2.Individual Voir Dire — Impartiality and Death-Penalty Views
1,180 linesCOURT CLERK: Juror No. 412.
COURT CLERK: Juror 412.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Morning.
THE COURT: Have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case since you were last here and media reports as well?
JUROR: I have, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's the questionnaire that you filled out when you were last here.
JUROR: Yes, looks like it.
THE COURT: I'm going to follow up on some of the questions -- some of the answers you gave us to the questions we asked, okay?
I'd like to start with what you do for a living.
JUROR: Self-employed contractor. I grew up as a kid doing roofing, and that kind of -- once I built my own home, I expanded my skills off into other areas of construction so --
THE COURT: How long have you been doing it?
JUROR: Thirty-five, forty years.
THE COURT: Do you have a work force that works with you?
JUROR: Actually, I used to have employees, but in the last two and a half years, I have shrunk down to -- I've taken on a partner, and I work solely with one partner. He's his own insured contractor himself. We just work as a team.
THE COURT: Okay. You'll recall back on Page 5 of the form, in Question 10, we outlined the schedule that we expect to follow in the case. It will be four days a week from 9 to 4, excluding Fridays. On that schedule, it may last several months. Would that have an impact on your ability to earn a living?
JUROR: There would be a little bit of a strain, financial strain. I'm looking -- I was hoping that I had an opportunity to take on some night work for a gentleman that I had became an acquaintance with when I did a project, who's a CEO of this company that does IT equipment in hospitals, and it's all night work. When that came about, I thought maybe it would be very -- take a lot of stress off the family financially. If I was involved with any kind of jury service, then I could work at night so --
THE COURT: You're the one that can assess it. I raise the question because we don't want to impose a serious hardship, including a financial hardship on you. In other words, if you can make arrangements to continue working and, therefore, your income in the hours after the day or on Fridays and weekends, then that's okay, too. But you're really the judge of that. We can't --
JUROR: It would be a strain on my income so --
THE COURT: Is it a tolerable strain or an intolerable strain, I guess is the question.
JUROR: A tolerable strain.
THE COURT: Okay. So --
JUROR: Uncomfortably tolerable.
THE COURT: You're willing to take on the project if we give it to you?
JUROR: Yes, yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. You said you just -- we asked people about social media. You said you're just learning to use Facebook. Do you use it just personally, socially, or do you use it in the business at all?
JUROR: Not in the business at all, no. I'm actually still trying to learn how to send email from the iPad that I got for Christmas to my home computer so I can print out information. I'm kind of still old school, with a pencil and paper.
THE COURT: You have a brother who was a police officer in New Hampshire for a number of years?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Tell us about that. Where was he?
JUROR: He was 20 years as a sergeant with the New Hampshire, Hudson, New Hampshire, Municipal Department. He had been in it probably --
THE COURT: What's he doing now?
JUROR: He's retired now.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77, near the top. In this question we asked you whether -- if you'd seen or read things in the media that had led you to form an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty or should receive the death penalty or not. It's a multiple part question, and you had the option of checking "yes," "no," or "unsure," and you checked "unsure." Would you tell us why you made that selection?
JUROR: Well, I made that selection due to the fact that I have two brothers and three sisters. And I was wondering about, like, the design of the whole act, how -- what had come about. Was the young man following his brother's -- looking up to his brother as his -- you know, like a model to follow? And probably just making some really bad decisions due to the fact that -- what I can relate to was, like, when I was a kid -- I have an older brother; he likes to drink. I thought that was like a really great thing to do. Because my older brother liked to drink, so I drank.
It took a few years for me to, like, grow up and get that out of my system. And I realized I had lost a few years due to the fact that someone that I looked up to led me in a direction I probably, you know, would not have been -- gone in that direction had I had a little more maturity or somebody different to look up to. So, I mean, I think about that, and I'm, like, well, I'm unsure. I'm unsure about that question and that whole situation.
THE COURT: So I'm sure you realize, in the criminal process, that -- in our justice system, when somebody is accused of a crime, they're presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves that they're guilty of the crime charged and does it by the evidence produced at the trial. And in order to obtain a verdict of guilty, the government has to persuade the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the fact of the defendant's guilt. Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What we ask jurors to do is to pay attention to the evidence at trial, to think about it, talk about it with the other jurors, and then decide whether, on any given charge, the government's satisfied its burden of proving that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. And the jurors are to focus only on the evidence at trial and not on information they might have from any other source. Do you think you would be able to do that in this case?
JUROR: My heart tells me probably not.
THE COURT: Why?
JUROR: I have a five-year-old grandson at home, and I think of the eight-year-old child losing his life. And it just kind of comes back to me that was a very selfish act of some people to have robbed a child of their life like that. And I personally don't think that -- I might hold some -- it might have some leverage in making a bad decision because of how I feel about that situation.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: My grandchild lives with me, and I've raised him, so I think that's why that -- my feelings towards the child like that bothers me a little.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think the parties --
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Just leave it there and we'll pick it up. That's all.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 435.
COURT CLERK: Juror 435.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: I have not discussed it, no.
THE COURT: And, as much as possible, avoid any media reporting about the case?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: We're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave us in the questionnaire. I want to start with what you do for a living.
JUROR: I work at Harvard Pilgrim Health Insurance. I do accounting, accounts receivable. So the money coming in, I account for that.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked about use of social media, and this is at the bottom of Page 10, Question 29, and 30, I guess, on the next page. You said you post messages on Facebook, and you don't normally discuss serious -- you said serious topics but more on sports. And what's that? Animal -- no comical subjects.
JUROR: Uh-huh, yup.
THE COURT: Okay. You also use Instagram, I guess.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you use any of those in your work?
JUROR: I do not, no.
THE COURT: So it's just with friends and family kind of thing?
JUROR: Yup, yeah.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77, near the top. If it's convenient to you, feel free to take the clip off.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: In this question we asked whether you had -- on the basis of things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources whether you'd formed any particular opinions in the case, including whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should receive the death penalty or not. And you checked "no" to each of those, indicating that you did not have any such opinion. Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I mean, I've heard, obviously, about, you know, through the news, but I don't really know any specifics of exactly what happened. You know, I would go in with, you know, a clear conscience. I wouldn't go in with a full guilty. I didn't know anyone that was down there or anything like that. So I haven't -- I guess I haven't really heard much about the case, the specifics.
THE COURT: I'm sure you know that, in our criminal justice system, when somebody is accused of a crime, they're presumed to be innocent of the crime they're charged with unless the government proves them guilty by the evidence at trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. You're familiar with those concepts?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you think, if you were a juror in the case, you could listen to the evidence in the case and decide whether the government had proved its case or not based on your evaluation of that evidence along with the other jurors?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If, on any given charge, you thought the government's evidence had fallen short of convincing you beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be able to vote not guilty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Just to confirm, on Page 21, Questions 81 and 82, we asked about whether you had any -- whether you were personally affected or had any involvement in support activities, not just you but people close to you.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You already said it, I guess, but you didn't --
JUROR: No, I did not know anyone.
THE COURT: It didn't impact you personally in any way?
JUROR: It did not.
THE COURT: Or anybody close to you?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23, at Question 88, we asked a series of questions to gauge prospective jurors' views about the death penalty. Question 88 is itself a general question. If you have any views about it in general, what are they? And you said, "I believe that if the defendant is shown through evidence to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he should be sentenced to death for this heinous crime." Is there anything you want to add or amend about that?
JUROR: No. Basically, I believe that if, you know, someone was guilty of, you know, bombing innocent people, I do believe that they should get the death penalty.
THE COURT: Okay. In Question 89, we asked you if you could put yourself on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being strongly opposed, thinking the death penalty should never be imposed, and 10 being strongly in favor, thinking it should be imposed whenever a defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder, and you selected 9. Can you tell us why you made that choice?
JUROR: I think, if you intentionally hurt other people, especially in, you know in death, I think you, you know, deserve, you know, an equal punishment.
THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. Then in Question 90, we asked if you could find one of the suggested statements that best represented your views regarding a case where someone has been proved guilty of murder. You selected (e), "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 the sentence was called for by the facts and the law of the case." Does that represent your view?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: That seems a little bit different from what you said in answer to the other questions where you seemed more -- thinking more of it, if the person has been guilty of an intentional murder, that the death penalty might almost be automatic afterwards. This seems like you don't necessarily think it's automatic. I guess -- I wonder if you could explain where you are on that.
JUROR: Do you mind if I just read through it again?
THE COURT: Yes, please. Take your time.
JUROR: That one just fits my belief the most just because it's basically saying that you're listening to the facts and making a judgment on that. If guilty, you know, like I said, I would be for the death penalty. If, you know, did not a hundred percent, you know, I may not, you know, life imprisonment may fit.
THE COURT: Let me be sure you're following the process we would take. First of all, there would be two phases to the trial. The first phase would be whether the defendant is guilty or not of any crime, including any of the charged capital crimes. In order for the government to prove him guilty, as we were discussing, the government would have to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that, as a matter of fact, the defendant was guilty of the crime charged, okay? So the jury would then decide that.
And if they found him guilty, then you would proceed to the second phase, which is the penalty phase. So everybody who enters the penalty phase has already been found guilty of an intentional murder by the jury. So when the penalty situation arises, it's dealing with a convicted intentional murderer.
Then, as I said this morning to the group, in the penalty phase, there would be additional evidence. The government would provide evidence of what it will call aggravating factors or circumstances that made this a particularly serious, blameworthy crime. The defense would be able to present evidence of what might be mitigating factors that show that, in this case of murder for this crime, the death penalty is not the appropriate punishment but life imprisonment is instead.
And then the jurors would be asked to deliberate on all that evidence and each of them come to an individual assessment and decision about whether the death penalty was the right punishment to vote for or life in prison, okay? So that's the process.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: It seemed you might be mixing the guilt phase and the penalty phase.
As you think about the penalty phase then, would you be able, as statement (e) indicates, to make a decision after considering all the facts, the aggravating circumstances, the mitigating circumstances, and after all that, make a decision without being committed one way or the other, or is your tendency to favor the death penalty for what you've I think referred to as a heinous crime? Would that be -- really exclude a serious consideration of the possibility of life imprisonment?
JUROR: If -- I wasn't aware that there was two phases like that. If found guilty, I would be for the death penalty.
THE COURT: Regardless of what you heard in the second phase?
JUROR: Correct, yeah. If he were guilty of those crimes, I would favor the death penalty.
THE COURT: Let me just ask a little bit further. If you go to Page 25, at the bottom, Question 95, we asked, If you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you said "yes," right?
JUROR: Correct, yes.
THE COURT: On the top of the next page, we asked, If you found the defendant guilty and you decided life in prison without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of release? And you said "yes" to that.
JUROR: I wasn't aware of those two phases like that. I thought guilty there would be two -- I didn't realize there would be two phases like that. If guilty, I would favor the death penalty.
THE COURT: Okay. So you would change the answer to 96?
JUROR: I would, correct, after knowing that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, if I could inquire?
Good morning. My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors. I just want to make sure I understand one thing about your answers clearly.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Let's put this case aside for a minute. Now we're just talking in general.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Do you believe that all cases of intentional, deliberate murder deserve the death penalty or that some are -- some may be deserving of a lesser sentence than the death penalty, depending on the evidence and the circumstances?
JUROR: For an intentional murder, I do believe that the death penalty is the correct --
MR. WEINREB: In every case?
JUROR: If they're guilty of murder, correct, like intentional murder.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. Just leave the form there. We'll take care of it. Thanks.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 441.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 441.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And, as much as possible, any media accounts?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's the form you filled out when you were here. Let me just ask you about your employment. What is it you do?
JUROR: I'm an auditor but I got -- technically, I got fired around January 20th for productivity. So I'm currently unemployed.
THE COURT: Are you looking for work now?
JUROR: Yes. I'm in the process of trying to collect unemployment and looking.
THE COURT: So, as you know, this case may be an extended case for three or four months. Would that interfere with your ability to look for employment?
JUROR: No. I mean, I don't know what I'm -- what I have access to, you know, to look for a job if I were to be in it, but other than that, I would be okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, if a job came up and -- we wouldn't want you to have to turn it down.
JUROR: Yup. I'm not -- I think I can get a decent job with a little bit of looking for it relatively -- in a reasonable amount of time.
THE COURT: All right. So you don't object to being considered for the jury?
JUROR: No, I don't object.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So I see you use Facebook and Instagram about daily. For just social purposes?
JUROR: Yeah. I don't post a lot on them. I've looked and just fishing through, you know, seeing what's going on around.
THE COURT: Are you using either in your job search? Do you expect to use either?
JUROR: Since I lost my job, it's been mainly talking. I got my auditing job through Indeed. I'm going to do that soon, but I kind of wanted to see where the unemployment route was going to go first before I try to get anything concrete. I know I can lock into a job tomorrow if I went back to CVS or anything like that. I could go work for retail. I don't particularly want to do that again.
THE COURT: So let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77 --
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: -- near the top, we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or heard in the media or from other sources you had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty or not guilty on that he should receive the death penalty or not. And you checked "no" to each of those boxes. Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: More now looking back, as a not guilty. Need to see more evidence, not that, yes, he's guilty or, no, he's not guilty.
THE COURT: Okay. So I think you answered in one of the earlier questions that you actually had service -- prior jury service and it was a criminal case.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: So you're familiar with the principles of the presumption of innocence and the government's obligation to prove crimes beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to apply those principles faithfully to the decision that you would have to make?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If the government failed in respect of any of the charges to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, would you be able to vote not guilty?
JUROR: Yes. I could vote not guilty.
THE COURT: On Page 21, we asked about potential impacts on you or close -- people close to you. You said there weren't any.
JUROR: Yeah, nothing, nothing close, no friends, relatives, really, friends of friends.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23, at Question 88, we asked a series of questions about the death penalty and your attitudes about it. 88 itself is a question about general views. If you have any views about the death penalty in general, what are they? And you said you don't have any views either way.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, very, very neutral on it. It can be used in certain circumstances or, you know, not used, whatever. I don't really have any concrete feeling on it.
THE COURT: In Question 89, we asked you to give us an idea of where you might place yourself on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being strongly opposed, never impose the death penalty, and 10 being strongly favor, impose the death penalty whenever a defendant is convicted of an intentional murder. You put yourself at 7. Can you explain that answer?
JUROR: For certain circumstances I would definitely vote for a death penalty, you know, not throwing it around for any particular reason. But 7 is the -- I would be willing to go ahead with it.
THE COURT: Okay. On the next page, Question 90, we asked it in a different way.
JUROR: 90?
THE COURT: Page 24, Question 90. If it's easier to look at it -- to unclip it, why don't you take the clip off.
JUROR: Yeah. That would probably be easier.
THE COURT: Here we asked -- instead of numbers on a scale, we asked you to read a number of different possible statements and see if there was one that represented what you think about the matter. And this is whether -- what your feelings are when somebody has been 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 to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release, whichever I believe was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that a fair summary of your views on the matter?
JUROR: Yes. That would be a fair summary.
THE COURT: So you would be prepared to make a call depending on how you assessed the evidence? You heard me talk about the penalty phase.
JUROR: I would have to see everything before I would lean one way or another first. Don't come to any conclusions until everything is seen.
THE COURT: Just a couple more questions. On the next page, the bottom of 25, Question 95, putting it in the context of this case, If you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And on the top of the next page, we asked a similar question. If you found him guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you vote conscientiously for that penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said "yes."
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: So those represent your views?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.
JUROR: Morning.
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: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: I may have heard you wrong, but did you say that you hadn't given a lot of thought to the issue of death penalty in the past?
JUROR: Yeah. I haven't fully looked into it. It's nothing that I really have wanted to in the past or even now. I've thought about it, but I'm at that point where it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not super against it, you know, don't do it, or super, you know, let's have the death penalty. I'm kind of neutral on that.
MR. WEINREB: Have you thought since -- when did you first learn that you were -- that this case was the one you had been summoned for?
JUROR: About a day or two before. I heard a couple of things that it might be for that. I didn't think really anything about it; and then in my heart, it could be that case pretty much the night or two before.
MR. WEINREB: Since that time, have you given thought to the idea of you personally serving on a case where the death penalty is a possibility?
JUROR: I would have no issues.
MR. WEINREB: I guess the question that I really wanted to get at is if -- if you were on a jury, not in this case necessarily, just in any case, any case, and the defendant were convicted, and you moved to the penalty phase and you heard evidence that convinced you that the death penalty was the appropriate sentence for a defendant, would you personally be able to sentence someone to death if you concluded that was the right sentence?
JUROR: Yes, absolutely.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck, and I am one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. And I've just got a few more questions for you if that's okay.
JUROR: Go right ahead.
MR. BRUCK: UMass Lowell?
JUROR: UMass Lowell.
MR. BRUCK: Did you ever take a course from a professor named Horgan, John Horgan?
JUROR: Not ringing a bell.
MR. BRUCK: You told the judge a couple times that your views on the death penalty are that it's appropriate in certain circumstances or certain types of cases. I think those are pretty much the words you used.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: Can you give us some examples, what kinds of cases you're thinking about?
JUROR: If the case has proven to be motivated or something behind it or a severe evil act, something that a lot of people would consider evil, you know.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell me more?
MR. WEINREB: Well, your Honor, I don't think he should be asked to precommit.
THE COURT: I think that's right. I think it's getting close to that.
MR. BRUCK: I'm trying to find out what the juror meant when he said certain kinds of cases.
JUROR: Very heinous act.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. The question was sustained.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think we should get to a different question.
MR. BRUCK: They're not objecting to you. They're objecting to me just so we're clear.
Okay. Now that we've been talking about it, you've been talking to the judge a little bit, I guess I want to be sure about your feelings, if any, about the death penalty in this case. You know what case you've been called for?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Do you have -- do you lean either way as far as whether this case is one that is appropriate for the death penalty?
JUROR: I'd have to see everything before I would know if it's going to lean one way or another. I'm not leaning anywhere right now, you know. I don't know if -- you know, guilty, not guilty. I'm unsure until I see all the evidence.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Where were you on April 15, 2013, on the day of the bombing?
JUROR: I don't know. I was seeking employment at that time. I got hired the following June after that.
MR. BRUCK: I guess what I'm really asking you: Do you remember where you were when you heard about it?
JUROR: Maybe at my girlfriend at the time's house.
MR. BRUCK: Do you remember people talking about it that day when the bombing first occurred?
JUROR: A little bit, you know, what had happened.
MR. BRUCK: How did you feel when you heard about it?
JUROR: You know, that act occurred, you know. That's not -- you know, not good. I wasn't, you know, too into it or not. I wasn't angry or anything like that. I was just kind of disappointed.
MR. BRUCK: Sure. What about the following Friday, the day that people sheltered in place during the manhunt. Do you remember that day?
JUROR: Not in depth, no, but I'd get updates, look at the TV once in a while.
MR. BRUCK: Where were you living at the time?
JUROR: The current house I'm in now, in Woburn, Mass. I was staying with a girlfriend in Stoneham back and forth a little bit.
MR. BRUCK: Did that -- the activities of -- the police activities and everything that day and the shelter-in-place order, did that affect your activities that day?
JUROR: No, no.
MR. BRUCK: In any way at all?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: That's all I have. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you. Just leave those there. We'll pick them up.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 444.
COURT CLERK: Juror 444.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat right here.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to avoid discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And media reports about the case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: No, you haven't seen them?
JUROR: No, I haven't. I haven't been paying attention.
THE COURT: Yes, okay. So when you filled out the form anyway, you told us you were recently unemployed. Is that continuing?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Are you -- you have to answer with a word so that the reporter can write down yes or no.
JUROR: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Sorry.
Are you actively looking for work now or are you --
JUROR: I've applied with a temp agency.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I've applied with a temp agency. I am working part time. I'm a free-lance reporter for the paper so I write occasionally.
THE COURT: Right. I see you've done it for several papers, it looks like, according to --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are there any particular ones you're working with now?
JUROR: I write for the Boston Globe North section, so I'm doing that right now. That's the only one I'm working for.
THE COURT: What kinds of stories do you write?
JUROR: I write arts and human interest stories mostly.
THE COURT: You know what the plan is for the case, how we plan to have our schedule, four days a week, 9 to 4, and so on?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: On that schedule, it may last three or four months possibly.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that going to impact you in your work life in a way that would cost you money?
JUROR: Well, it will interfere with my job search if I find an opportunity that would be, you know, a viable way for me to make a living.
THE COURT: Are you looking for something particular in the search? You recently were an English language teacher.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you looking for something similar or are you kind of casting the net widely to see what might be there?
JUROR: I'm focusing on international education related fields, nonprofits, and the arts mostly in Boston.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, what do you feel about the prospect of being a juror on the case for a few months?
JUROR: To be honest, it's pretty nerve-racking, the idea, but I don't know. There's a part of me that is intrigued by it as somebody who's a writer and, you know, and a teacher, and who's worked with students similar to the person here who we're talking about.
THE COURT: So if you were ultimately selected to be a juror on the case, your disposition would be that you would be prepared to do it notwithstanding the other issues going on? Is that what I'm hearing or not? Tell me if that's not the case.
JUROR: I think I would -- yes, I would be prepared to do it.
THE COURT: We've been asking people about their use of social media. You say you use Facebook about once a week, something like that.
JUROR: Yeah. I try to avoid it but it's there, so I use it once in a while.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn, if you would, to Page 20, Question 77 at the top. Here we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the media or that you had learned from other sources, had you formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not or should receive the death penalty or not, and you answered "unsure" to each of those subparts of the question. Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, I just -- I put that because I'm not sure about his motivations and his psychological state and his relationship with his brother. I know what the media told me, but I don't know the whole story really so --
THE COURT: Well, you know from this morning, as I described it, the case, if it went the full distance, would have two phases. The first would be concerned with whether he's guilty of the crimes he's charged with or not; and the second phase, if he was guilty of a capital crime, whether the penalty should be a death sentence or life in prison without the possibility of release.
So focusing on the first phase, it's not surprising that people have learned things about these events from the media coverage. What we ask jurors in a criminal case to do though is first to presume that the defendant is innocent and require the government to prove to them by the evidence that he's guilty. The government's burden is to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. So the burden is always on the government to carry that burden in order to obtain a conviction. You're familiar with those principles, I presume?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Focusing on that first phase, would you be able as a juror to perform those -- to perform your service in accordance with those principles and require the government to prove its case to you beyond a reasonable doubt?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Without presuming the defendant guilty of anything?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And we're going -- we'll turn to the death penalty questions in a minute because there's a series about that. But I want to ask you about your answer to Question 80 at the bottom of that page.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: This is about a former coworker. Where was she a coworker with you? Was that in your teaching?
JUROR: This was someone I worked with at Montserrat College of Art. I was doing a free-lance writing position for them where I was going in part time. And she told me that she had this firsthand experience at the bombing.
THE COURT: When did you talk with her about that?
JUROR: It was last year around this time, I guess.
THE COURT: So it wasn't in the immediate aftermath? It was sometime after that?
JUROR: No. It was after that. It was because I was working on a story for the college that involved a graphic artist who designed T-shirts to -- like, a Boston Strong type of T-shirt, and he was connected to the art school. So it came up.
THE COURT: Is there anything more about this conversation or what you know about her that you think we should know?
JUROR: No, I don't think -- I don't think anything else.
THE COURT: On the next page, we asked about you or people close to you, whether you were affected -- that's Question 81 -- whether you were personally affected in any way by the events. For example, some people had to stay in on the -- you may recall the Friday. I guess you said "not applicable." You weren't affected in any way?
JUROR: I live on the North Shore, and I -- it didn't affect me in the way that it affected people who were living in Watertown or in the immediate area.
THE COURT: You made a contribution to the One Fund, the next question?
JUROR: Yes, just one contribution, yeah.
THE COURT: So at Page 23, beginning at Question 88, we ask a series of questions to get an idea of your views about the death penalty. And Question 88 is a -- asks whether you have any views on the death penalty in general, and you wrote, "I am against the death penalty."
JUROR: Right, yes, I am.
THE COURT: In the next question, we asked you to see if you could select a number on a scale that kind of gauged where you were, with 1 strongly opposed would be a circumstance where you believed that the death penalty should never be imposed; and 10, at the other end, where you believed it should be imposed whenever a defendant is convicted of murder. You selected 3. You think that's --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why?
JUROR: It's a difficult scale to work with really.
THE COURT: You're right about that.
JUROR: There's, like, these shades of -- I'm against it just because I'm a pacifist, and I'm somebody who believes that everybody has the right to life. I'm against abortion for the same reasons. It's -- I was raised in a Christian household. So it's just what I was -- it's part of my background.
THE COURT: If you look at Page 24, Question 90, this is a little less clumsy than the previous numerical scale. This asks you in words whether there was a statement that you thought represented your views about the death penalty for somebody convicted of murder. You chose (b). "I'm opposed to the death penalty and would have a difficult time voting to impose it even if the facts supported it."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I just want to see if there's a reason why, given what you've just said, you didn't choose (a).
JUROR: Well, I guess there's a shadow of a doubt in my mind. I've never been put in this position before where I had to -- you know, to vote, like, on something like this.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: You know, it's not a black and white for me. There's a little bit of a shade of gray.
THE COURT: So you heard me this morning describe what would be the penalty phase if the defendant was convicted of a capital crime, where the jury would be presented with evidence that might tend to show it was a particularly serious and blameworthy crime. That would be the aggravating factors by the government. And on the other hand, there might be mitigating factors about the defendant or other things about the events that might tend to argue against the death penalty and in favor of a life imprisonment. Then we'd ask the jurors to assess all that they had heard in the penalty phase and make a choice based on that evidence about what was the right punishment that each juror thought was appropriate.
Would you, in that process, be receptive to the possibility that you could vote in either direction, or would you be, because of your opposition to the death penalty, pretty much disposed not to vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: I really -- it's a really -- it's hard to say. I mean, I -- I think it would take a lot to change my mind, frankly.
THE COURT: To change your mind?
JUROR: My conviction about the death penalty being wrong for anybody.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to look at the bottom of Page 25, Question 95. There, putting it in the context of this case, if you found this defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was an appropriate -- was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you wrote "not sure."
And if you want to look at the next question on the next page, kind of the parallel question. If you found him guilty and you decided life imprisonment without possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of release? And you said "yes" to that. So a little contrast between "yes" to that and "not sure" to the other. I just want to -- do you want to talk about that difference?
JUROR: It just is more clear-cut in my mind that I feel now that life imprisonment would be the best punishment for him. I mean, it would take a lot for me to change my mind on that.
THE COURT: Okay. The lawyers will have some follow-up questions.
MR. WEINREB: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just wanted to ask you a few additional questions. Turning back to Question 80, it's on Page 20.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: You mentioned you were writing an article at the time that your friend told you about her experience.
JUROR: It was a -- it was a blog posting on an alum from this art school who had gone on to start a graphic arts business and who had made T-shirts for -- to raise money for the Marathon victims.
MR. WEINREB: When you say it was a blog, is it --
JUROR: A blog article.
MR. WEINREB: A blog article.
JUROR: Yeah, on the college website.
MR. WEINREB: Did you do research for the article?
JUROR: I interviewed the artist. That was all I did. And I looked at his website and saw that he had raised money for the Marathon victims. That was it.
MR. WEINREB: Did the article talk about the victims themselves or what he had done for them or --
JUROR: Nobody specifically.
MR. WEINREB: What exactly was it about; can you tell us?
JUROR: My article?
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
JUROR: It was just a profile -- it was a success story of somebody who graduated from this arts college and has gone on to start a successful graphic arts business and focused more on that.
MR. WEINREB: Got you.
On this issue of the death penalty --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: So turning to your answer to Question 88, how long has that been your view that you're against the death penalty?
JUROR: It's just sort of an engrained viewpoint that I've held my whole life, I guess. I haven't ever had to think about it in such a -- you know, a relevant way before but --
MR. WEINREB: You mentioned that one reason you're against it has to do with your religion.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: Can you say more about that?
JUROR: Well, I'm a Christian, and I believe that life is a gift from God and that it's wrong for anybody to take that away from somebody, whether it be murdering somebody, you know, like in the Marathon bombing, or whether it be killing somebody who committed the crime of the Marathon bombing. I think that killing somebody is wrong no matter what.
MR. WEINREB: When you say "wrong," by that do you mean, like, immoral?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So -- and you extend that to taking -- basically to sentencing somebody to death? That's taking somebody's life in the same way that a murderer takes somebody's life?
JUROR: Yes. I see them as one and the same, I guess. It just seems like it's punishing the crime with another crime in my eyes.
MR. WEINREB: So if I understand you right, believing that it's immoral, as you say, and that it's essentially like murder to sentence somebody to death, can you really envision yourself ever sentencing somebody to death?
JUROR: No, I really can't. Sitting here right now in front of you and thinking about it, I can't imagine that I could do that.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So when you said earlier that you don't like to be black and white and that there's a sort of a shadow of a doubt, were you saying that you're wavering in your conviction as to whether the death penalty is immoral or not or just that nobody can ever know anything? You can't be 100 percent certain about anything?
JUROR: I guess I'm just -- I'm just thinking that I don't know the whole story, and there's a part of me that just -- maybe the journalist in me that just wants to hear -- before I make a judgment call, to hear the whole story.
MR. WEINREB: Fair enough. So one of the things we're trying to figure out here though is whether -- whether your moral views against the death penalty, your belief that it's like murder to sentence someone to death, whether that would really impair your ability to realistically consider you personally putting somebody to death even if the evidence were strong in your mind.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Can you answer that for us? Do you think that it would impair you in the sense that in any case you would be --
MR. BRUCK: Objection. I think -- impairment is a legal issue.
THE COURT: I'm not sure the juror understands it as a legal matter. I think you can answer that in the plain English sense of the word. There is some legal gloss on it, but I think you can have it as a plain English question.
MR. WEINREB: In other words --
JUROR: No. I understand. I'm just thinking.
MR. WEINREB: Yeah.
JUROR: I really -- I don't think -- I think any conviction should be questioned. I mean, I don't see myself as a close-minded person, so that's why I didn't put the black or white, one end of the scale or the other. I mean, I don't know. I might change my mind about it.
MR. WEINREB: Well, again, I realize we're talking about things that are -- it's hard to predict how you would feel about something in the future, but this is our one chance to ask you and sort of get a sense of your best judgment on the issue. And that's why I'm pressing it a bit.
And what I'm really trying to get at, and my question is, when you say you don't like to be black or white or you don't want to be 100 percent one way or the other way, can you really envision yourself giving up this -- or setting aside this conviction that the death penalty is immoral and is like murder and sentencing someone to death regardless of the evidence that you heard?
JUROR: I think it would take a lot. That's all I can say. It would really -- it would take a lot to change my mind.
MR. WEINREB: And what -- can you envision --
JUROR: I don't know. I really don't know what this case is about.
MR. WEINREB: I'm not talking about this case. I'm just talking about any case. Can you envision circumstances that would change your mind?
JUROR: I already answered. I don't -- I really -- I don't know. Maybe --
MR. WEINREB: I'm asking --
JUROR: Yes, maybe. Maybe I could envision something that would make me change my mind.
MR. WEINREB: What would you envision that could change your mind?
JUROR: The idea of spending your life in prison isn't that much more fulfilling than being killed in a way. I mean, I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: I mean, you can take a moment and think about it.
JUROR: Is he going to be up for parole at all? Is there a chance that he might get out of prison and have a life for himself? Are we talking about, like, he's going into prison for the rest of his life with no chance for parole?
MR. WEINREB: The latter.
JUROR: That's it. There's no room.
MR. WEINREB: No room. Those are the two options: death or the life without any possibility of release.
JUROR: Then, in my mind, there's more room for the death penalty because it almost changes my viewpoint.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. But what I'm asking here is a slightly different question, which is, can you envision a crime that would be so bad or circumstances about a murder that would be so bad that it would justify murdering somebody else, the defendant?
MR. BRUCK: Objection to "murdering somebody else."
MR. WEINREB: Just using the defendant -- the juror's own words.
JUROR: I think you're just asking me the same question over and over again.
MR. WEINREB: I'm trying to actually get you to tell use what the circumstances would be that would -- what would be a heinous enough crime in your mind, if any?
JUROR: If I believed that he -- well, for example, right now, just looking at the case as I've seen in the media, I see it as something where he's a young -- he's a younger brother and that he was influenced by his older brother and that -- as I'm looking at it now, I'm seeing it as that the older brother was more of the mastermind. But in the course of the trial, something swayed me and changed my mind and I, you know, I learned that he was more of the mastermind in the trial, perhaps there would be more of a sense that he deserves something like that. As things stand now, I would not vote for the death penalty, and I would -- I don't know. I mean, it's sad to me even that there's not a chance of parole for him but -- but I -- that's --
MR. WEINREB: You know you're here for this case, and so you keep answering about this case, and that's perfectly understandable. There's nothing wrong with that.
I'd like to ask you though a slightly different question which has to do with any case, not this case. Putting aside this case, can you imagine circumstances under which somebody who had committed a murder should be sentenced to death?
MR. BRUCK: I think that's been asked and answered.
JUROR: I've already told you.
THE COURT: I think we've been over it.
MR. WEINREB: Excuse me one second.
THE COURT: Yeah.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thanks very much.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: When we started, it would have been good morning, but it's now good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: I'm David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers.
I know you've been asked a lot of questions about this, but I just want to see if we can get some clarity at the end. You said that the journalist in you has a response to the situation of curiosity. What I think we're really asking is whether there's a juror in you by which the law means someone who can put their personal views, no matter how strong, to one side, not forget about them or change them but just put them to one side and be guided by the evidence in the case.
That's what this is about, and that's what I want to ask you. On the issue of the death penalty, understanding your strongly held views, could you put your views to one side and serve as an impartial juror that -- by which we mean paying attention to the evidence in favor of the death penalty, the evidence against the death penalty, and make your decision based on the evidence in the case.
JUROR: No, I don't -- I don't think I could. I think that my viewpoint is too much of a conviction for me.
MR. BRUCK: Just to be clear about one last thing -- and I won't belabor this -- but a juror never has to vote for the death penalty. It's not as though there are some facts, once proven, the judge will say, All right. That's it, jury. Go out and come back with the death penalty. In the end, the jurors always have to make and get to make their own decision one at a time, individually. So -- and if your decision was that the death penalty was not the right thing to do, you would always be legally allowed to do it. So I don't want you to --
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think we need a question.
MR. BRUCK: The question is: Understanding that you could always vote one way or the other based on the evidence -- that was really what I was asking -- could you go for the death penalty or against the death penalty based on the evidence in the case?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. There was a difference between the answer you gave me and the one --
JUROR: Well, the question seemed different to me.
MR. BRUCK: Tell me.
JUROR: You're saying that I could still vote for the death penalty if I felt like it was the right choice.
MR. BRUCK: Right, or for life if you thought that was the right choice.
JUROR: Right. How does it work if -- if one person votes against the death penalty in the jury, then what happens?
MR. BRUCK: It has to be unanimous for the death penalty or there's no death penalty.
JUROR: Right, okay. So my answer --
MR. BRUCK: Is?
JUROR: -- stands that I -- if I could still keep my conviction -- I honestly don't know if anything would change my mind or not. But as things stand now, I feel that the death penalty is wrong, but there's a chance that I might change my mind.
MR. BRUCK: You'd change your mind based on what? On the evidence in the case?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR: Sorry. I don't know if I was clear on this.
MR. BRUCK: No. I appreciate it.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. You're all set. Thanks.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 447.
COURT CLERK: Juror 447.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And, as much as possible, any media reports about it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So we're just going to follow up on some of the answers you gave us. Let's start by talking about your work. You are, it looks like, an office --
JUROR: Administrative assistant for the Department of Executive Office of Work Force Development.
THE COURT: Okay. The usual office-type work?
JUROR: Phone calls, answering the phones, faxing, anything else that needs to be done.
THE COURT: Okay. You've been doing that for?
JUROR: Fourteen years.
THE COURT: Yeah, quite awhile. You would have no difficulty if you were asked to serve on a lengthy case like this?
JUROR: The only difficulty I would have is my kids. I'm a single parent to two girls. So there would be some difficulty there, but other than that --
THE COURT: Is it manageable or is it something --
JUROR: My parents help me out.
THE COURT: Are they local?
JUROR: They are, yes.
THE COURT: You know that the normal trial day would be 9 to 4. It wouldn't be an unusual --
JUROR: Yup, that would be reasonable.
THE COURT: Okay. I don't know how significant it is, but we've been asking people about their use of social media. You use Facebook --
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: -- on a daily basis almost?
JUROR: I do, yes.
THE COURT: Family and friends kind of things?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Any other use?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Page 20. If it's easier for you to deal with it, you can take the clip off and separate the -- Question 77, near the top of the page, there we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the media or learned from other sources, had you formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty or not or that he should receive the death penalty or not. And to Part (a) you answered "no." And to the other parts you answered "unsure." Could you tell us about your answers?
JUROR: I think -- I think that every case is different, and I think that, unless you hear all the information and you need to hear everything in the case before you can make a decision if someone is guilty or if they're innocent. Not every case is black and white. There's a lot of things that go on.
THE COURT: So you understand, I'm sure, that in our criminal justice system, if a person is accused of a crime, the person is presumed innocent of that crime --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- unless and until the government proves otherwise -- proves him guilty at the trial by the evidence at trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are familiar concepts to you?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: It's not surprising people have heard about things -- about the events that underlie this case and have some impressions about it. What we ask jurors to do is to set those ideas aside and pay attention to the body of evidence that's produced in the course of the trial and make judgments about that. Would you be able to do that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If the government, on any given charge, failed to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of that charge, would you be able to vote not guilty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: On Page 21, we asked a couple of questions about whether you or anybody close to you were personally affected by the events of the Marathon bombings. You said "none." No personal impact on you?
JUROR: No, uh-umm.
THE COURT: You didn't participate in any of the after-the-fact support activities, One Fund, Boston Strong or anything like that?
JUROR: Nope.
THE COURT: So beginning at Page 23, Question 88, we asked a series of questions about jurors' attitudes about the death penalty, so I want to run through those. 88 was itself a general question. If you had general views, what were they? You wrote that each criminal has different circumstances, and this case should, I guess, look at all the evidence.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tell me -- wait a minute.
JUROR: Sorry.
THE COURT: There were a couple of crossouts. Why don't you read it for us.
JUROR: "Each criminal is different circumstances and that this case should have -- look at all the evidence before the sentence of death came up. And before I made a decision, I would have to look at everything and listen to everything."
THE COURT: Let's step away from what you wrote. Tell us what your general views about the death penalty are.
JUROR: The same thing, that each case is different, that each criminal is different, and that, you know, depending on what the evidence shows, that's how I would base my decision on, not on what I've heard or what I've seen or anything else.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question, we asked if you could put yourself on a scale, this is -- no, Question 89 -- from 1 to 10, with 1 being strongly opposed, would never vote to impose the death penalty; and, strongly favor, would always vote to impose the death penalty when someone was convicted of murder. You put yourself somewhere in the middle.
JUROR: Because I'm not really sure where I stand on that. I'm not going to say that I think it should be. I'm not going to say I'm strongly opposed to it. I'm in the middle of it.
THE COURT: Now, let's go to the next page, Question 90. There we ask a little differently by giving you a number of statements you might agree or disagree with and asked if one of those represented fairly your own views about the imposition of the death penalty in a case where someone has been guilty of murder. You chose (d). It says, "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could impose it or I could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release, whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does that represent your view?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you go to the next page, 25, at the bottom, Question 95, we put it in the context of this case now. 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? You said "not sure."
JUROR: I honestly don't know if I can do that. That's somebody's life that you're playing with. I don't really know if I could honestly put him to death.
THE COURT: Notice that the question says that -- the assumption in the question is that you've decided that the death penalty is appropriate for him.
JUROR: I'm still very unsure.
THE COURT: I just wanted to call that to your attention.
Now, if you go to the next question, it's kind of a parallel question. If you found the defendant guilty and you decided that life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that? You said "not sure" to that as well.
JUROR: Yeah. Honestly, on both of those, I do not know if I could --
THE COURT: When you say you don't know, you don't know whether you would -- could do it in good conscience, or you don't know whether you could make up your mind about which was the better choice?
JUROR: Yes, which -- at the time. I'm not --
THE COURT: I explained this morning in brief terms the process. If there were a conviction of a capital crime, that we'd proceed to the penalty phase, and there would be evidence of what we call aggravating factors, and there would be evidence of mitigating factors, and they would have to be balanced. Could you make a judgment about which penalty was appropriate, if you were at that stage, based on an evaluation of that evidence?
JUROR: Would have to, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
I'm not sure I understood all of your answers at the end about the death penalty questions. So if you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a few more to clear it up.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: So if -- at the very end you said that -- in your answers to the final two questions that you -- you're unsure about which way you would go. But I want to put aside this case entirely and just ask you in general about serving on a jury where a defendant is potentially subject to the death sentence. So we're not talking about this defendant. And the question there is: If you -- can you envision cases where the circumstances could convince you that the death penalty was an appropriate sentence for an intentional murder?
JUROR: If there was such a case and the evidence shown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he -- that the death penalty was the way to go, then, yes, I would vote for that particular way to go.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. What about the other? If the evidence showed --
JUROR: If it showed that life imprisonment was the way to go, then I would be voting for life imprisonment.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Just to make sure that we're on the same page, you understand that the way that it works in the federal system is that, if a defendant is found guilty of an intentional murder, there's no automatic penalty one way or the other at that point. There's a whole second phase of the trial.
JUROR: I understand that.
MR. WEINREB: At that trial you'd hear evidence, and the government would try -- would offer evidence that it believes made the death sentence the appropriate sentence. The defense would offer evidence that it believes made life imprisonment the appropriate sentence. And there's no formula for figuring out which is the right way to go. You, as a juror, are personally called upon to weigh all the evidence, consider it all together, and make a judgment at the end about what you believe is the right sentence.
THE COURT: You're doing a little bit about what you've criticized Mr. Bruck for doing.
MR. WEINREB: Here I'm not trying to lead to any particular answer. Generally just trying to ask --
THE COURT: Let's get to the question.
MR. WEINREB: -- whether you could do that.
JUROR: Yes, I could.
MR. WEINREB: If you determined that the death sentence was the appropriate sentence, could you actually do it, sentence someone to death, knowing that it was a decision you could never take back?
JUROR: Knowing that was the decision that I could never take back, again, that's somebody's life we're playing with. Even though he's been found guilty and the person has been sentenced to death, I -- that, I have -- you know, I'm unsure of because it's somebody's life.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So you've never been in that situation before.
JUROR: No, I haven't.
MR. WEINREB: It's impossible to know from experience. So we're just -- we're left to ask you what your prediction is of your ability.
MR. BRUCK: I think he's asked, and we have the answer.
THE COURT: He can have it. This is the last one. Go ahead. Answer the question.
JUROR: I would have to really weigh everything and really think about it before I would be able to make that decision. Again, it's somebody's life we're playing with regardless of the fact that they've been found guilty.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And if you weighed it and made the decision and you came to the decision that a death sentence was the appropriate sentence, could you take the next step and actually give the sentence?
MS. CLARKE: I think that's been --
JUROR: I'm undecided on that. I'm sorry. I'm very undecided on that.
THE COURT: We'll leave it at that. That's the answer you're going to get, I think. Is that it?
MR. WEINREB: Yes. Thank you, your Honor. Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MS. CLARKE: If you'll bear with me just for a few questions.
JUROR: Sure.
MS. CLARKE: The jury is expected to do a couple of things in a capital case. After finding the accused guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, there's a penalty phase. And all the law requires of a juror is to fairly consider all of the evidence presented and to listen to it and deliberate about it. Can you do those things?
JUROR: Yes, I can.
MS. CLARKE: And recognizing in a capital case that no juror is ever required to vote for a death sentence but what a juror is required to do is give fair consideration to both options: life in prison without parole or death. Could you do that?
JUROR: I could, yes.
MS. CLARKE: And then the third thing that the juror has to do, be able to do, is to assure Judge that once that juror makes up his or her mind that they could follow through on their conscience. If their conscience said that a sentence of life in prison without parole was the right way to go, that's what they would vote for.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: You could do that?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: If their conscience said that the right way to go in that particular case was a death sentence, could you follow through on that third obligation as a juror?
JUROR: Again, I'm very unsure on that. I would have to weigh everything in my conscience and really take a look at my conscience and really think about that.
MS. CLARKE: Well, I think why we're spending just a little extra time allowing you to think fast about that because, obviously, since January the -- whatever day you came in, the 5th, I guess -- you've probably given it some consideration, right?
JUROR: I have, but, you know, again, my stance has been it's somebody's life, and I just don't know if I could make that conscious decision to put them to death. I honestly -- even though he's been found guilty and that's what they gave him, I honestly don't know if I could do that.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you.
JUROR: You're welcome.
THE COURT: All right. That's it. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you very much.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 448.
COURT CLERK: Juror 448.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able to avoid talking about the case since we were last here?
JUROR: I have been. I didn't talk to anybody. I mean, if it happened to be on television, I kind of walked out of the room.
THE COURT: Right. So we're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave in the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: I want to start with, on Page 10, Question 26, where we asked for your employment. You said you are an estate manager. Can you tell us what that is?
JUROR: Yes. This was for a private residence. I took care of this man and his wife for about 20 years. And when she passed away, she asked me to continue taking care of him, whatever he needed, and --
THE COURT: So you managed the household? Is that what you do?
JUROR: He had quite a lot of property. He had a big ranch in Colorado. He had a lot of stocks. I mean, I had a staff of, like, ten to twelve people. Whatever he needed, basically, that was -- but I was working at a hospital, at the Winchester Hospital.
THE COURT: Right, right.
JUROR: Then they asked me to leave that job to do this.
THE COURT: You've been putting it in the past tense. Are you still doing it?
JUROR: No. I retired in October.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Congratulations.
JUROR: Thanks.
THE COURT: When you were doing it, were you -- he was based here, but he had properties elsewhere, is that it?
JUROR: He did.
THE COURT: So you would travel around?
JUROR: I did not have to travel, but if I had to I would have.
THE COURT: All right. So now you're a woman of leisure, is that it?
JUROR: I was. I was heading for Florida in January, but -- that's okay.
THE COURT: Well, you've got to enjoy all the snow.
JUROR: Oh, yeah, my first year out. I won't forget it.
THE COURT: Okay. I just want to turn to Question 77 on Page 10 -- 10? 20, Page 20. In Question 77, we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or heard in the media or from other sources, you had formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not and what the penalty should be. You indicated by checking the boxes that you had an opinion formed that he was guilty but that you were unsure of the penalty, correct?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: In the second part of the question, if you look at it, we asked, If you answered yes to any of those questions -- and you answered yes to Part (a) -- would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt based solely on the evidence presented in court? And you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I believe that people have to -- you have to prove that he's innocent or guilty. Everybody has a fair chance. Nobody was born -- come into this world being bad. I just think everybody should have a fair chance.
THE COURT: Okay. As I'm sure you know, in a criminal prosecution, a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of the crime unless the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial and proves it to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You're familiar with those concepts?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What we'd ask a juror to do in a criminal case is pay attention to the evidence in the case and make judgments about the various charges that may be made based on that evidence and not based on ideas that they might have from other sources.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to do that?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: And the burden of proof, of course, is always on the government to prove a person guilty. A defendant in a criminal case never has a burden to prove that he's not guilty. It's up to the government to prove its proposition in a sense.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: If, on any of the charges, you thought that the government had not fulfilled that -- had not carried that burden and had failed to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of that particular charge, would you be able to vote not guilty under those circumstances?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me just ask you to go to the next page.
JUROR: 21?
THE COURT: We asked about whether you had personally been affected -- that's Question 81 -- by the Marathon events. You said "no."
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And in the next one -- there were various support activities after the events: the One Fund and Boston Strong and so on and so forth.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You said you purchased a shirt and a Boston Strong magnet. Can you just tell us --
JUROR: I'm a Red Sox ticket holder, so I go to many Red Sox games. I just happened to not go to that game that day. So I did go to one a few times later, and they were selling the shirts and --
THE COURT: What shirts were they?
JUROR: It says "Boston Strong" on them.
THE COURT: They weren't Red Sox shirts? That's what I was getting at.
JUROR: No. They were Boston Strong shirts, but I bought them at the Red Sox game and the little magnets that go in your car.
THE COURT: That was a short time after the events?
JUROR: I --
THE COURT: Later in April maybe?
JUROR: Well, I know that when I took the train in that the crime scene tape was still up, so we couldn't go near there. So it was in that time frame.
THE COURT: You know that the equipment truck has left for Florida?
JUROR: I know. I saw it yesterday. I wasn't on it.
THE COURT: On Page 23, beginning at Question 88, we asked a series of questions about jurors' attitudes towards the death penalty. 88 itself was a -- asked, if you had any general views, what were they. And you said, "I believe the death penalty should be used depending on the crime, example, serial killer or rapist." Is that what that says?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: "Anyone who would like to relive the crimes."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: "All of the crimes depends on the circumstances."
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to amplify on that at all?
JUROR: Well, somebody like -- well, I put down a serial killer or a rapist. Somebody who would enjoy reliving that crime I think should then spend the rest of their life in jail -- should not, should get the death penalty so they would not enjoy reliving it. Somebody who, let's say, killed a police officer or somebody didn't plan it or -- I think life imprisonment. So it depends on the case.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. In the next question, we asked if you could think about putting a number on a scale to match your views. You chose No. 10, which, as the question says, "reflects the belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder."
JUROR: Maybe I just didn't understand.
THE COURT: That seems a little more --
JUROR: Right. I'm not very good at taking tests. This was like a test.
THE COURT: Let's go to the next question, which, rather than using numbers, puts it in words.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: There was a series of propositions. We asked if you could find one that reflected your feelings about the death penalty when somebody has been convicted of murder. You actually selected two.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: (d) and (e). Is that because you weren't --
JUROR: Let me see what it says.
THE COURT: Go ahead. Read it.
JUROR: (d) is the -- actually the answer to the previous question, the other page when I said depending on the type of crime it was.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Let me see. (e), again, same thing.
THE COURT: Okay. So now correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Is it your position then, based on those answers, that you would make up your mind, if you were in the penalty phase of a case, which -- whether the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of release was the right punishment, would you make your mind up after you had considered all the --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- penalty phase information that you had gotten in the course of that?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: Without any necessary predisposition to one view or the other?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to go to the next page, bottom of the page, Question 95. We put it in the context of this case. If you found the 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 "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Then if you go to the top of the next, we asked a similar question. If you found him guilty and you decided life in prison without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for that sentence? And you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So, okay. I'll just leave it at that.
JUROR: Whatever the jury decided would be a --
THE COURT: You understand you don't have to do what the other jurors do?
JUROR: I understand, yes. But I would put my feelings forth.
THE COURT: You would be open to either?
JUROR: Either/or.
MR. WEINREB: I have nothing, your Honor. Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon, ma'am. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
How long have you been a Red Sox season ticket holder?
JUROR: About 15 years.
MS. CONRAD: So the game that you went to after the Marathon bombing, was there a ceremony or any events honoring the Marathon bombing victims?
JUROR: I was not at that game. You mean when they brought in the victims?
MS. CONRAD: Well, was there any acknowledgment --
JUROR: I don't remember.
MS. CONRAD: Was it the game where David Ortiz made his famous statement that I can't repeat?
JUROR: No. Wait a minute. Maybe. It could have been. You know, if I'm not at the game, I'm watching it on TV.
MS. CONRAD: Sure.
JUROR: So I could say yes and then I could be wrong so --
MS. CONRAD: But there was a lot of emotion.
JUROR: Oh, yes, there was.
MS. CONRAD: And how did that affect you?
JUROR: I cried.
MS. CONRAD: On the anniversary, I think it was -- I don't remember if it was Opening Day of 2014 when the --
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
MS. CONRAD: I'm getting to the question.
MR. WEINREB: A question would be more appropriate than --
MS. CONRAD: Were you present when the World Series rings were presented --
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: -- by Marathon bombing victims?
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: Did you watch that on TV?
JUROR: I could have, but I could have also been in Florida. I don't remember.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. Let me just ask generally. On how many occasions that you either watched a Red Sox game or attended a Red Sox game was there some acknowledgement of the Marathon bombing events?
JUROR: Well, last year I only went to four, and I get 13. So I'd say maybe -- out of the four, maybe one or two.
MS. CONRAD: Do you remember anything about what those events were?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think -- I don't think we --
MS. CONRAD: Well, let me ask this question: You said that you didn't go to the game on April 15, 2013, the Patriots' Day game.
JUROR: No, I did not.
MS. CONRAD: Did you know anybody who did?
JUROR: Probably the other owners of those tickets.
MS. CONRAD: Did you speak with them about what their experience was like that day?
JUROR: No, I did not because I don't see these people again till the following year at draft.
MS. CONRAD: Did you have any concerns about their safety that day?
JUROR: I did not.
MS. CONRAD: Do you remember where you were that day?
JUROR: Actually, I was taking care of my boss at the time.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I was taking care of my boss at the time.
MS. CONRAD: Do you remember how you found out about the bombing?
JUROR: On television.
MS. CONRAD: What do you remember about that?
JUROR: Just that there had been an explosion at the finish line, and then it was just constant TV about it.
MS. CONRAD: How did you feel?
JUROR: It's hard to say. You feel numb. You don't know -- believe it or not, the one feeling I did have was I felt guilty.
MS. CONRAD: Why?
JUROR: I wasn't there.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me more about that?
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. This isn't follow-up on any --
THE COURT: Yeah. Let's stick with the main event here.
MS. CONRAD: Well, I think, respectfully, your Honor, this is.
THE COURT: No.
MS. CONRAD: Were you affected by the shelter in place on April 19th?
JUROR: Was I affected by what?
MS. CONRAD: The shelter in place on April 19th.
JUROR: No, I was not.
MS. CONRAD: Now, you selected on your questionnaire, on Page 23, Question 89, No. 10 -- if you'd just take a moment to read the introduction.
JUROR: Page 23?
THE COURT: Yes, 23, Question 89.
MS. CONRAD: Where all the numbers are.
JUROR: Oh, yes.
MS. CONRAD: If you take a look at the introduction to that, it says that 10 reflects a belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. So is that how you feel?
JUROR: No. It shouldn't be in every murder case.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. But you selected 10.
JUROR: I know, because I'm not very good, like I said -- maybe I read through to it too fast.
MS. CONRAD: Sure. You said something -- when the judge was asking you questions about your opinions about when the death penalty would be appropriate, you said something about if a police officer is killed.
JUROR: Right. That wasn't a premeditated. That was something that happened in the -- the person that commits the crime is not going to sit back in his cell thinking, oh -- reliving it, how wonderful it was.
MS. CONRAD: But what if it were premeditated?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That's a precommitment question.
THE COURT: Yes. The examples are sort of spontaneous. I don't think you can place too much weight on them.
MS. CONRAD: My question is -- let me ask a different question. Do you believe that anyone who commits a premeditated murder of a police officer should receive the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Well, again, I think -- you know, we've had this discussion. They're often using terms that have legal freight in ways that they may not be clear. It will produce ambiguity that is --
MS. CONRAD: May I then --
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I have an additional ground as well, which is, offering one aggravating circumstance without any of the mitigating circumstances is a case-specific Morgan-type question that we've decided long ago is not appropriate.
THE COURT: I agree with that.
MS. CONRAD: Can I ask, ma'am, what you mean by premeditated?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: No.
MS. CONRAD: Do you -- if someone were charged -- strike that.
If someone were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of a preplanned murder, would you be willing or able to take into account facts about the defendant before -- such as his background, before deciding whether the death penalty was appropriate?
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Is that it?
Okay, ma'am. Thank you. You may step out.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: I think we have time for one more.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 452.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 452.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon. Hi, Judge.
THE COURT: Have you been able to avoid discussing the merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: And, as much as possible, avoid media coverage of the case?
JUROR: Yes. I don't follow it, you know.
THE COURT: That'S the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave to get some more information.
I'm interested -- this is on Page 4, the beginning. You spent a total of four years in Africa?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, my parents were divorced. My mother was a librarian. I was a youth. I was, like, eight and nine and then 12 and 13 so two different periods of times for two years in two different places.
THE COURT: Currently, you're a staff nurse at the McLean Hospital.
JUROR: That's right.
THE COURT: You've been doing that for quite awhile?
JUROR: Thirty-eight years in March.
THE COURT: Looking at Page 11, we asked about some affiliations of you or other family members. You said your father was a criminal defense lawyer for about 30 years.
JUROR: That's right.
THE COURT: Where did he practice?
JUROR: In Florida, in Key West, in Miami, Florida, and -- in the south, in Florida primarily.
THE COURT: Okay. Now, I think you said your parents were divorced. Were you living with him when he was --
JUROR: No. I was living with my mother. I'd visit him. I'd go down for spring breaks or whatever in college and so on, yeah.
THE COURT: Your father-in-law was also a -- no. He was just private practice, not necessarily criminal defense practice, is that it?
JUROR: Not criminal at all.
THE COURT: So let me ask you to turn to Page 20. And if it's more convenient, you can take the clip off the page.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Question 77, in that question we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources, you had formed various opinions. And you indicated that, yes, you had formed an opinion the defendant was guilty. And as to the penalty questions, in Part (c) and (d), you said you were unsure.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Then down just below that, we said, 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 solely on the evidence presented to you in court? And you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: As to the guilty or the penalty phase or which? Just the guilty?
THE COURT: Let's concentrate on the "yes" to guilty and "able" to set aside.
JUROR: Okay. So, in general, I have an opinion that the -- Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty. However, I don't know the charges. I don't know the evidence. I don't know anything about it aside from, you know, what was, like, visibly displayed everywhere. I would have to be --
THE COURT: I'm sure you know that in our criminal justice system a person is presumed innocent of any charge against him unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by evidence at the trial and that the government's proof must be convincing enough that the jurors have no reasonable doubt about the fact of the person's guilt. You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: I am.
THE COURT: What we ask jurors to do is just set aside ideas they might have from other sources about the issues in the case and decide those issues based only on what they hear in the course of the trial. You think you would be able to do that?
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I -- I would go into that, you know, believing that and so I -- that is a fundamental right and so on. I agree with that principle.
THE COURT: If, on any of the particular charges, you thought that the government's proof had not convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty, would you be able to vote for not guilty?
JUROR: Absolutely. I mean, sure.
THE COURT: In your work, do you have any intersection with the criminal justice system?
JUROR: Not really. I mean, someone may call 911 and say, I'm being held here against my will, and the Belmont Police will show up at their door. That is the extent of it. Or we might have a forensic consult on a patient, that kind of thing. In general, no. It's not Bridgewater. It's McLean.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23, at Question 88, we asked a series of questions about jurors' attitudes regarding the death penalty. 88 was a question about views in general, if you had any views about the death penalty in general. And you said, "Generally opposed, possible exceptions."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Can you explain that a little?
JUROR: Sure. I'm generally opposed. You know, probably 30 years ago I would have been for. But then, you know, the DNA evidence and the questions that have come up about it, I've become more generally opposed. Possible exceptions would be, you know, war crimes, the Nuremberg Trial or terrorism, I think, and serial killers. There are some things that probably I would lean more towards being in favor of it.
THE COURT: So in 89 we asked you to place yourself on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is strongly opposed and would never vote to impose; 10 being the opposite of that, strongly in favor and virtually always would vote to. You placed yourself as No. 2. Anything you want to say about that?
JUROR: Well, I just probably, you know, statistically thinking that the vast majority of crimes don't fall into those exceptions of mine; and so, therefore, I would be more towards the strongly opposed than not.
THE COURT: On the next page, in Question 90, we asked it not with numbers but with words and asked if you found a statement among the several you had to choose from that expressed your view the best. You chose (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 the particular case called for it." Is that a --
JUROR: Right. I think that's accurate. I haven't had time to look over these others.
THE COURT: Take your time.
JUROR: Okay, sure, absolutely.
Okay. So (c) or (d). I'd have to look and break those down. "I'm not for or against the death penalty." "I'm more against it." "I could vote to impose it or I could vote to impose a sentence" -- either (c) or (d). They seem to be pretty close.
THE COURT: Well, one of the differences between (c) and (d) is (c) begins by saying you're opposed to the death penalty. The other says you're neither for or against.
JUROR: Right. Then I am not for or against, although, as I've said, you know, in 90 percent or more, I'm more against but I'm not -- to me, being against something means more like (a) so --
THE COURT: You read for or against "always," one way or the other; is that what you're saying?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Because you're not an always, in your view, in either direction, you're somewhere in the middle?
JUROR: Yeah, exactly, more towards --
THE COURT: Let's look at the bottom of Page 25, Question 95. And that question puts it 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 checked "yes."
JUROR: Yeah. So it's presumed that I found him guilty and decided that it was the appropriate punishment. If I did that, I would not for some other reason say no, you know, so, I mean, if I reached those conclusions.
THE COURT: Right. And then at the top of the next page, 96, we asked the parallel question. If you found him guilty and 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? And you checked "yes" there.
JUROR: Right. So, yeah, I think it's kind of the same thing in a way. It doesn't really have the death penalty involved in this question, so I would be --
THE COURT: This is the alternate.
JUROR: Yeah. If I thought that it was life imprisonment and that was the appropriate, then I would absolutely certify that if that's what I thought.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Thank you, your Honor. Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: I just want to follow up on one thing, which is the nature of your work at McLean.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: What kind of care do you provide to the patients?
JUROR: The very best.
(Laughter.)
MR. WEINREB: That's really all I needed to know.
JUROR: So it's a 28-bed psychotic disorders unit. Schizophrenia and bipolar are the main diagnoses. So it's fairly short term. When I started at McLean, the average stay was 381 days. Now it's down to about 12. So it's just direct clinical care of the patient. I'm a member of the rounds teams. I administer medications. I speak with the patients individually and so on.
MR. WEINREB: Do you -- I assume you don't do diagnostic tests?
JUROR: I don't, no. I'm a nurse.
MR. WEINREB: Do you do therapy with them though of any kind?
JUROR: No, just what we call staff talks, just sort of checking in with the person, just trying to reassure them or help them along in the process.
MR. WEINREB: Are you part of discussions with the doctors and the staff about what the problems are?
JUROR: Absolutely. It's a very democratic place. I don't know if you know anything about McLean. That's one of the best things I've felt about it in all my time there. So, absolutely. Nurses and mental health workers and everybody has a lot of input into what's going on. I may know something that the doctor hasn't come across and/or -- you know, I'm not going to say, I think this person is bipolar. I'm not going to go over those boundaries, but I'm going to give information and communicate, you know, what I've observed and assessed.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thanks very much.
THE COURT: Sure, absolutely.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon, sir. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Hi.
MS. CONRAD: You mentioned that there were certain exceptions where you thought the death penalty was appropriate, and you mentioned a few of those. In those exceptions, would you automatically vote for the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That's not --
THE COURT: No. Go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: I don't -- no. I don't have a checklist necessarily. You know what I mean? I think each case is individual. So I wouldn't say, Okay, you know, Goring should be killed but Hitler should be left off. I don't know. I don't have a hard-and-fast rule about --
MS. CONRAD: You would be able to listen to the evidence during the penalty phase and consider both facts about the crime and facts about the defendant himself before deciding what the appropriate punishment is?
JUROR: Oh, absolutely.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. Thank you very much.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll take a lunch break. 2:00.
(Luncheon recess taken at 1:03 p.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:08 p.m.)
THE COURT: Okay. Ready?
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 453.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 453.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would. Take a seat.
Keep your voice up and speak into the mic, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able to avoid discussion of the merits of the case since we were last here?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as possible avoid media accounts?
JUROR: I haven't talked to anyone.
THE COURT: But I'm talking about the media too.
JUROR: Yeah, the media too. Definitely not the media.
THE COURT: Thank you.
So I'm going to follow up on some of the answers you gave to some of the questions.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You're currently an assistant professor in political science?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Any special concentration?
JUROR: Political science. Oh, I'm sorry. Comparative politics. I do immigration politics, Latin America, development, international relations. Is that what you meant?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah. Both undergraduate and graduate?
JUROR: Well, UMass -- oh, I'm not supposed to say.
THE COURT: You can. That's all right.
JUROR: Well, the school I teach at there's mostly undergrads. So I have taught some graduate courses but -- in development, but most of the time I teach undergrads.
THE COURT: Okay. You're working on a book?
JUROR: I just finished it, actually.
THE COURT: Oh, you did. What is the topic? Just generally.
JUROR: Remittances. Remittances. Money that migrants send back to their home countries.
THE COURT: Okay. You write on a blog at the University of Pittsburgh?
JUROR: Yeah. It's, you know, sort of a political scientist talking about current events. It's all about Latin America, though. Nothing about the U.S. Well, that's not true. I have written about U.S.-related issues with the war on drugs and that sort of thing, but nothing domestic.
THE COURT: And in terms of Facebook and Twitter, you use them --
JUROR: I do use Facebook very often, yes.
THE COURT: For --
JUROR: Twit- --
THE COURT: -- personal matters?
JUROR: Personal matters, yes. I don't have any page -- I do express political opinions from time to time, but it's personal. And Twitter, I actually just joined recently, but I haven't -- I tweeted one thing, so that's it.
THE COURT: Okay. I see -- this is on page 11 at Question 31 -- that you had a cousin who was killed in Iraq in 2006?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yeah. My cousin, he was a medic. We were fairly close, actually. Sorry. And he -- he joined Iraq and -- actually, I feel very strongly about it because I didn't agree with the war in the first place. I thought that it was a mistake that he joined the Army. He did it because he wanted to go to college and couldn't pay for it. And he thought, "I'll join the military." The kid -- yeah. Wasted life, you know.
Anyway, yeah. Sorry.
THE COURT: Yeah, I understand. So similar to you in age? Were you growing up together or --
JUROR: Oh, in age? He was a little younger than me, about three years younger than me.
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Also an immigrant who had come here soon after -- yeah, soon after. Soon after I came.
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Did you grow up in the same area?
JUROR: No, no. Well, I mean, up until -- I came here when I was 12, and before that we grew up together in the same city. Then I came to Arizona and he went to California, and we saw each other a few times. And, yeah, it -- we were planning to go to a game before he went in the -- yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah, I can see it affects you.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Do you know the circumstances of --
JUROR: He was in a Humvee in Iraq. They were driving. I don't know where they were going or what they were doing. But he was in a Humvee and there was an -- what do you call it, an explosive on the side of the road. Some, you know -- I don't know, the rebels or whatever put something on the side and then -- yeah. Okay.
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah.
THE COURT: We asked various questions about organizations or causes that you might have been affiliated with or supported. On Question 39 on page 13 --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- you noted two, I guess.
One was immigration law reform as you've already adverted to, and also death penalty laws reform. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JUROR: Yeah. So both? In the case of --
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. Both. Sure. I was more interested in the death penalty --
JUROR: Yeah, obviously, I would think.
Immigration law, I just went on a rally in D.C. about support for comprehensive immigration reform. Death penalty law reform I was at a meeting where people were talking about reforming the death penalty. My wife works for a foundation that supports abolishing the death penalty, and so those were the people that I --
THE COURT: Do you know the name of the foundation?
JUROR: Proteus, P-R-O-T-E-U-S.
THE COURT: Okay. In Question 72, this is now on page 19, we asked if you'd called a talk show, written a letter to an editor, posted a comment and so on about issues, and you said, "Yes. Immigration, Latin American politics and U.S. invasion of Iraq."
JUROR: Expanding: Invasion of Iraq, I was asked to talk about it with a Hawaiian on TV. They were asking me about veterans -- what was happening was we were leaving Iraq, or Obama said that the war was over, we're bringing troops back, and they asked me to comment on it, so I did.
THE COURT: Who asked?
JUROR: It was a Hawaiian talk show. So, you know, like a politics sort of general show. And, yeah. That's what you --
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: When did Obama -- whenever that was. 2010, 20- -- yeah, 2010.
THE COURT: On page 20 --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- if you'd look at Question 77.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: In this question we've asked whether, based on things you'd seen or heard, you'd formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty and if you had an opinion about the penalty that should be imposed and so on.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You answered yes, you had an opinion that he was guilty, and as to the penalty you were unsure.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Then we asked below that, "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 said, "I do not know."
Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, I don't think -- I feel pretty strongly about the death penalty, but in the case -- in this particular case.
THE COURT: Before we get to the death penalty, I want to focus on Part A where you said you had an opinion that he was guilty.
JUROR: So prior to this case -- I'm not originally from Boston. I didn't know anything about really the Boston Marathon. And so when it happened, it was pretty shocking, the whole thing. So I read extensively about it. I mean, I teach politics, so of course I was interested in the particular case. I read about lots of articles on Slate. I read them on Boston Globe and a bunch of other places.
And so at least from what I read, it seemed pretty clear that he was guilty, guilty in the sense that he had been part of this and he had committed -- you know, that he had been part of the killing of the MIT officer, that he had been setting the bombs in the Boston Marathon. Yeah, so to me that seems pretty clear that he's guilty.
And then what do you want me to say, or what did you want me to answer? So should he receive the death penalty?
THE COURT: No. No, not yet.
JUROR: Sorry, sorry, sorry.
THE COURT: In our criminal justice system a person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- unless the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial. And we ask trial jurors to evaluate the evidence and tell us whether the government has proved that or not.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And if they're satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the government has proved the fact of guilt, then they may return a verdict of guilty, but if they're not convinced of that, it's the obligation of the jury to find the person not guilty.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: It's understandable that people have impressions about what happened in this case and that they would approach the jury service having that in some degree. And the question -- the second part of the question asked would you be -- to the extent you had such opinions, would you be able to set them aside and to concentrate on the trial evidence and make a judgment based on that body of evidence alone regardless of what other impressions you had from those reports or otherwise?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: So that's really the self-assessment question. Do you think you would be able to do that?
JUROR: I think it would be very difficult to. I can't say for sure that I wouldn't, but I think it would be very, very difficult for me to get rid of impressions I have.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's now turn for a minute to the death penalty questions.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And that's on 23.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Beginning at Question 88.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: 88 is a question whether you had views about the death penalty in general, what are they. And you wrote, "I believe the death penalty should be abolished. As much as I believe Tsarnaev is guilty, I do not think he should be executed."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you want to amplify on that at all or...
JUROR: So I believe very strongly -- or fairly strongly -- that the death penalty should not be -- should not exist here or anywhere. Although I think -- and the reason why I think that's the case is because it's very difficult, I think, to have an impartial reading of cases. In this particular case it might be clear, say. There are cases -- there are many cases that have been -- death penalty has been imparted. In Texas, for instance, in Florida, in Alabama, which I think the -- okay. My impression is that it was wrong, and people have written about this. And so because I think there's always a possibility that it could be wrong, I think that the death penalty should be abolished because there's always a possibility that people are innocent and that they get killed. So that's what I think generally about the death penalty.
In Mexico, which is where I was from, does not have the death penalty, and so maybe that's where I get this from. But -- so, yeah. So I think generally as it is, it should be abolished, and if I had the power to do that, I would do it today.
Nonetheless, even though I believe that the death penalty should be abolished, there are cases I think, for instance, in the case of the Aurora shooter or the Newtown situation, where the crimes are so horrendous that I can understand why the death penalty exists, let's say, people feel whatever.
And so I don't think personally I would be able to execute -- or to decide for the execution of anyone. And even though I think -- my impression is that Tsarnaev is guilty, I don't think that I would be able to say that he should be executed.
THE COURT: Okay. And I just want to, I guess -- you indicated that generally by the next question --
JUROR: The 2?
THE COURT: -- the 2, and then again on the next page, Question 90, where you chose as close to your views Statement B, which is you're opposed to the death penalty, would have a difficult time voting to impose it?
JUROR: Yeah. So the reason I put a 2, for instance, is because I can imagine a possibility where, I suppose -- like Hitler, for instance, or somebody like that -- where they commit genocide or something so horrendous that I suppose I could have -- I would vote in that instance. But in this case I don't think -- I don't think the -- at least -- and I don't know in the previous question -- I don't foresee myself as being able to do that, but I suppose there's a possibility that I could be okay. I don't know.
But I think even if the facts -- even if the facts were clear -- as I said before, even if he was guilty, it would be very difficult for me to say we should execute him.
THE COURT: Okay. Finally, for me, anyway -- and the lawyers will have a chance to ask you things if they want -- on page 26.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: The Question 97.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You say, "I teach international relations, so I'm familiar with Tsarnaev's claims about Russian and American terrorism."
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: What are those claims?
JUROR: Well, claims about Putin in particular; about the oppression from the Russian state on Chechnya and on the neighboring states; claims about abuses and people getting killed; police brutality, et cetera. And I'm also familiar with -- or claims about the United States being unfair to Muslims, about the invasion of Iraq and all of these things related to the Muslim world. I don't necessarily agree, but I am familiar.
THE COURT: I understand.
You put it in terms of "the defendant's claims." How do you know what the defendant's claims are?
JUROR: Well, from the reading -- from what I was -- from what I had read prior to the -- my impressions, anyway, of --
THE COURT: From the sources you were talking about?
JUROR: Yes, from Slate, from the Boston Globe, from magazines, et cetera, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Questions?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Some follow-up questions. Let me just start with that last issue that the judge raised about what you may have read about the defendant's claims.
Do you mean statements the defendant made?
JUROR: No. I don't -- I don't -- to be honest, this was a year ago, right? So it was April of 2013. So, you know, there was a lot of attention about it. And I read, for instance -- I think it was on Slate. I don't remember all the sources. But I remember reading about his family and how they had lived in different parts of Russia and they had come to the United States and what their life was like and some of the -- the older brother's -- I do remember the older brother's claims about hatred against Muslims and how the United States had been oppressive and that sort of thing. I don't remember his particular claims, if he -- I mean, reading whether he specifically made these claims or not. But that's my impression, that he at least supported them to some extent.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So this period that you were actively learning about this case.
JUROR: Yeah?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: What time period would you say that you were doing that?
JUROR: Right after the marathon -- the stories that came out, there was a lot of interest on, you know, what could have possibly led people to do this, how did it come -- and I was interested also because they're immigrants and they're white -- or at least perceived as white. And so -- because I teach immigrant politics, there's a lot of talk about, you know, Mexicans being criminals and the criminalization of immigrants, so I was very interested in how the media would portray these people.
And so I was interested in that, and that's why -- so I don't remember the exact timeline, but the months after whatever was written I probably read it, between May 2013 and, I don't know, August 2013, roughly, those months that came after?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And so your courses that you teach are in immigrant policies?
JUROR: Immigration politics.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Politics? Excuse me.
JUROR: Which is -- right now I'm teaching it, actually. And it's about what states do in response to immigrants coming. So I go through all of the different countries, the United States -- not all of the different countries, but the main countries -- in Europe, France, Spain, England, Sweden, Italy, so on. I don't do Russia. Maybe I should. Japan, Korea and so on. But I also -- and in my other class, international relations, I talk about migrant flows and things like that.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And do you talk about the asylum process in your --
JUROR: I do talk about the asylum process, yeah. That is not a main focus of it, but I do talk about it. Mostly Cubans, though.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I don't think we asked you what your course schedule is like this semester.
JUROR: I'm teaching two classes. Immigration politics is one; the other is Latin America politics, Tuesday and Thursday.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: What time?
JUROR: 9:30 to 10:45 and 12:30 to 1:45.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. And so if you're seated on this case, those times would have to change. Is that something that --
JUROR: Well, actually, I don't know that they would -- I couldn't teach them. Somebody would have to -- actually, I have no idea what that would mean. Obviously, right, I couldn't teach.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That's a question for you.
JUROR: I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Presumably the school would have to get somebody or they would have to cancel the classes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. You're an assistant professor? I'm just trying to get a sense of your tenure track.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: How does that --
JUROR: Well, I submitted the book, so hopefully they'll publish it, and I should hear within two months. And I have a few articles and -- a few articles that are out, so hopefully -- you know, I'm moving along.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So the classes issue should not hamper your career?
JUROR: No, the class issue should not -- no, it's the research.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So the question on the class issue is: Is it a hardship either to you or, you know, in the interest of your students if you --
JUROR: Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. It would be a hardship, but I have no idea what the school would do. Like, can they teach -- can somebody teach immigration politics? I don't know. I don't know if they can get somebody. So presumably they would have to cancel the class, in which case that wouldn't be a hardship for me; it would be a hardship for 80 students: 40 students on immigration politics and 40 students on Latin America politics.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And you already started teaching?
JUROR: Yeah. We're a little bit behind, just like you are, with the snow. Just a little bit. But, yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: One more point on your study. This book that you wrote, remittances.
JUROR: Yeah?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Do you write about terrorism financing?
JUROR: No, nothing about terrorism. I am not a special- -- that is not my specialty. I have, I would say, a fairly positive view of immigrants in the book, even though I consider the possibility of -- I'll tell you about it if you really want to know. It's about social remittances, and it's the idea that immigrants can change the politics of their home country through connections and through social networks. And so it's a fairly positive thing, even though I consider the possibility that, quote/unquote, bad ideas can be transferred back. But it's a positive view.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That was my thesis in undergrad, so I commend you for writing something scholarly.
JUROR: Very good.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: All right. So I want to ask you a little bit about your wife's work.
JUROR: Yup.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: The Proteus Foundation, is it?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: The death penalty is one of their causes.
You indicated that you've spoken about the death penalty with her. Ostensibly you've even --
JUROR: I attend it, yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yeah. So would you be able to consider -- just at the threshold stage are you -- would you be able to hold aside any of her convictions and your discussions with her, anything she may have said to you and what her response might be based on your actions in this case, would that not -- could you shield that from your decision-making?
JUROR: I could -- yes, I could hold my -- like talking about it or, you know, my conversations with her, whatever, but it would be hard to -- my own convictions about it because, like I said, if I could, I would abolish the death penalty today, right now.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And that's your independent --
JUROR: That's mine, yeah. That's mine.
She -- actually, I don't know if she feels stronger than me or not. I think she's probably exactly where I am. But, yeah, I could -- that's a good question. I don't know. I'll have to find out at some point. But -- yeah. Anyway...
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And so it's fair to say you grew up generally opposing the death penalty based on just --
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I mean, you said you lived in Mexico.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: But had you actually contemplated the death penalty and your position on it when you were there?
JUROR: I was 12 when I came to the United States, so, no, I probably didn't think about the death penalty very often. And I indicated that I guess my position has softened over the years because, I don't know, you get older and wiser, I suppose. I don't know. But, you know, there are cases I suppose that could happen. But, yeah, I don't know -- I don't think I -- I don't think I thought about it very carefully before I came to the United States, but the change in coming from Mexico to the U.S. I think had something to do with my idea about it, if that makes any sense.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I think so. You just finished talking about the death penalty, and there are a couple of other points I wanted to make.
If you'd look at the questionnaire.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I think you've been very clear in terms of where you are on the death penalty.
JUROR: Yup.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Question 95 asks whether you can impose it and --
JUROR: For the what?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I'm sorry. Page 25, Question 95.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Reading that anew, is that still your answer?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. So it's in the middle; it's not a "no"?
JUROR: I don't know. I mean -- I don't know. I mean, the more I think about it, the more -- I don't know. The thing is, I think he's guilty. And so I suppose I could say yes, but I feel very strongly about the death penalty. So it would be a real dilemma for me. It would be a real moral dilemma. So, I don't know. If I had to say if I was leaning toward one or the other, I would say no.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So what this question's trying to capture is a distinction between the cognitive decision of whether it actually applies versus whether you could impose it, but --
JUROR: Oh, I see what you're saying. So you're asking --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Hold on one moment while I just think about it.
Your Honor, I think we've heard -- we're satisfied that we've gotten the information, so instead of asking these questions, I'll just withdraw it.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you very much.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: That's it. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Just leave that.
COURT CLERK: Just leave that. Thanks a lot.
JUROR: Good luck.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 454.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 454.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would. Have a seat. Keep your voice up and speak into the mic.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon, your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you been able to avoid talking about the case or viewing media accounts about the case?
JUROR: I have.
THE COURT: Yeah? So we're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave us in the questionnaire when you filled it out.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And it's there for you if you want to follow along with us.
So you tell us in the questionnaire -- we had a question about employment, and you said you're disabled?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us the nature of the disability?
JUROR: I have a back problem.
THE COURT: A back problem?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is it something that you regularly take medication for?
JUROR: I don't anymore. I just had surgery recently and had it corrected.
THE COURT: So is it corrected so that you can stop being disabled or --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- just to ameliorate it?
JUROR: No, it's eliminated.
THE COURT: Are you expecting to go back to work?
JUROR: I am starting to look for work now, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And I think you were in the construction business somehow?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us what you did before the disability? What kind of work did you do?
JUROR: Well, I started doing security work because of the back problem.
THE COURT: Right. That's fine. Tell us about that.
JUROR: I did that for a few years.
THE COURT: When was the last time you were able to work at any job? Approximately.
JUROR: It goes back many, many years.
THE COURT: Okay. And the only reason I asked about construction was I see you went to Wentworth.
JUROR: I did.
THE COURT: And did you enter that field at all?
JUROR: I didn't graduate. I was there for a year and a half, I believe.
THE COURT: Oh, I see. All right. So the last time you were employed you were in the security field?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's, what, building security? Is that what you mean? What kind of things were you doing?
JUROR: No, security in a building, protecting the building and the property.
THE COURT: Right. Right. Were you working for a security company or did you work for a particular manufacturing or institution or anything else like that and were on their own security force?
JUROR: A business. Filene's Basement.
THE COURT: Okay. So I think we started to ask about it. You're beginning to think about going back to work? Have you started actively looking for a job?
JUROR: I haven't yet, but I fully intend to.
THE COURT: Okay. You know, I guess from what we told you in the form, if you were to be a juror on this case it could be several months.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: That would probably interfere with your ability to find work. Would that be a problem for you?
JUROR: It would interfere, yes, but I'm prepared to serve if I need to.
THE COURT: Yeah? In a sense -- it would interfere in the sense that it might postpone the time when you might go back to work?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Any other way?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So I guess the question is: Is it unreasonable to ask you to postpone going back to work on our part?
JUROR: I've been ready to serve if need be.
THE COURT: All right. As long as you have thought about it.
Let me ask you to go to page 20, Question 77. In this question we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the media, you had learned -- or you had learned from other sources, had you formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty, and you checked "yes," Part A of the question. Do you see that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And the second half, C and D, is whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and you said "yes" to Part C, right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Just below that, then, we asked, "If you answered yes to any of these questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your present opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely based on the evidence that would be presented to you in court?" And you checked "able" --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- saying you'd be able to do that.
Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I feel I would -- listen to the evidence and decide after that.
THE COURT: I presume you know that in a criminal prosecution the person who's accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial.
Are you familiar with those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So what we ask jurors to do, even if they have some ideas from other sources, to make their judgment in the case based on what they have heard in the courtroom or seen in the courtroom and not on matters from elsewhere.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Would you be able to assess the evidence alone and put aside any ideas you may have from other sources in thinking about whether the government has proved the defendant guilty of any charge or not?
JUROR: I feel I would be able to.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about the death penalty and attitudes toward it beginning on page 23, Question 88. 88 asked if you had any views about the death penalty in general, and you said, "I do favor the death penalty."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything you want to add to that?
JUROR: If it's appropriate, I believe in the death penalty.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question we asked you to circle a number that indicated where you were on the scale from 1 to 10 where 1 was strongly opposed and 10 was strongly in favor, but if you look at the question, it was defined as -- 10 reflects a belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let's go to the next question, Question 90. And this asks you if there was a statement that you agreed with to indicate that. You selected E which says, "I am 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."
Does that represent your view?
JUROR: It does, yes.
THE COURT: Well, that's a little bit different from circling 10, because 10 was whenever someone was convicted of murder, and this seems to be that you'd decide based on the facts and the law of the case. Or maybe you don't think it's inconsistent.
JUROR: Can I reread this?
THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead. Take your time.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: And if you want, take a minute or two to read all of Question 90 and see if there might be some different statement you might choose as representing your views. Take a moment.
(Pause.)
JUROR: I'm still confused.
THE COURT: Well, forget the questions. Tell us whether you would be in favor of the death penalty anytime someone was convicted of a -- let me back up for a minute.
You understand that you're considering the question of what the penalty should be, death penalty/life imprisonment, only if the jury has convicted somebody of a capital crime such as intentional murder.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So first you've already -- the jury's already agreed that the person is guilty, okay? So the question is what sentence is appropriate for this guilty person, right? And then the question is -- you heard me this morning talk about the so-called penalty phase where the government would try to produce evidence to convince the jury that there were certain aggravating factors about the case that made it worse than other crimes of murder and the defense would try to present evidence of things about the defendant or about the circumstances that would suggest that the death penalty was not the right penalty but life imprisonment was a better choice.
Do you remember me describing that this morning?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So the question is: If you were a juror considering all that, would you tend, in a case where there was an intentional murder, to think that the death penalty is the right punishment regardless of other considerations, or would you evaluate the case based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and perhaps be open to either the death penalty or life imprisonment?
JUROR: I would evaluate the case.
THE COURT: And make a choice in either direction or gravitate toward the death penalty?
JUROR: Either.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon, sir.
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 in the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: So on page 8 of the questionnaire -- I'm not going to ask about that -- Question 19 we asked whether any of your siblings has had a major positive or negative influence on your life, and you said your sister's been very helpful in every way. Can you tell us a little bit about that? What led you to give that answer?
JUROR: We've been close all our lives. If I ever needed anything -- if I need anything, I know she would be there for me or --
MR. WEINREB: She lives in the same town as you?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Your back problem that you've had, has that prevented you from getting around or taking care of yourself in the sense of, you know, getting your groceries, cooking your meals and so on, or was it more the kind of thing that you just couldn't strain it?
JUROR: No, it was a very -- just a constant problem, night and day.
MR. WEINREB: And are there any lingering effects of it that would make it difficult for you to sit in a jury box day after day?
JUROR: No, after having surgery, that's completely corrected.
MR. WEINREB: Turning to -- you don't need to turn to your questionnaire if you don't want to, but in answer to Question 31, you mention that your father had served in the Army. Was he -- did he serve in a war, do you know?
JUROR: World War II, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Which theater was he -- did he go overseas?
JUROR: He was in the Philippines.
MR. WEINREB: Do you know if he saw combat?
JUROR: He did not.
MR. WEINREB: What was his position in the Army?
JUROR: Private.
MR. WEINREB: And did he talk to you about his experience there?
JUROR: He told a few stories.
MR. WEINREB: Were they combat related at all?
JUROR: No, personal. Really funny, funny stories.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And then in answer to Questions 47 and 48, you talked about your previous jury experience in Cambridge, and you'd mentioned it was a good experience?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: What made it a good experience in your view?
JUROR: How?
MR. WEINREB: How was it good?
JUROR: Just I think the process is interesting.
MR. WEINREB: Did the jury deliberate a long time in that case, do you know?
JUROR: They ended up settling out of court.
MR. WEINREB: So the jury never actually had to deliberate?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: In answer to Question 74 when you were asked what did you think or feel when you received your jury summons for this case, you wrote, "Mixed feelings." Could you say what your feelings were and why you had mixed feelings?
JUROR: I'm sorry. The question again?
MR. WEINREB: If you want, it's on page 19. So it's Question 74.
JUROR: Mixed feelings? Because of my personal situation where I'm between working and just having surgery and -- I guess I hadn't decided whether I would be able to sort of -- since then I fully realize it's -- I lost my train of thought.
MR. WEINREB: Well, we can come back to that.
In answer to Question 75 at the bottom of the page you said -- you were asked what kinds of things you said to others or they said to you, and just that it would most likely be a long trial. Was that all there was that you could recall that anyone said or you said?
JUROR: Yes, that's mostly what people were saying.
MR. WEINREB: So did you have mixed feelings about serving on the jury -- did those result from anything other than that you just finally got your back problem fixed and you're looking for work again and this was unexpected? Is there anything about the case itself that gave you mixed feelings?
JUROR: Possibly.
MR. WEINREB: Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: It's a very tough case. I knew it would be a long case, trial.
MR. WEINREB: Is there anything else that makes it tough?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thanks very much.
MR. BRUCK: Your Honor, I think we need to go to sidebar, but I wonder if we could possibly excuse the juror for a moment. I know it's not how we usually do it.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll have a sidebar with just counsel. If you could step out for a minute.
MR. WILSON: Audio off.
(The juror is excused.)
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I don't think we can draw any conclusions about this juror's mental state based on his affect, but he does seem quite uncomfortable about being here --
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. WEINREB: -- and I just don't want to put him through a four-month ordeal that might be very unpleasant for him.
THE COURT: I have the same --
MR. BRUCK: We agree. I didn't want to put him through ten minutes of the ordeal about his --
THE COURT: Right. I don't know what the explanation is. I mean --
MR. WEINREB: I was just hoping maybe we could get him to open up.
MR. BRUCK: He's been disabled for 23 years. It's not just his back.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think we can --
MR. WEINREB: I think we can excuse him.
COURT CLERK: Can I tell him?
THE COURT: Yeah, you can tell him he doesn't have to come back in.
So we'll go off the sidebar.
MR. WILSON: Video and audio back on.