your career, or have you gone in other --
JUROR: Prior to this, I worked for 30 years for an attorney that did, first, commercial real estate and leasing and then went into estate planning and probate. And then the last four years has been with the corporate department.
THE COURT: But not litigators?
JUROR: No, never a litigator.
THE COURT: We asked about social media. You say you use Facebook intermittently to very rarely.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Give us a little bit of an idea of that.
JUROR: I don't really know how to post anything. So I can read what is posted, but I've never posted anything myself.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to Page 20.
JUROR: I don't have Page --
THE COURT: It might be out of order.
JUROR: Okay. Here it is.
THE COURT: It's actually -- in my copy, it's between 18 and 19.
Question 77, there we asked whether, as a result of what you'd seen or read in the news media or elsewhere, had you formed an opinion about various matters including, (a), that the defendant was guilty or (b), he was not and then about the penalty. And you indicated, yes, you had formed an opinion that he was guilty.
We then down below, in the second part of the question, 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 solely on the evidence that will be presented to you in court? And you selected the box that said "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I believe that -- I have formed an opinion up until this point based on what I did read and had seen in the media, but I realize that that's not all the information that would be available to me. So once more -- once I had more information, I believe that, you know, I could change my mind based on what I had read at the time.
THE COURT: Yeah. It's understandable, given the amount of coverage that there has been, that people have formed impressions about things. What we ask jurors to do, if they're serving in a case, is to focus their attention on the evidence that is actually produced in the trial and make their decision based on that body of evidence without importing into it other ideas from other sources.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: You think you would be able to observe that discipline if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: I'm sure you know that in our criminal process a person who's accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless the government proves that he's guilty by the body of evidence at the trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think you would have any difficulty in faithfully applying those principles of the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt?
JUROR: No, I don't.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Question 78. You said you don't talk about this with your husband because the conversations can become too heated. Is it only he who has strong views, or do you have them, too?
JUROR: Actually, it's not -- my husband and I wouldn't discuss this just one on one. It would be more in a social setting.
THE COURT: And other people would be there?
JUROR: And other people, right, and --
THE COURT: I was thinking you might have meant one on one. Then I was going to ask really whether you thought, if your husband had strong views and they were different than yours, whether that would affect your service.
JUROR: No, I do not.
THE COURT: Just going back to Question 77, as to the (c) and (d) parts of the question, about the death penalty, you indicated "unsure."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You don't have any present opinion about that.
JUROR: I do not.
THE COURT: Okay. So we asked a series of questions about the death penalty to get jurors' attitudes. That begins on Page 23, at Question 88. Question 88 itself asks, If you have any views on the death penalty, in general, what are they? And you said, "I would need to hear and know all the facts before committing either for or against the death penalty. I've always thought I was against it, but when you really have to think about it, things change." Can you amplify on that a little bit?
JUROR: I think it's easy to have what you feel are strong opinions about something; but then once you're in a situation that it actually could be a possibility and you think about it from that perspective, it kind of opens up a whole different dialogue within yourself.
THE COURT: In the next question, we asked you to locate where you think you would be on a spectrum from 1 to 10, where 1 was someone who is strongly opposed and believed that the death penalty should never be imposed; and 10 reflected somebody who's strongly in favor and believed it should be imposed whenever a defendant is convicted of intentional murder. You chose 5, to indicate you were somewhere in the middle of all that, is that correct?
JUROR: That is correct.
THE COURT: Turn the page to the next page, 90. Here we asked you to select from a series of statements which one you thought best described your feelings about the death penalty for someone convicted of murder. You selected (d). "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it, or I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law of the case." Do you think that best sums up your state of mind?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: And then in the bottom of Page 25, at Question 95, we asked -- focusing perhaps on this case a bit more particularly than those other questions did -- If you found this defendant guilty and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you said, "I'm not sure." Go to the top of 96. There we ask a similar question. If you found the defendant guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that sentence? And you said "yes" to that. So there's a little bit of a difference between your answers to the two questions.
JUROR: I think that -- I think that, when I was filling these questions out and thinking about it, I -- in my mind I was thinking that, for me, there are different degrees of guilt. And I don't know what -- where this falls without knowing all of the information. So my thought process was just that, for me, I believe there are different degrees of guilt.
THE COURT: Well, you heard this morning that I described in brief the process after a person has been convicted of murder. And that would be the predicate. You don't get to the penalty, obviously, until the jury has already found the person guilty of intentional murder, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And at that point, as I said, you'd hear aggravating factors that might make the case more serious or more blameworthy. And you might hear other mitigating factors that might explain why the death penalty was inappropriate and life imprisonment was an appropriate and sufficient sentence.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And on the basis of all that, the jurors would be asked to decide whether they thought the death penalty should be imposed or life imprisonment without the possibility of release. So, obviously, it's difficult to predict what you would do in the future on an unknown --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- base of information.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But can you tell us whether you think you would be prepared to listen to that evidence and be open to being persuaded in either direction?
JUROR: I would be, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name it Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the indicates.
JUROR: Hello, Mr. Weinreb.
MR. WEINREB: I just want to follow up on one thing here on that Question 95 just to make sure I understand. So Question 95 assumes that the penalty phase is over. You've heard evidence from the government suggesting that the death penalty is the appropriate sentence, and you've heard evidence from the defense suggesting that it's not the appropriate sentence. And now you've come to the decision in your mind that you believe it is the appropriate sentence. This is just the assumption.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: The question is: Having come to that belief in your mind, would you actually be able to do it, to vote to send somebody to death?
JUROR: If I came to that decision based on the facts that were presented to me, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Thanks very much.
JUROR: Sure.
MS. CLARKE: Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Hi, Miss Clarke.
MS. CLARKE: I just wanted to ask you a few things if I could. You mentioned in 77, and you talked to the Judge -- and you're right. Your questionnaire goes from Page 18 to 20 and then 19. There you go.
You mentioned that the conversations become too heated. What do they get heated about?
JUROR: Just people -- various people's opinions as to what happened, what should happen, where -- you know, where things went wrong, what -- you know, just basic communications over the days that followed.
MS. CLARKE: So what happened to the community and to -- on Boylston and what should happen in the future?
JUROR: Not so much the future but just what the -- the events that had just happened and how -- why it happened. Everyone, you know, had an opinion as to why it happened and how it happened. And so -- and if you tend not to agree with some people, they get upset.
MS. CLARKE: So you do what?
JUROR: I'm sorry?
MS. CLARKE: You do what? Avoid the conversation?
JUROR: Well, I think that I try to steer the conversation away from that. In a social setting, you know, let's not discuss politics or religion.
MS. CLARKE: Probably a good --
JUROR: That's kind of where we try to put things.
MS. CLARKE: If you're -- have you served on a jury before? I can't remember.
JUROR: I have not.
MS. CLARKE: If you're in a -- on a jury, it could get heated. The debate could get heated. How do you think you would deal with that? Just tell everybody to quiet down?
JUROR: Everyone is entitled to their opinion; and in a jury setting, it's much different than a social setting.
MS. CLARKE: Sure.
JUROR: And people have much more of the facts than they do in a social setting. So I think that the conversation would be much more knowledgeable of the people involved.
MS. CLARKE: At least a little more informed?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Have the people who have had these heated conversations involving you, I guess --
JUROR: Involving this situation.
MS. CLARKE: You just happen to be there?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Participating in the conversation?
JUROR: Well, yes, with friends.
MS. CLARKE: Have there been opinions expressed about the death penalty in this case?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CLARKE: Have there been any opinions expressed that influence you one way or the other?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: It was interesting, in 88, which is Page 23, where you wrote, "I always thought I was against it," the death penalty, "but when you really have to think about it, things change." What prompted that thinking?
JUROR: I don't think that I was in a -- that I'm in a position, without hearing all of the facts, to say that I am either for it or against it at this point. It's easy for me to say, yes, I believe that a person should have -- should have the death penalty; but when you're faced with that may be a real possibility that I would have to decide, then -- and you start -- and I start thinking about it in those terms, then it's difficult for me to say.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. And I guess, when you filled this out, you were beginning to think about --
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: -- the death penalty. In this case or just generally?
JUROR: I would have to say, when I filled this out, it was in this case.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Your work at the law firm, I don't think anybody asked you. Is that a hardship for you if you were sitting for three or four months here with the rest of us?
JUROR: I mean, I've discussed it with my employer, and they're aware of it. I don't think -- I think that, for every juror, it would be a hardship to be on a case such -- such a lengthy case.
MS. CLARKE: Would you --
JUROR: But they have said that it would be fine.
MS. CLARKE: And you would be paid?
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: So there's not a financial crunch for you?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Could I just -- one moment, your Honor?
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. CLARKE: If I can go back to 88 and just to sort of make clear in our minds, your position before this case on the death penalty, did you have one abstractly, as a matter of policy or as a matter of law?
JUROR: I would say that I would probably lean towards being against it, but I can't say that I was set in that.
MS. CLARKE: You were open to both?
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: Life imprisonment or the death penalty outside of this case?
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: And remain open to both inside of this case?
JUROR: That is correct.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thanks. Just leave it there. We'll put it back together.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 396.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 396.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking with people about the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also, as much as possible, any media reporting on the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So we're following up with information we got from the questionnaire just to learn a few things more. We see you're a senior business analyst for an insurance company.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you've been doing that for quite awhile, I guess.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us what the job involves in general terms.
JUROR: Software, I do software testing and write requirements for new software.
THE COURT: Okay. For use in the business?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So adapting --
JUROR: Claim systems, claim and reserving systems.
THE COURT: I see, okay. All right. Pretty much the same thing over your time with the company?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: We asked about social media use. You said you sometimes, but rarely, use Facebook.
JUROR: Yeah, very rarely. I have like --
THE COURT: Sounds like you don't like it.
JUROR: I have 30 friends, and I will look at their posts for ten minutes at night. That's it. I work on a computer, all day so I'm not on the computer at night.
THE COURT: Fair enough. You brother served as a Navy pilot.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When, approximately?
JUROR: I don't --
THE COURT: You said for ten years so --
JUROR: Out of college. He went to military college and then into the Navy.
THE COURT: Okay. Was he ever in combat?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 19. At the bottom, Questions 74 and 75, we asked a little bit about what you thought and what people may have said when you -- or you may have said when you learned that you might be a prospective juror in this case. In 74, you said you were interested in the case, also how disruptive it would be.
And then in the next question about what kinds of things you said to others or others said to you, you had some other concerns about work and, I guess, a course you're taking.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: We had asked earlier in the questionnaire -- if you want to go back to Page 5, Question 10, we set out this -- what we thought the schedule would be, and it still would follow this pattern. And then on that schedule, the trial could last three or four months possibly. We asked if this would be a substantial or special hardship on you as opposed to the necessary hardship any juror would feel. I'm just -- you said "no" to that question.
JUROR: I think I understood "special hardship" as something else.
THE COURT: Tell us about what you were referring to in 74 and 75 and how much of an impact it would be on you.
JUROR: You know, I have two kids at home and one away at college, and I have doctors' appointments and sports appointments and college applications, and I work 80 hours a week, and I'm training new staff. So I think the general hardship for anybody.
THE COURT: Would it be a financial cost to you?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: In other words, would you stop getting paid?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Is it in the nature of one more thing to juggle? Is that the kind of thing?
JUROR: Yeah, in the middle of juggling, like, a million things.
THE COURT: Tell me about the class.
JUROR: I'm taking an advanced networking class so I waited -- I was waiting to see before I registered, and I couldn't wait any longer.
THE COURT: Tell me about it.
JUROR: So I take a class at Bentley College. It's a networking computer class.
THE COURT: When is it? When do you take it?
JUROR: Thursday nights.
THE COURT: What time?
JUROR: 7:30 to 10:30. And it's my last class.
THE COURT: Then you get a certificate or degree?
JUROR: Degree.
THE COURT: Bachelor's degree?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Question 77, near the top. In this question we asked whether -- based on things you'd seen or read in the news or learned from other sources, whether you had formed an opinion in Subpart (a) that the defendant was guilty and then (b), or not guilty, and then some questions about potential penalty in (c) and (d). You checked -- to Part (a), you said "yes," you had formed an opinion that he was guilty.
JUROR: Based on what I've seen.
THE COURT: Right. Then down below we asked, in the second part of the question, If you answered yes to any of these questions, would you able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilty solely on the evidence that would be presented to you in court, and you said "able."
JUROR: Where is that?
THE COURT: Right above 78, the second part of 77.
JUROR: Yes, that's true.
THE COURT: So could you tell us what led you to answer the question the way you did?
JUROR: Which question?
THE COURT: The second part there, the "able."
JUROR: I think I can listen to, you know, the evidence of the case and just consider that despite what I've seen.
THE COURT: Okay. You, I'm sure, understand that a defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent, or not guilty, until the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at the trial.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what we ask jurors to do, to pay attention to that body of evidence and decide whether on that evidence the government has proved the person guilty of what he's charged with or not, right?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You think you would be able to follow those principles?
JUROR: I think I would, yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about your answer to Question 80, at the bottom of the page. Your brother was in the Copley Square area about the time that the bombs --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- were exploded?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And he's told you about it a little bit?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You said he described it?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Would the fact that he was nearby the incident, would that have any effect on your impartiality as a juror?
JUROR: No. He was okay and his family running the race -- everybody was okay.
THE COURT: You had people in the race?
JUROR: Yes. My sister-in-law's brother had already crossed the finish line.
THE COURT: Okay. On the next page, you sheltered in place?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: On that -- at the end of that week?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Then you or others in your family have engaged in various support activities. Can you tell us a little bit about that, what you did yourself or what others did?
JUROR: Yeah. I took my kids into the memorial in Copley Square. We bought T-shirts, wrist bands, hats --
THE COURT: When did you do that?
JUROR: -- all Boston Strong. Shortly after -- I don't remember the dates but --
THE COURT: Not the exact day.
JUROR: Within the year following.
THE COURT: Was it right after? Was it a couple months after?
JUROR: Some of it was right after. Some -- I think a bakery in Somerville did a fund-raiser for Sean Collier, so we went there and bought -- so it's ongoing. As things come up, we may or may not go to them today.
THE COURT: Do you keep an eye out for things like that to go to, or they just get your attention and you decide to go?
JUROR: Yeah. No. I don't keep an eye out for them.
THE COURT: Have you organized any responses like that?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Just kind of contributed and participated that way?
JUROR: (Nodding.)
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Page 23. Beginning with Question 88, we asked a series of questions to gauge jurors' attitudes about the death penalty both in general and perhaps in this case. Question 88 is about your views in general, and it asks, If you have them, would you summarize them? You said, "In general, I believe in the death penalty. I'm not sure I personally could impose it." Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, I actually never really thought about me personally having to sentence someone to death before this.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: So I've always been a general supporter that, if necessary, the death penalty is a valid tool, I guess, for law enforcement or the courts. But, you know, I don't know. I don't know. I'm a Catholic. I'm not sure it's up to me personally to decide who lives or dies. Again, I thought just two days ago, if this were one of my kids that was killed in this bombing, I could have a whole -- I just don't know. I'm not sure how I would decide that.
THE COURT: So in the next question, we asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is strongly opposed and reflects a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed; 10, strongly in favor and reflects a view that the death penalty should be imposed whenever a defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder. And you selected 8, a little bit towards the favor side.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I favor it. I'm just not sure I can do it.
THE COURT: You wrote in "must be of a heinous nature."
JUROR: Yeah. This said "should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder."
THE COURT: So did you mean to qualify that by saying not just any intentional murder; it has to be a heinous one? Is that what you meant?
JUROR: Yes, that's what I meant.
THE COURT: Then Question 90, we asked to you look at a series of possible statements and see if there was one that adequately described your feelings about the death penalty. And you didn't find one that you could agree with, I guess. You said, "None of the statements above really describes my feelings." Then, again, you wrote in, "I'm in favor of the death penalty but not sure I could impose it." That's what you've already told us, right?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Then if you would go to the next page, Question 95, at the bottom, focusing now more particularly on this case, the question asks, If you found this defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you wrote, "I'm not sure." Right?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: That's, I guess, what you've been telling us.
JUROR: I'm still not sure.
THE COURT: Just to finish the questionnaire for a minute, Question 96, we asked you, If you found this defendant guilty and decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote for that punishment? And you said "yes."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You heard me this morning describe in general terms the process of a penalty phase after someone's been convicted. You don't get to the penalty, of course, until the person has been convicted, right?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And that there would be evidence that the government would offer of what we call aggravating factors that made this crime seem worse than many and perhaps particularly blameworthy, and the government would argue that. You would have evidence from the defense that, for various reasons, there are mitigating circumstances about the events, about the person of the defendant himself and so on. And we asked the jury then to consider all of that and decide, between the two options that is are presented: the death penalty and life imprisonment. Do you think you could deliberate upon that evidence with an open mind to returning a verdict in either direction or not?
JUROR: I don't know if I could return a death sentence verdict. I don't know that I can do that.
THE COURT: And that's -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. But is it because of your views of morality and what's proper or views about --
JUROR: You know, I don't know. That's how I thought of it at first, that it's really not up to me to decide who lives or dies. But as I thought more about my own children, I think I would have a different view. So I'm just -- I think in my own heart I'm conflicted about --
THE COURT: You remember -- and we talked about it in Question 89 -- I think it was 89 -- you added the qualification that not only the defendant was convicted of murder but it must be of a heinous nature. If you thought that the evidence showed a crime of a heinous nature, do you think you would be able to vote for the death penalty in that circumstance?
JUROR: I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I think you've been pretty clear in your answers, and so I don't want to just belabor it by asking the same questions over and over. But maybe by asking slightly different ones we can get a better sense of your assessment of your own abilities in this area.
So a couple times you've said that you have kids and that, if it were one of your children, maybe you could vote to impose the death penalty. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you seem to get a little emotional even thinking about it.
JUROR: I do.
MR. WEINREB: You're emotional right now thinking about it.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: But when it comes time to make a decision in this case, you will be asked to do it not based on emotion but based on --
JUROR: The evidence.
MR. BRUCK: I object to that. I mean, you can't banish emotion from this. I mean --
THE COURT: Well, get to the point of the question, I think, will be the best thing.
MR. WEINREB: So far, I guess what you've said -- what you seem to be saying -- you correct me if I'm wrong -- is that, if your emotions were impacted as deeply as if it were one of your own kids, then you think you could potentially do it?
JUROR: No. What I meant to say was, if it were one of my own kids, not if my emotions were like if it were one of my own kids.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So other than if it were one of your own kids, can you imagine actually doing it, sentencing someone to death?
JUROR: No. But that's why the conflict is because I never would have imagined being able to do it, and then I find myself thinking I could if it was one of my children. So I don't know. I don't know if, after hearing everything, I have -- you know, I change my mind. But I won't know that, you know -- I can't say right now.
MR. WEINREB: I appreciate that, but, thank goodness, you're not going to hear that it was one of your own kids. So we know that we can rule out that possibility.
JUROR: Right, yeah. That was just to explain how it changed a little bit from what I initially thought, that I could never do that.
MR. WEINREB: Right. I understand. But that's a very personal kind of impact. In this case, it's not going to be personal.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: It's going to be about other people. And so, again --
MR. BRUCK: I think now we're staking out this individual.
THE COURT: I think we're getting close. I agree.
MR. WEINREB: In imagining any case in which you're sitting, not this case in particular but any case where it's not personal, it's -- didn't affect your family, anyone who you knew personally, can you imagine yourself actually -- despite your moral objections to it and your feelings about it, actually sentencing someone to death?
JUROR: I don't know. No matter how you ask that question, I don't know if I can do that.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. I think that's a pretty definitive answer. Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: I'm David Bruck. I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. I just want to be sure that we're all on the same page. I think, when the judge was asking you questions before, the bottom line of all of his questions are, can you put your opinions or publicity aside and base your decision based on the evidence?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. I don't believe that's what all the questions were about, including the --
THE COURT: Some of them were. You can have it. Go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: That's what I really want to get to, understanding that you have opinions about the death penalty. A lot of people do. The real question is: Can you -- could you base a decision on the death penalty based on the evidence in the case? If the case was heinous enough, could you vote for it? I'm not talking about this case. I just mean --
JUROR: I don't know the answer to that.
MR. BRUCK: You don't know the answer to that why?
JUROR: Because I have never considered whether or not -- I just don't -- I'm conflicted, just conflicted about whether or not I could sentence someone to death.
MR. BRUCK: Does that have anything to do with not having heard the evidence yet?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
JUROR: Am I done?
THE COURT: You're done. Just leave that there.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 399.
MR. BRUCK: Before the juror comes in, I'd like to move, in the future, that the counsel for the government not make comments after the juror has finished with their examination but immediately before ours about -- such as, I think that's pretty definitive, or, I think you've been clear. In a way, it's sort of trying to nail down the answers so that it won't change or to keep it from being affected by the rest of the voir dire. I don't think it's really fair.
THE COURT: Okay. I think we should avoid commenting on the quality of the answers. Questioning is fine.
[REDACTED]
. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 399.
COURT CLERK: Juror 399.
JUROR: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat right here.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon, sir.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Certainly.
THE COURT: And to the extent possible, put aside any media stories that you may have come across?
JUROR: No problem.
THE COURT: Thank you. That's the questionnaire that you filled out when you were here last. We're going to ask you a little bit about some of the answers, follow-up on some of them, okay?
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: I'm looking at Question 26 on Page 10 where you tell us in brief what your employment is. You're a manager of a home medical equipment company.
JUROR: That is correct.
THE COURT: Can you tell us a little bit about what that works involves for you?
JUROR: We provide home medical equipment such as wheelchairs, hospital beds, oxygen, to people in their homes, up in the -- primarily in the Merrimack Valley area.
THE COURT: Is this a national company?
JUROR: No, no. It's a locally owned company. They've been in business about 20 years. I just work there. I'm not an owner.
THE COURT: And you've been there?
JUROR: Going on ten years.
THE COURT: You owned your own business before that?
JUROR: Yes, sir, I did own a business for a few years in Philadelphia.
THE COURT: So you've been in Massachusetts since about the time you went to work for the -- your current employer, is that --
JUROR: That's correct, yes.
THE COURT: Mid --
JUROR: About ten years ago, yup. Years prior to that, I lived here, then moved away, and then moved back.
THE COURT: So what does your work involve? What do you do?
JUROR: Well, I'm what's called an ATP, assistive technology professional. That is a certification that is required by Medicare and the insurance companies to prescribe a complex power wheelchair or other complex rehab equipment. So most of my day is spent measuring butts.
THE COURT: That's direct enough, I guess.
JUROR: Well.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to go back to Page 5, Question 10.
JUROR: Page 5?
THE COURT: Yeah. In that question we outlined the general plan for the conduct of the trial of the case in terms of weekly basis and included the projection that it may go three or four months possibly. And we asked, recognizing that there's some imposition on every juror who sits, whether this would cause a substantial hardship to you, and you answered "no." Is that accurate?
JUROR: It certainly is a hardship. I'm not sure what you would consider substantial.
THE COURT: One thing is there's a possibility of financial. Would you continue to get paid?
JUROR: I would certainly hope so, yes.
THE COURT: Have you talked about that with your boss?
JUROR: They would certainly prefer I not be chosen to serve.
THE COURT: Right. But if you were, do you think they -- are you salaried?
JUROR: Yes, I am, yes.
THE COURT: Do you think they would continue to pay your salary?
JUROR: I do think so, yes.
THE COURT: In terms of the impact on you -- it might impact their conduct of the business, but in terms of the impact on you, it would not --
JUROR: I probably would be doing a little more work nights and weekends and days off but --
THE COURT: You may have already said this, and I may have missed it, but back at Question 26, we asked you to check a box if you supervised others, and you did. How many people do you supervise?
JUROR: Four.
THE COURT: Are they doing similar things to what you do?
JUROR: Yes, yes, yes.
THE COURT: We asked about use of social media in Questions 29 and 30. You answered 30 that you do Facebook every few weeks, I think is what you said. That's on Page 11.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about how you use Facebook.
JUROR: I'm not a fan of Facebook. I do, every few weeks, go in to look at our company Facebook pages. And, oddly enough, my grade school has a Facebook page that I do check in on. But other than that, I'm a very infrequent user of Facebook.
THE COURT: Do you post at all?
JUROR: I do to my private grade school group sometimes, but that's about it.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about -- I'm on Page 15. Actually, go back a page, to 14. You can take the clip off there if it's easier to navigate. You don't have to keep it clipped.
So beginning at Question 44, 45, and 46, we asked whether you had strongly positive or negative views about prosecutors, defense attorneys, and then on the top of the next page, law enforcement officers. And you said "no" to the prosecutors and defense attorneys; but with respect to law enforcement officers, you said you had "negative views about the job they do. It's gone to their heads."
JUROR: My personal opinion is, years ago when I was a kid, the police officers had some -- typically some different ideas than they do today. I think, along with the television show Miami Vice, a lot of what -- a lot of them get carried away with their attitudes of self-importance.
I think they have one of the safest jobs that a person can have. Where else are you fully trained, fully armed, in full communications for whatever comes up? Certainly, it's a tragedy when one is injured or killed on duty. Absolutely, it's a tragedy. But it's also a tragedy when a truck driver trying to get our groceries to the store for us gets killed, too.
So I just -- I just don't see them as elevated above the rest of people. And I think sometimes, because of the media and Hollywood, that it gets carried away a little bit.
THE COURT: Go back to Page 14 for a minute and, actually, the question before the series that I asked you about. And this is related to what you have just been saying. Question 43 asked whether you or someone close to you had ever been treated unfairly by a law enforcement officer and so on. I'm just wondering if your view that their authority has gone to their heads has led to a personal experience that you've had or somebody close to you has had.
JUROR: My ex-wife was a police officer in Philadelphia.
THE COURT: I'm not sure we can tease out the sources of the difficulty.
Apart from her, have you had a personal experience where you thought a law enforcement officer was treating you unfairly?
JUROR: I haven't had a personal encounter with any, no. Sometimes I hear it on TV. And like I said, I think they certainly have a difficult job to do, and I appreciate the job they do. I also appreciate the jobs a lot of other people do.
THE COURT: So now let's go back to Page 12, and in Question 36 we asked -- we noted that jurors will be instructed that the testimony of law enforcement officers is to be treated as the testimony of other witnesses, and it's not to have either greater or lesser weight simply because of the witness' status as a law enforcement officer. We asked if you had any concerns about your ability to follow that instruction, and you said "no." Is that correct?
JUROR: That's correct, yes, absolutely.
THE COURT: That's taking into account your views that you expressed in Question 46?
JUROR: I think Question 46 actually supports my answer on Page 36 because I don't elevate -- see them as having super status. I see them as having the same status anybody else would.
THE COURT: Could we do a brief sidebar, please?
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
[REDACTED]
JUROR: Thank you for doing that.