3.Individual Voir Dire — Bias, Hardship, Witness Connections, and Watertown Connections (Part 2)
673 lines(In open court:)
COURT CLERK: 427.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 427.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat. Keep your voice up and speak into the mic, okay?
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow the instructions to avoid talking about the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: And as much as possible to turn away from any media reports that you get exposed to?
JUROR: Yes. My husband's been very good about changing it.
THE COURT: Okay. Good.
So that's the questionnaire. We're just going to follow up on some of the things you told us.
First, you're a special ed assistant?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Is that a distinction from a teacher? You're an assistant teacher or --
JUROR: Well, I call myself a teacher, but I'm basically a one-to-one aide for special needs students.
THE COURT: And in the public schools in Amesbury?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked about use of social media.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: If you want to look on -- this is at page 10, at the bottom.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: You use Facebook --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- on a weekly basis, I guess, and you said you mostly post about your children, and then inspiration messages. I just wanted you to explain what you're talking about.
JUROR: You know, things like you find a picture of some -- like a butterfly and it talks about, you know, happiness is this or that, you know, those kinds of things.
THE COURT: You've had prior -- actually, fairly recent jury experience --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- as a juror.
And it was a civil case?
JUROR: Right. And I think I said I -- I said I think it was 2012, but it was 2013, so it was two years ago, February.
THE COURT: And that was in Lawrence Superior Court?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You said -- this is in Question 48 on page 15. You said it was a great experience --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- which we're happy to hear.
You said you weren't the foreperson, but you did help decipher through the evidence.
Could you tell us what you meant by that?
JUROR: Basically, we had trouble coming to a conclusion, so we went home, we had come back, you know, the next day, and I just led -- led it as, you know, let's hear from everybody why you're saying no, why you're saying yes. And as they would go, you know, I went through my notes, went through what we had, was able to say, "But look at" -- you know, "Look at it this way," or, you know, "Look at what they said," you know, those kinds of things.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I was involved in that. And maybe probably about four others might have been more heavily involved in that way.
THE COURT: This is a 12-person jury?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20. In Question 77, near the top, we asked a series of questions about whether you had formed any opinions based on things you'd seen in the news or from other sources.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And in Part A we asked if you had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty, and you checked "yes." And then on C and D regarding the possibility of the death penalty, you said you were unsure in those boxes.
Down below that, we then said, 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 in this case -- that's the one you checked "yes" for -- would you be able to base your decision about guilt based solely on the evidence presented to you in court, and you checked "able."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why you made that selection?
JUROR: You know, basically, my feeling is, yes, that he's guilty, from what I know of the media, from what I saw on TV, but I am the type of person that -- well, most of the time there's three sides to a story, you know, his, hers, and the truth kind of a thing. But I believe that we don't know everything, so I'm not going to say -- I don't come right away and say, absolutely, you can't tell me anything that's going to change my mind, you know. I am just that way. I respect this process enough that -- that I would -- I would be able to listen to all sides.
THE COURT: So you've had jury experience, but it wasn't a criminal case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I'm sure you know that in a criminal case when someone's accused of a crime the person is presumed to be innocent of the crime charged unless and until the government proves that the person is guilty by the evidence at trial and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: True.
THE COURT: You're familiar with those concepts?
JUROR: Right. Right.
THE COURT: A defendant never has any burden to prove he's not guilty; the burden is always with the government to prove that he is guilty.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You understand that?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So what we ask a jury to do, the members of the jury, in a criminal case is to set the default position at not guilty and then listen to the evidence and consider whether, at the end, considering everything that's been produced, whether the government has satisfied its burden of proof by showing by the evidence the person is, in fact, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you think you would be able to follow those principles if you were a juror in this case --
JUROR: So...
THE COURT: -- notwithstanding any prior opinions?
JUROR: Right. I see what you're saying. Because obviously the question I answered truthfully --
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: -- you know.
But what you're saying now is would I be able to come in and say he's not guilty and -- by our law, he's not guilty until everybody kind of says what they need to say? I feel I could do that but want to be up-front that from what I've seen on the TV at the time that it was happening, there still is that, in the back of my mind, sort of feeling of guilt. But I'm not saying that I wouldn't -- because I respect the process, I'm not saying that I wouldn't be able to cast aside those. I'm saying I would be able to and listen to both sides.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you about Question 80 at the bottom of the page.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You had a friend who was near the site of the explosions, I gather?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And she and her ten-year-old son had to run away and you said hide out in a college student's room? Can you tell me about that?
JUROR: She was there with her family, with her husband as well. Her husband had to go a different way and help someone else. But she ran with her son down the street, and a college student had come out and said, "Come up here. Come up and hide up here." So she stayed in a --
THE COURT: Where was that, do you know?
JUROR: I don't know the exact location.
THE COURT: Are you familiar with downtown Boston?
JUROR: Not really.
THE COURT: You said her husband had to help someone else?
JUROR: Yes. They went as a group of other -- other friends that they were with, and he had to -- I don't know which way, but he had to go find -- make sure those people were okay too, so he went -- and they were like, "Meet us down here," and, you know, that kind of thing.
THE COURT: So when you say "help somebody," you mean they were trying to locate everybody and make sure they were --
JUROR: Just locate them and -- yeah. I mean, it could have been --
THE COURT: As opposed to --
JUROR: -- ten feet away. I don't know.
THE COURT: Right. As opposed to helping someone who had been injured?
JUROR: Right. Right. It wasn't anybody that was injured. It was just --
THE COURT: Account for everybody?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, has that -- does that leave you with some impressions that might affect you as a juror in this case?
JUROR: I mean, she's a very good friend of mine, and at that time it was obviously devastating for her and her son, so I would say yes, there is some emotional feeling that I have toward it -- about it.
THE COURT: Would it -- would it affect your judgment in the case?
JUROR: I can't say yes or no, really. You know, I just want to be honest that, I mean, I guess -- I guess as the trial could go along, the emotions could, you know, come up in such a way that maybe it would.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to page 22, Question 85.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You said that -- I'm going to show you the list here. You said that you recognized one of the --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- witnesses?
Could you tell us a little bit about how you know that person?
JUROR: Yep. It's actually my best friend's -- her sister -- so it's her niece's husband. It's her niece's husband, which -- actually, ex, I should say. I've only met him once at a graduation party. "Hi, how are you? Nice to meet you," and that's it.
THE COURT: Okay. So you know who he is?
JUROR: I know who he is.
THE COURT: But you --
JUROR: Do I know any circumstances of him within the case? Maybe the only thing I remember my friend maybe saying was, you know, "Oh, he was driving around, and it was hard and" -- you know, whatever, something on that idea. I don't really remember anything specific.
THE COURT: When was the graduation party you're referring to?
JUROR: Oh, gosh. Her daughter is 21, so it was a high school graduation.
THE COURT: So about three years ago?
JUROR: Three, maybe a little bit more. It would have been a June of whatever year. Well, all right. 18, 19, 20, 21. Yeah, I would say three.
THE COURT: Okay. On page 23, beginning at Question 88, we asked a series of questions to gauge what jurors might think about the death penalty in general and perhaps related to this matter as well. Question 88 itself was a general question, if you have any general views, what are they, and you said that you believe it, the death penalty, should be used for certain crimes, usually the more heinous crimes.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Anything you want to add to that?
JUROR: When I think of it, you know, I'll be honest, it's more like child murderers, pedophiles would be my strongest criminals that I would not have a problem...
THE COURT: Okay. In Question 89 we asked you to try to place yourself on a 10-level scale, strongly opposed at number 1 to strongly favor at number 10, number 10 being a belief that it -- the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant had been convicted of intentional murder. You selected 8, which is not in the middle. It's halfway up the high end of the scale.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tell us what you were thinking about that.
JUROR: Well, I tend to, on any scale, not, you know, go right to the end or right to the beginning of things, and I probably -- in there, because most crimes that include the death of someone if found guilty is, you know, pretty bad to me, so I would think that I believe in it more than I don't believe in it.
THE COURT: Okay. If you'd go to the next page, Question 90, we asked you, rather than picking a number on a scale, if you could find a formulation of your opinion among the several options that were presented there, and you selected E as the option, which was, "I'm in favor of the death penalty, but I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release if I believed that sentence was called for by the facts and the law of the case."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Does that continue to represent your --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- point of view on this matter?
JUROR: Yes. Even though -- you know, and I have thoughts about life imprisonment as well, and I know it's in there. But I could give you, like, an example if you want.
THE COURT: An example of?
JUROR: Of like cases that I would -- either death penalty or --
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR: So cases that, you know, I may know of, like someone like Andrea Yates who drowned her five children in Texas, I think it was, for someone like her, very sick, postpartum, you know -- from what I know, someone like her, I probably would do life in prison.
Someone like Susan Smith who killed her two boys, pushing the car into the river over the fact that she wanted to be with a certain lover, whoever, someone like her, I feel that's more heinous, and I would be okay with death penalty for her.
THE COURT: You seem a little familiar with those cases.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean --
(Laughter.)
JUROR: Well, honestly, I used to watch court TV a long time ago, a long time ago when, you know, I was home, so...
But those are the -- you know, I want to -- that's where I would -- those are the kind of cases that I would weigh like if -- if there's a mental illness or something on that idea that's proven, you know, I might -- I would go more toward the life in prison.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to look at the bottom of page 25, Question 95. We asked, in the context of this case, if you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty and you decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you indicated "yes"?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Does that represent your view?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And at the top of the next page we asked if you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for that penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And that continues to be your view?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Thank you, your Honor.
Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just wanted to follow up on a few of your answers.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: So -- I'm sorry. I just want to find -- with respect to your friend who was at the marathon.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: I think you were asked a question by the judge about whether anything about that experience would affect your ability to be a juror in this case, and I want to phrase the question a little bit differently, which is to ask this: So as a juror, your duty is to listen to the law as the judge gives it to you and apply it and to decide the case on the facts that are -- the evidence that's presented in court, not on things that happened outside.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: And the question really is: Is there anything about that experience that you believe would prevent you from fulfilling that duty?
JUROR: No. I see, you know, where you're going. In, like -- I'll say it again: Because I respect this process so much, that that experience I could put aside.
MR. WEINREB: And then I have the same question about the question of the defendant's guilt or innocence. So as you correctly put it, when you walk into the courtroom, the defendant's not guilty, and he remains that way all throughout the trial, unless and until --
MR. BRUCK: I'm going to object to the whole long buildup. I think the government should ask a question.
THE COURT: Well, no. Go ahead. Go ahead.
MR. WEINREB: -- unless and until the government proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And if the government doesn't present evidence, you can't fill it in with stuff you've heard outside of the courtroom.
Are you able to abide by those rules?
JUROR: Absolutely.
MR. WEINREB: On the question of the death penalty, as the judge explained earlier, if the defendant in a capital case, the case where the death penalty's a possibility, is found guilty of a capital crime, there's a second phase of the trial. So now he's already been found guilty of an intentional murder.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: And now the question is, what's the appropriate penalty? And the government will present evidence of aggravating factors, factors that the government believes warrant a sentence of death. And the defense will present evidence of mitigating factors, factors about the crime or about the defendant that they believe make this a case where death is not appropriate.
The question is: Could you weigh the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors in making a decision, and are you open to the possibility of either decision, meaning that you could be persuaded one way; you could be persuaded the other way?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And is there anything about this case where you feel that your answer would be different, that you couldn't do it in this case?
JUROR: That I couldn't do what?
MR. WEINREB: You couldn't weigh aggravating factors and mitigating factors and give both meaningful consideration and make a decision accordingly?
JUROR: Maybe just the emotion behind it would be hard to get around, you know, the death of the people, the emotional part of it.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So let me ask you more about that. So in any case where the death penalty is a possibility, there are dead people --
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: -- at least one dead person, because it's only murder where you have the capital punishment. And so are you saying there's something different about an ordinary -- another case you might sit on, not any particular one -- but I guess what I'm getting at is, is are you capable of fulfilling the duties of a juror in this case, meaning capable of weighing aggravating factors and mitigating factors and giving both of them meaningful consideration. I'm not asking you --
JUROR: Meaningful consideration? I mean, I believe I would be, absolutely. But I just, you know, in general, this is going to be an emotional case, so I...
MR. WEINREB: Fair enough.
JUROR: But, yes, I see what you're saying, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So cases can be emotional, and you can be emotional, and that's not against the rules. But the rules do require that you not let your emotions control how you decide a case.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Can you do that? Can you --
JUROR: I believe I could, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Not decide the case unemotionally, but keep your emotions enough in check so that you're giving meaningful consideration to the evidence and deciding the case on the evidence?
JUROR: Right. Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So I guess the real question is: If you're selected as a juror and the jury finds the defendant guilty in any case, and the case enters a penalty phase, do you go into the penalty phase with your mind already made up just because it's a murder case, or do you have an open mind about the penalty?
JUROR: Well, I would say I have an open mind because I clearly state I could go either way.
MR. WEINREB: Right. Thanks very much.
JUROR: You're welcome.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
MR. BRUCK: Hi.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of the lawyers for Jahar Tsarnaev. And if it's okay, I would like to ask you some questions.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: You're a special ed -- your field is special ed; you work with kids? Do you get paid if you're on the jury?
JUROR: I think it's three days. I have a contract that says jury duty, three days.
MR. BRUCK: So if this trial was three or four months --
JUROR: Right. I would not.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Would that pose a hardship for you?
JUROR: Well, of course. And I would have to pay for my health insurance.
MR. BRUCK: Well, this is the last chance you get --
JUROR: Right.
MR. BRUCK: -- to say whether or not serving on the jury is going to pose an undue hardship for you, so we really need to hear from you.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I'll be honest. The amount of money that I make is not completely detrimental to my household. My husband does well. So I'm not that freaked out about that, if I could say it that way.
MR. BRUCK: Sure.
JUROR: I mean, it's a hardship generally. You know, I have bills to pay. I have credit cards to pay. I have one in college, you know, one child in college, that kind of thing. But it's not like I'm making 50-, 60-, 70-, $100,000, so...
MR. BRUCK: Okay. The reason I'm asking you now is that once you're on the jury, it's too late to say, "Whoa, this is proving to be hard" --
JUROR: I understand.
MR. BRUCK: -- "I need to get off."
JUROR: Right. Yeah. No, I understand.
MR. BRUCK: And what about the kids you work with? Do you have a concern about who will work with them when you're gone if you were to serve three or four months?
JUROR: I mean, my school system, you know, does a great job at replacing people when they need to. You know, and the kids are essentially resilient to that kind of thing, so -- changes like that.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Now, you remember Judge O'Toole this morning said that all he is asking for, all the system is asking for during this questioning, is how you really and truly feel.
JUROR: Right.
MR. BRUCK: And if you answer the truth, no matter what your answers are, you're doing your duty as a citizen and as a juror. So in that spirit, I appreciate what you've told him. I could see that you were struggling with some of the answers, and I want to pursue that a little bit.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: Go as deep as we can.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I object to this, instructing the juror how she's feeling about the questions.
THE COURT: All right. So let's get to the questions.
MR. BRUCK: All right.
I want to go back to before you got your jury summons. In other words, before you thought about being a juror, you were just a resident of this state, area.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: And of course had heard about -- quite a bit about the Boston Marathon bombing. And you say you had an opinion that the defendant -- you had formed an opinion, based on that everything you heard, that the defendant was guilty.
JUROR: Right.
MR. BRUCK: Did you also form an opinion about whether he should receive the death penalty before you got your summons?
JUROR: I'm kind of not like that. I mean, people around me have. I'm not -- I wasn't strong and vocal with that kind of a thing. So, no, I really didn't.
MR. BRUCK: The people around you, tell me a little bit more about that. And who --
JUROR: People around me --
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: I think you have to target it a little bit better.
MR. BRUCK: Well, I mean, were these -- people around you were expressing an opinion about the death penalty?
JUROR: Not at the time that it happened.
MR. BRUCK: Right.
JUROR: More so after receiving the jury summons and I had to tell my workplace, so I would say the majority of the people at my workplace have no problem telling me, you know...
MR. BRUCK: And what did they say?
JUROR: They basically said --
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
JUROR: They basically said, "Fry him."
MR. BRUCK: "Fry him." These are people you work with that --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: How many people said things to that effect?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
JUROR: Maybe a handful.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. These are coworkers, people you see every day.
JUROR: Right, right.
MR. BRUCK: And you'll see again if you --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think a little less directive questioning.
MR. BRUCK: Oh, sure.
Now, you -- sometimes when we say "opinion," people think, well, that needs to be a really firm idea. What I'm really asking you for is, did you lean either way before you thought about being a juror, before you had any reason to think about being a juror?
JUROR: Lean about death penalty?
MR. BRUCK: Uh-huh.
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: In this case.
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Did you think about it at all?
JUROR: No, I...
MR. BRUCK: The people who you -- who expressed an opinion at work, are any of them people who supervise you?
JUROR: No, colleagues. Just my colleagues.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Now, you told us a little bit about the sorts of cases in which you think the death penalty would be or wouldn't be appropriate. And you may have noticed on the jury form, and you may know from listening about the case --
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I object. This is going to be asking about the facts of this case.
THE COURT: Yeah, it sounds like it.
MR. BRUCK: No. I guess the question is: Mr. Weinreb asked you whether -- well, let me back up a little bit.
You know from all the information, including the jury form --
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That's the same thing.
MR. BRUCK: I haven't asked the question yet.
THE COURT: No, but it does sound like you want to put the facts of the case to her, and that's not right.
MR. BRUCK: The question is: This case includes --
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. That is the exact thing.
MR. BRUCK: I'm not asking about the death penalty. I'm really -- I think I should just be allowed to ask the question before there's an objection.
THE COURT: Well, if it's going to posit the facts of the case, then I think it's out, to the extent it asks for an opinion about those facts.
MR. BRUCK: Well, no, it doesn't.
The question I want to ask you is whether any of -- whether it would be hard for you to be completely fair and impartial in a case involving, as you know, the murder of an eight-year-old.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. That is exactly the question that has not been permitted under the Court's many prior rulings.
MR. BRUCK: That's not so.
THE COURT: Well, no, I think the juror -- prospective juror, did talk about the potential emotional component to the case, so you can explore that.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you.
I can ask the question again.
JUROR: You need to, yes.
(Laughter.)
MR. BRUCK: There were some interruptions.
The question -- what we're concerned about is whether this is a case in which you are confident that you could remain objective and fair and impartial. And one of the facts of this case is that it involves --
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. That's --
THE COURT: No, go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: -- that it involves the murder of an eight-year-old child.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: You know yourself. You know your own feelings and your responses. And so my question is: Is that a fact that would prevent you or affect your ability -- affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?
JUROR: It wouldn't affect my ability.
MR. BRUCK: Yes.
JUROR: I feel that I can come in with the notion of not guilty, listen to all sides, and weigh it then.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Now --
JUROR: Because of the strong feeling that I feel about this process, I feel that that outweighs a lot for me in most cases.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry. You feel that what outweighs a lot for you?
JUROR: The fact that I believe in this process so much that I'm not going to come in and not be able to look at both sides. I wouldn't be able to sit there if I had the notion of that: "I'm not even going to bother listening to that side." I will not do that. I...
MR. BRUCK: Right. Okay.
Now, that -- your answer, quite properly, concerned guilt or innocence, the process of deciding whether the person did or did not.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: I would like to move on from there.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: Let's assume, for purposes of my question, the jury found that he did it, and now the question is the death penalty. That's not either/or. That involves a lot of considerations, right?
JUROR: Right. And I -- actually, ask the question that you want to ask me about that.
MR. BRUCK: Well --
JUROR: About what --
MR. BRUCK: I want to come back to whether or not your ability to fairly consider all factors weighing -- the factors weighing against the death penalty might be impaired by the fact that this involves the murder, among other people, of a child.
JUROR: Right. I see what you're saying. And like I said, there was certain cases where they did include children, but, you know, the situation of maybe one case, the evidence or what had happened with the criminal, say, were different in each of the cases that -- where I would form an opinion of death penalty or life.
So, like, I don't know all of the facts yet, so I would say that I can go into the next phase saying which side, whether it's mitigating or whatever the other one was saying, would prove that it should be death penalty or life. So without knowing even the full side on this side or any, really, of what's going on on this side, I -- without knowing that -- I would have to know those facts and all the information that would need to come, but I'm -- so what I'm saying is, no, I -- I would have the ability to look at all of that.
THE COURT: I think we should try to wrap up, if we can.
MR. BRUCK: Yes. I think that's all.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. CONRAD: Excuse me, your Honor. May I ask something? It has to do with a question --
THE COURT: No, you can speak to Mr. Bruck.
MS. CONRAD: Well, can I speak with Mr. Bruck for a minute, then?
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MR. BRUCK: Just very briefly, when did your friend tell you about her very frightening experience at the marathon?
JUROR: Pretty much immediately right after because I -- it was like maybe the day after. Actually, because that was on April vacation, we're all -- all the teachers are off, and I was having people over my house on Tuesday for a lunch, and she had come over. So I knew the night before, actually, because, you know, I was making sure everybody was coming. So I knew basically immediately. And then she came over, and we all -- everybody that was there heard about it, and...
MR. BRUCK: And was that a pretty emotional discussion?
JUROR: Yeah. You know, we were like, "Oh, my gosh, I can't believe you were there" and, you know, that kind of thing.
MR. BRUCK: Were there tears in her description?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. I don't think we need to be getting into that kind of --
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't think we need the details. I think that's enough.
Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you very much.
JUROR: You're welcome.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: So we have six more. I think we should do two o'clock.
So I think we'll break. It looks like we have I think six more, so we should probably do two o'clock and get -- continue.
MR. BRUCK: Two o'clock?
MS. CLARKE: Six more or --
MR. WEINREB: Four more.
MS. CLARKE: Four more.
THE COURT: Oh, I didn't cull mine. I'm sorry. Let me just look.
MS. CLARKE: 429, -31, -34, and 37. Two are coming in tomorrow.
THE COURT: Right. Right. Okay. Sorry.
So do you want a little more time? Do you want to make it 2:15?
MS. CLARKE: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: Actually, that would be appreciated.
(The Court exits the courtroom at 1:20 p.m.)
(There is a recess in the proceedings at 1:20 p.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:33 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: 429.
COURT CLERK: Juror 429.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
JUROR: Hi.
COURT CLERK: Keep your voice up and speak into the mic.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi, how are you?
THE COURT: Thank you for your patience.
Have you been able to follow my instruction to avoid talking about the case since you were here in January?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible to avoid media stories about the case?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. So that's the questionnaire you filled out, and we're going to follow up on some of the questions and answers.
In terms of your employment, you're in the banking business?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Have been for some time?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I gather that notwithstanding the anticipated schedule in the case, you're able to devote the time to spend on the case if you're asked to do that?
JUROR: Yeah, I would do that.
THE COURT: We asked jurors about whether they use social media of any sort, and you said you don't?
JUROR: I don't. Although it did occur to me afterwards that I actually have a LinkedIn account. But that's for professional; that's not social.
THE COURT: Okay. So I think the question I'd like to turn to is Question 77 on page 20. And in that question we asked jurors whether, based on things they'd seen or read in the media or elsewise, they had formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not or should receive the death penalty or not, and you answered each of the parts of that question by saying "unsure," and then you had an asterisk that -- and you wrote in "not sure what all the charges are."
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: I just want you to tell us a little bit more about why you answered the way you did.
JUROR: Sure. I know there are a number of charges. I don't know exactly what those charges are. And in terms of guilty or not, the defendant hasn't had due process yet, and that's really the only way to determine guilt.
THE COURT: We asked jurors -- I guess you've not had formal jury service before?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: But you're, I guess, familiar with the tenets of our judicial system?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you understand that a defendant who is accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless the government proves that the person's guilty by the evidence produced at trial, and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty in faithfully applying those principles?
JUROR: No, I don't think so.
THE COURT: And if in a given charge, for example, given count of the indictment, if you thought the government's evidence was insufficient to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, would you be able to vote not guilty under those circumstances?
JUROR: Yes, that would be correct.
THE COURT: In your banking career, have you personally been involved as a participant in litigation? I'm sure you've seen litigation going on.
JUROR: I've seen litigation.
THE COURT: Have you testified or participated or anything like that?
JUROR: No, not that I can recall. It's been 30 years of banking, so -- but not that I can recall. I mean, the only court proceeding I would have been involved in would have been speeding tickets.
THE COURT: Okay. 30 years ago?
JUROR: A long time ago.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at page 21. We asked about whether people were personally affected or involved in the events. And in 81 you said you closed branches for the day -- "the day" being the marathon day itself?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- due to lack of or reduced police presence in communities served.
How long was the branch closed?
JUROR: I believe it was the day. During the shelter-in-place order.
THE COURT: The end of the week? Not Patriots' Day itself?
JUROR: I think it was Friday. During the shelter-in-place order there were an inordinate number of police departments that helped the police in Boston, and as a result, there was a reduced police presence out in the suburbs. So we felt it was unsafe to have the branches open.
THE COURT: How many branches?
JUROR: I believe at the time we had six branches.
THE COURT: Okay. And in that next question we asked about participation of various support activities that followed the events, and you said that your employer purchased a table at a fund-raising dinner, I guess?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: To honor first responders?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: And you --
JUROR: I did attend the dinner.
THE COURT: -- did attend it?
Tell us about that in relation to the events. When was that, a few months after, a year after?
JUROR: A few months after.
THE COURT: Where was it?
JUROR: I don't recall which hotel, but it was at one of the hotels in Boston. We go to a number of events at a number of different venues, so unfortunately I can't tell you which one it was.
THE COURT: Is that the extent of your participation in support of activities?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Beginning on page 23 at Question 88 we asked a series of questions about attitudes towards the death penalty, both in general and perhaps as related to this case. Question 88 itself is the general question, if you have any views about the death penalty in general, what are they, and you said, "The death penalty has its place and requires special circumstances in" -- I guess it says "in states that use it."
JUROR: In certain states that use it, yes. I was born and raised in a state that is a death penalty state.
THE COURT: Which state is that?
JUROR: California. And as a result of that, when death penalties applied it didn't happen just because you committed a murder; it required special circumstances.
THE COURT: How long -- when were you last in California?
JUROR: When was I last in California?
THE COURT: I mean when did you live there?
JUROR: I lived there up until the end of 2000.
THE COURT: It just struck me that you're rather familiar with the death penalty laws --
JUROR: It was rather big in California. The Supreme Court actually went through the process of overturning death penalty cases repeatedly. And in California the justices came up on the ballot, and actually three of them were voted out as a result of that.
THE COURT: So it was a public issue?
JUROR: It was a public issue. Yeah, it was actually quite well advertised in the media. And if I'm not mistaken, Charles Manson may have been a byproduct of that. I don't recall, but he may have been a death penalty case that was overturned and commuted to life.
THE COURT: In Question 89 we asked you to place yourself on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being strongly opposed and believing that the death penalty should never be imposed, to 10 strongly in favor and believing it should be imposed whenever a defendant is convicted of a willful murder, and you put yourself at 3. Can you explain that?
JUROR: Correct. I think it's an important decision. It has its place but it's not something that can randomly or willy-nilly be thrown around. It's an important decision.
THE COURT: On the next page we asked the question a little bit differently, this time not with numbers but words, and asked you to look at a number of different positions that someone might have and select one that might represent your feelings about the death penalty with respect to someone proved guilty of intentional murder. You selected C, which is that you are opposed to the death penalty "but could vote to impose it if I believed that the facts and the law in the particular case called for it"?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Is that a fair summary of --
JUROR: That's a pretty fair statement, yes.
THE COURT: On page 25, at the bottom, Question 95, we put it in the context of this case, said if you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty and decided that the death penalty was appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you said "yes"?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And the other side of that question is 96, the next page. If you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty and decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for that penalty?
JUROR: Absolutely. I think it's based on the merits of what's presented in court.
THE COURT: Okay. Any follow-up? Mr. Mellin?
MR. MELLIN: Thank you, your Honor.
Good afternoon, sir. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I want to follow up on some of the death penalty answers you had where you talked about California and special circumstances.
Are there particular circumstances that you remember or recall as being a basis for the death penalty?
JUROR: No. Yes, because I wasn't ever involved in a trial like that. I just remember it had got quite a bit of media play and it was due to the fact that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to start overturning death penalty cases repeatedly.
MR. MELLIN: Did you have a feeling about that or an opinion about that?
JUROR: I did. I actually felt that when the death penalty was warranted, that it shouldn't be overturned just because a justice decides that he or she doesn't like the death penalty.
MR. MELLIN: You heard a little bit this morning about how this process works. And I think, you know, you would find that the special circumstances you're referring to in California are somewhat like the aggravating factors you would be hearing about if you were a juror in this case.
Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: And assuming we -- you were a juror in a case and it got to the point where the jury was deciding between life imprisonment on the one hand and death penalty on the other, would you be able to -- if you believed the facts supported it, would you be able to actually vote to impose the death penalty on another human being?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Bruck?
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: I'm David Bruck, and I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's attorneys. And I would like to follow up a little bit.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: I also would like to go back to California for a minute. I take it that if, you know, there was a ballot issue recently in California, you would not have voted to support getting rid of the death penalty in California if you were still living there. Is that correct?
JUROR: That's probably accurate because I believe it has a place. However, if it would have passed and no longer be the law there, I wouldn't support it. From my perspective, if that's what the law calls for, then that's what you do.
MR. BRUCK: You expressed your feeling about the record of the California Supreme Court. Of course we're in federal court now.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: The U.S. Supreme Court makes the rules. If you were on a jury in this case, would you have any lingering suspicion that anything that was done here would just be reversed or that the courts wouldn't really carry through on the jury's verdict?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
JUROR: No, I don't think so.
THE COURT: No, we'll take the answer.
JUROR: No, I don't think so.
MR. BRUCK: You understand this is for real?
JUROR: Yes, I do. That's why I put in here that I think it's probably the most important decision a human being can make.
MS. CLARKE: Now, I understand that -- I heard your answers that you haven't formed an opinion because you haven't heard the evidence, but, of course, people that lived in Boston heard a lot, and that's why I want to bring you back to before you knew you were going to be a juror.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: You weren't approaching this, of course, as a potential juror. Did you have a sense of whether -- any sort of opinion at all about whether this young man was probably guilty or probably innocent?
JUROR: Did I see videos of, say, the defendant and -- allegedly the defendant and his brother with the backpacks on walking under a store camera on a sidewalk? Of course I saw that because it was in the media repeatedly.
MR. BRUCK: Sure.
JUROR: Did I see the video of the defendant in the boat the night after the shootout in Watertown? Of course, because it was all over the media. So, yeah.
Now, do I recall specifically what the defendant did in terms of -- for example, the judge this morning mentioned that -- the police officer that was shot at MIT. Do I know what occurred there? I don't know who did what there. Do I know who planted which backpack where? I have no idea.
MR. BRUCK: Got it.
JUROR: So I don't know those components.
And, again, I would look at it in the context of, well, I saw those particular video clips just as probably sort of anybody did. Again, it's about what gets presented in court as opposed to those components that you saw.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. I guess I want to ask something of a similar question but this time not about guilt or innocence --
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: -- but about the death penalty.
Back before you were a juror --
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: -- and believed the death penalty can be appropriate in some situations.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Based on what you knew or had read or seen on TV, did you have an opinion about whether the death penalty was appropriate in this case?
JUROR: Believe it or not, at the time because Massachusetts is a no-death-penalty state, my assumption was that that applied in this particular case. At the time I wasn't aware that it was federal and it would be a death penalty case based on federal.
MR. BRUCK: And did you ever learn that it was a federal case and could be a death penalty case before you became a juror -- a potential juror?
JUROR: Possibly. I don't recall. I just remember at the time thinking that it was not due to the fact that we were in Massachusetts, and I just assumed that that prevailed.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And understanding that, did you have any feelings about whether the death penalty would have been appropriate in this case?
JUROR: Again, I would probably have to -- I'd have to see what the evidence was to know if it was appropriate. I still don't know that today.
MR. BRUCK: Sure. Can you tell me how you -- where you were and how you first found out about the Boston Marathon bombing?
JUROR: You bet. I believe I was at the office when it actually occurred.
MR. BRUCK: Which is where? I don't mean --
JUROR: My office is in Norwood, Massachusetts.
MR. BRUCK: In?
JUROR: Norwood.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
JUROR: Yes. So I'm outside the 128 belt.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And you found out how?
JUROR: I believe it was -- gosh, you know, I don't recall. It's just too long ago. Too much water has gone under that bridge.
MR. BRUCK: When you first heard the news, were there any particular people that you were concerned about that you knew might be there?
JUROR: No, I actually didn't know any of the runners.
MR. BRUCK: Or anyone you thought might be attending the marathon?
JUROR: No. I remember thinking it was tragic, obviously, and it was rather compelling in terms of, you know, people being injured, but it's been a long time since I've been a runner.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And how about on the 19th? When did you -- can you tell me -- you said -- you told the judge you shut six branches of your bank?
JUROR: Correct. The shelter-in-place order came out. I believe I was attending a meeting right up on the belt at the -- what was it? The Newton Marriott, I believe it was. The shelter-in-place order went into place. We decided to leave the meeting, go back to the office.
On the way back to the office, we saw busload after busload of police heading in to Boston. It became very apparent that the police presence in the suburbs was diminished, and that's what led us to shut the branches down.
MR. BRUCK: After you shut the branches down, did you go home?
JUROR: Yeah, I think I went home probably midafternoon, like one o'clock, one-thirty in the afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Can you bear with me just a moment? I think that's it, but I need to check.
JUROR: Sure.
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MR. BRUCK: Oh, yeah. Question 94, you were asked whether anyone close to you would be critical of you or disappointed in you if you voted for the death penalty in this case, if you voted for life imprisonment, and you stated it was possible. "The responsibility is mine, however."
Were you thinking of anyone in particular when you said it is possible?
JUROR: You know, I have friends that are natives of Massachusetts that the death penalty is very foreign to them. I have friends that are very Catholic that the death penalty would be very foreign to them. So in that context, yes, it is possible that I could have either coworker, colleague, friend that would take a dim view of that.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Of voting for the death penalty?
JUROR: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Anybody you were thinking of that might go the other way, might be critical of you for not voting for it?
JUROR: You know, I think that the risk is in a situation like this, it's such a serious issue, that it potentially can become emotionally charged in one direction or another. So, yeah, it's possible. Just from my perspective, that would be my decision, not theirs.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you very much. Just leave that there.
COURT CLERK: Just leave the questionnaire there.
JUROR: Thanks.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 431.
COURT CLERK: Juror 431.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, come over here, please. Have a seat, if you would.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Just keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here when you filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to avoid talking about the case, in substance, with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And avoid media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the things you wrote there.
I want to start on page 5 with Question 10, which we set out there what the schedule of the case might be and how long it might take and so on, and we asked whether -- if you were asked to be a juror in the case would it present any special hardship to you. And there are a couple of things in your answer that I want to explore with you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You said you don't have a license to drive?
JUROR: No. It was suspended because I have back child support. So they suspended my license, and my bank account is levied right now.
THE COURT: When did those events happen?
JUROR: About -- I want to say two months ago?
THE COURT: Fairly recently?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And how did you come up today?
JUROR: My mother, actually, took me, which is also a hardship because she's handicapped. She has Charcot's foot and neuropathy in her foot, and she walks with a cane. So she would be my only transportation. And even today she was in pain, today, driving up here.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. Have you explored public transportation at all?
JUROR: I've explored it, but, again, I have no work, I have no job, I have no money to even --
THE COURT: You would be reimbursed for the travel expense by the court, but I didn't know whether you'd looked into the -- what you might call the logistics of getting transportation.
JUROR: Yeah. Like I said, I have no bus fare.
THE COURT: So you're living with your mother now?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And tell me what assistance you are to her sort of on a daily basis.
JUROR: Well, she's also a diabetic and sometimes her sugar will go low. And I'm the only one that's living there with her. Well, me and my son. I have a child that was recently born in November. So I take care of her, whatever she needs. I go with her, say, for groceries. I help her with the bags while she goes upstairs. And that's really it.
THE COURT: You told us in the form that you are currently unemployed?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I'm looking now at page 10. It looks like the last time you worked was sometime last year, in 2014?
JUROR: Yes, Talbot's was my last job.
THE COURT: Do you remember what month you finished there?
JUROR: November 28th.
THE COURT: Are you currently actively looking for work?
JUROR: Yes, I am, like I said.
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, I think the parties have an agreement.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay.
Okay. We're going to let you get on with your life.
JUROR: All right.
THE COURT: Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 434.
COURT CLERK: Juror 434.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Just have a seat, if you would.
JUROR: Hi.
COURT CLERK: Do me a favor. Keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone around here can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Hi.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible avoid media reports of the case?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes.
THE COURT: So we're going to follow up on some of the things that you wrote in the questionnaire. And it's there for you to follow.
JUROR: For reference? Okay.
THE COURT: Let me start with page 5, Question 10. Here we set out the schedule of the case and how long we thought it would take and so on, and asked if you thought it would be a special burden or a hardship for you.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And you wrote that you thought it would. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
JUROR: Well, I'm the manager of my salon and I'm responsible for maintaining revenues. And it's constant daily managing of what's coming in and how do we augment the business that we have at hand. It's also managing schedules and internal disputes or client complaints, things like that. So I'm mostly -- I'm pretty much the sole person who's doing that at the moment.
THE COURT: This is a hair salon?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And about how many employees are there?
JUROR: I want to say 26 including myself.
THE COURT: Are they all full time, some full time, some part time?
JUROR: The majority are full time.
THE COURT: What's your weekly schedule like?
JUROR: I'm there Tuesday through Saturday, and it varies. I can be there at -- usually their earliest time would probably be 8 a.m. and the latest time would be, like, 8 p.m.
THE COURT: What are the hours the salon is open?
JUROR: The salon is open 9:15 -- it varies on the day.
THE COURT: Sure.
JUROR: So an early start could be -- we could be there at eight to start getting money out and getting everything done, to -- it depends on if people run behind. It's very difficult to say. I guess I would say like seven-thirty, eight the latest, if everything is going accordingly. But, again, the schedule varies. So start times are earlier, but it depends on who's opening and who's closing.
THE COURT: If you had to be here instead of there, in addition to the disruption of the work -- I understand that -- would you also have any economic -- would it have an economic impact on you or would you continue to get paid, do you know?
JUROR: I would probably lose some income because I'd lose my clients.
THE COURT: So you actually have clients as well as management duties?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: About how many a week, would you say, clients?
JUROR: How many clients do I do personally? I should know that answer. It depends. The salon does roughly 400 people a week, so I'm doing a fraction of those. So I guess we could say --
THE COURT: Twenty?
JUROR: Probably more than that.
THE COURT: Okay. You told us later on in the -- as long as we're talking about the salon --
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: -- later on in the form that the business of the salon -- first of all, the salon is located on Boylston Street in Boston?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: This is -- if you want to look, this is -- it's on page 21, I think. 20 and 21.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And Questions 80 and 81, principally.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Tell us how the events affected the salon itself, because that's what you were writing about in --
JUROR: Yes. We were closed the day of the bombing, but the Tuesday we were also closed down because they weren't sure if that was also part of the crime scene. We did reopen. We had, at the beginning of Berkeley, starting all the way down Boylston Street, sort of where they had the grate up and people were leaving memorial things, flowers, toys, there was a large --
THE COURT: When you say at Berkeley, down Boylston Street --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Away from the harbor, I guess is one way of putting it. I don't know if that's west on Boylston Street.
JUROR: Sure, west. I think that would be correct.
THE COURT: I just want to get the directions correct.
JUROR: So we had a large military presence near us. There were the people in the white suits who were gathering evidence off the street; you had people in uniforms; you had vehicles, military vehicles all around us. It was a very intense scene.
THE COURT: How long did that last? How many days?
JUROR: It was a substantial time. It was however long they were rebuilding things. And they were looking for evidence for quite some time, I believe. So I don't want to say an exact number, but it was substantial.
THE COURT: So do you remember later that week, the Friday, there was a shelter in place?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Were you working then or --
JUROR: No, I had to -- so we reopened that Wednesday, Thursday. A lot of stuff felt very uncomfortable coming back, but we did reopen.
Friday was the shelter in place. Is that correct?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: So I did -- after receiving some text messages early that morning from people seeing the news and then waking up and watching the news, we closed. I live in Cambridge, not too far from -- East Cambridge.
THE COURT: Were you home on that Friday?
JUROR: All day. And I had other people who lived in Watertown who were also -- everyone was locked in.
THE COURT: When you say "other people," you mean other people from the salon?
JUROR: Other coworkers. Other coworkers.
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Yeah, so we had like -- I was home. There was SWAT going down the street.
MR. BRUCK: We're satisfied, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Just leave that there.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
[REDACTED]
MR. WEINREB: I'm sorry, your Honor. One other thing. You asked us to alert you. On Question 85, this juror says he knows a witness.
THE COURT: Yeah, right.
MR. WEINREB: And that one will be a witness in the case.
THE COURT: Will be?
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: An active participant in the Watertown events?
MR. WEINREB: Yes. Is it Sergeant MacLellan? So he's one of the Watertown officers who participated in the shootout.
THE COURT: Let's go.
MS. CLARKE: I think he just got honored, too.
THE COURT: At the White House --
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: -- or wherever it was?
MS. CLARKE: At the White House.
THE COURT: Was that yesterday? I read --
MR. WEINREB: I believe it was.
THE COURT: -- it this morning, but this morning seems so far away.
(Laughter.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 437.
COURT CLERK: Juror 437.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Thanks for being patient.
JUROR: No problem.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid discussing the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible to avoid media reports about the case?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You have to answer "yes" or "no" for the reporter.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I understand, but her machine doesn't.
JUROR: No problem.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire you filled out when you were here. We're going to follow up on some of the things you told us in answer to some of the questions, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's start by having you tell us a little bit about your current employment. You're a construction -- senior project manager, I guess you say?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: For a construction company?
JUROR: Yeah. We do hospital construction.
THE COURT: Hospital construction?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you give us an idea of the size of the company?
JUROR: It's about a $50 million company. They do hospital construction, retail construction. Cell phone towers is the other half of the company. But my involvement is strictly on healthcare.
THE COURT: Is it regional, national?
JUROR: Regional.
THE COURT: We ask people about social media use, and I guess you use LinkedIn for professional reasons?
JUROR: Uh-huh. For business.
THE COURT: Any social media, Facebook or anything like that?
JUROR: No. No, I had an account years ago, and I don't think I even open it anymore.
THE COURT: Let's do a sidebar briefly.
COURT CLERK: Audio off.
MR. MACELHINEY: Audio off.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Okay. All right. End of the sidebar.
COURT CLERK: Back on.
(In open court:)
THE COURT: If you'd turn to page 20.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In that question we asked jurors whether they had seen or read anything in the news and as a result had an opinion about certain things in the case. There are four parts to it. Whether you had an opinion based on things you'd seen that the defendant was guilty or not guilty and whether he should receive the death penalty or not.
You said "yes" to the question whether you had an opinion that he was guilty, and as to the others you said "unsure."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Okay? Then below that we asked if you answered "yes" to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence that would be presented in court, and you checked the box "able."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yeah, I'd be able to listen to things in court. Live in Watertown, so I was exposed to a lot of things that happened on those two days. I'm friends with a few of the police officers. The first officer at the scene, John MacLellan, coached my son in hockey, coached him in sports. Everything was shut down for the two days. My 13-year-old daughter had friends that had SWAT teams at their house in the neighborhood. So a lot of influence there, I feel.
THE COURT: Do you think all of that would affect your ability to be an impartial juror in this case?
JUROR: I said "able," you know, to be able to listen to it fairly, but I've heard so much of it, you know, so I really don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. I think you may be too close to the situation.
JUROR: Pretty close.
THE COURT: Thanks.
JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: All right. So 3:30 okay?
MR. WEINREB: That's fine.
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
(The Court exits the courtroom and there is a recess in the proceedings at 3:14 p.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 3:37 p.m.)