3.Individual Voir Dire — Impartiality and Death-Penalty Views (Part 1)
832 linesCOURT CLERK: Juror No. 446.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 446.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 446.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Good morning. You can adjust the microphone. It's more that you speak into it.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you. Since you were here last, have you managed to avoid talking about the case with other people?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also, as much as possible, to avoid any exposure to media accounts?
JUROR: Yes. There have been some ten-second things on the news that -- not time enough to get out of the room.
THE COURT: Can you --
JUROR: Nothing of any --
THE COURT: Teasing of a story a little later to come on or something like that?
JUROR: Just about jury selection, how things were moving along.
THE COURT: I see. Okay. So that's the questionnaire you filled out when you were last here. We're just going to follow up with some of the matters that have surfaced in the course of the process.
You are presently retired.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that right?
Prior to that you, I guess, worked in a retail store?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me just ask you to turn to Page 20. And if it's convenient, you can take the clip off if it's easier. In Question 77, near the top of the page, we asked whether -- as a result of things you'd seen or read in the media or had learned otherwise, whether you formed any opinion that the defendant was guilty or not, that he should receive the death penalty or not. And to (a) and (b), which are the guilty or not guilty parts of the question, for (a) you checked "yes," that you had an opinion. Then you checked "unsure" and you wrote "probably." And then for (b) you checked "no" and "unsure." Can you tell us a little bit more fully perhaps how you would answer those questions.
JUROR: I think I was very confused about my feelings. I think that there are shades of guilt, and I don't -- I didn't know how to address that exactly. Also, I think that there are the various charges, and I -- it wasn't clear whether I was saying I thought he was guilty or not guilty on all charges. So I -- I think that -- that's a hard one. It's a hard one. I have not made up my mind either way. I have not made up my mind.
THE COURT: Okay. As I'm sure you know, in our criminal justice system, a person who's accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until the government proves that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial. What we ask jurors to do is to focus on the evidence that's produced in the trial and, in light of the instructions on the law that are applied, to consider whether the government has fulfilled its burden of proof and convinced the jury that the defendant is guilty of specific crimes.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to fulfill those obligations?
JUROR: Yes, I believe so.
THE COURT: Let me just add to that. You understand the burden is always on the government to prove guilt. It's never a burden for the defendant to prove that he's not guilty.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: The burden of proof never shifts. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: You would be able, you think, to hold the government to its burden?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: On the next page, we asked a couple of questions about whether you had been affected in various ways by the events. You said your son was living in Allston at the time and sheltered -- I guess that was the 19th, the Friday of the week.
JUROR: I don't know which way it was, but, yes.
THE COURT: You weren't living in the area then?
JUROR: No, I wasn't.
THE COURT: Was he -- other than being inside for the day, was he affected in any other way?
JUROR: No, no.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23 with Question 88, we asked a series of questions about attitudes towards the death penalty.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And in 88 we asked the general question. If you have any views about the death penalty in general, what are they? You said "opposed in general."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything you want to amplify about that?
JUROR: I spent a lot of time thinking about how I answered these questions. This was very thought-provoking actually after the fact. And this is how I've been thinking about it. I am opposed in general, but I think that -- I'd like to think, if I was in front of a burning building and there were people inside, I would rush in and save them. But I've never been in that position. I don't know what the reality would be. So I don't know how I would feel.
There's going to be four months perhaps of pretty horrible things to listen to and see, and I don't think anybody who serves as a juror is going to be the same person at the end of the trial as they are now. So I wanted to leave the door just cracked a little bit because I don't know how I'm going to feel.
THE COURT: Okay. So in the next question, we tried to get a sense of the strength of your views by asking you to put it on a numerical scale. It's kind of a clumsy question. But at one end is strongly opposed and a belief that it should never be imposed; the death penalty should never be imposed. The other pole was strongly favor and reflects a belief that it should be imposed whenever a defendant is convicted of intentional murder. On that scale you put yourself at about a 3. As you reflect on it, is that still the right place?
JUROR: I suppose 3 out of 10, perhaps only 2 out of 10.
THE COURT: Then on the next page, we asked about it in a slightly different way, putting forth a number of propositions and asked whether you thought there was one that captured your feelings. You actually, I think, indicated both (b) and (c), as suggesting some uncertainty about which was the better expression of your views. Why don't you just take a minute and carefully read it, and we'll talk further about it.
JUROR: I think I was thinking that -- that I have respect for the way things have been decided by the U.S., that that might be an appropriate sentence. And, again, I would just go back to saying, you know, I don't -- I really don't know how I'm going to feel, you know, if I served after everything I hear.
THE COURT: Well, of course, there may be both an intellectual content and an emotional content to that occasion, right?
JUROR: Definitely.
THE COURT: I think in this question we're trying to get at the first; that is, do you have any beliefs about the death penalty that would foreclose one or the other possibility? That is, some people may believe strongly as the other scale indicated, that it should always be used for murder. Others would believe it should never be used for anything, so on and so forth. We're trying to gauge whether people have those kinds of views about the death penalty that might prevent them from being open-minded and considering the options.
JUROR: In an ideal world, I would be opposed to the death penalty, but I think there might be circumstances where I would be convinced that that was appropriate.
THE COURT: So, in other words, you are prepared to entertain the possibility, is that --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- a fair statement?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But you don't know what your choice will be once you've done that?
JUROR: That's correct. Is that clear as mud?
THE COURT: Let me just remind you of a couple other answers you gave and see if that has any effect on what you're telling us. On the next page, at the bottom, Question 95, we asked, If you found the defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for it? And you said, "I'm not sure." Do you see that?
JUROR: Yeah. I think "I'm not sure" is where I would stand.
THE COURT: Now, this may be getting more at the emotional component rather than the intellectual component or maybe a moral component rather than strictly -- because the premise of the question is you've decided that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for him. And then could you conscientiously vote to impose it?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Do you have an idea of what the things -- what considerations there might be as you face that question, if you did?
JUROR: I'm really wrestling with this question. It's very difficult. Would you ask me that question again, please?
THE COURT: I'm not sure I could.
Let me just contrast it with a question on the top of the next page. Go to 96, at the top of the next page.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You have it there. I'm sorry. In this we asked kind of a related question. If you found the defendant guilty and you decided that life in prison without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said yes?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You didn't have the same unsureness, I guess.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I guess what we're asking is what do you think the source of the unsureness is? Is it you don't know what you'll know at the time, or is it that your views about the death penalty are such that you're not sure that you could personally vote to impose it?
JUROR: I'm sorry. I'm having a really hard time concentrating on your question. Could you pitch it again to me, please?
THE COURT: All right. One reason a person might be unsure about how they would consider the question of imposing the death penalty or not would be an uncertainty about what the person would know, when that decision had to be made, about the case and about the evidence and so on. In other words, it's hard for me to say what I'll do because I don't know what I'll know then. That's one thing.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: It's another thing to say, I don't know if I could ever do that no matter what I know. And I think the question is trying to get at that difference, if you see the difference.
JUROR: Yes, yes. I see the difference, but I don't know how to deal with it.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. We'll leave it at that. Follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Briefly, your Honor. Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Take a breath.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors. I just have a few follow-up questions. They're going to be some of the same questions. I'm going to try to ask them a little bit differently to try to tease out a little more. Maybe there's no more to give. So don't feel pressure one way or the other.
JUROR: No pressure.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Easy for me to say.
If you wouldn't mind looking at Question 77 on Page 20.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: You explained kind of what your -- the reason for the responses on the first portion of that, the (a) and the (b). There's one thing you said that I'm just trying to clarify. You said you don't know what all of the charges are. And have you made up your mind about some charges but not others, or you just don't know what the charges are, and you're going to wait to hear what the -- what they are?
JUROR: I don't -- I don't know about the bombing. I mean, I don't have the facts about the bombing. I have one picture in my head of a surveillance camera shot and that's all. That's all I know for sure. The shootout, I certainly believe that he was involved in the shootout. I think that's a very different kind of charge. I don't know if I would -- so the guilty and the not guilty is -- I don't think it's across the board. I think the question is rather odd. He is guilty or is he not guilty? Of what? And how much? In what way? So --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So at one point you had written "probably" somewhere in that.
JUROR: "Yes," "no," and "probably."
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Is that capturing that same feeling, or is there something else you were trying to capture with that?
JUROR: I think he is -- yes, probably, guilty of some of the charges without a doubt. I don't know if he's guilty of all the charges. And I don't know, you know, what I'm going to hear about the circumstances.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Regardless, you can set that aside and listen to the facts and evidence in the case and make your decision?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: If you look down to letter (d) on that question --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: On that one, there doesn't seem to be any hesitation.
JUROR: That he should not receive the death penalty. Yes, I believe that he should not receive the death penalty; is that what I have said here?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Right.
JUROR: In -- you know, and my knee-jerk reaction is that, you know, I'm opposed to the death penalty.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So the factual basis, is there any different than you had with regards to the first question? Like, were you considering different facts, or is it just the same facts that you were aware of that led you to this conclusion?
JUROR: I guess the same facts.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: On 78, you said you think you may have had conversations with somebody else. Who else would you have talked about it with?
JUROR: This is referring to my answers in 77. Have I --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Right.
JUROR: Nothing of any importance, no important conversations. The only things that people generally pitch at me is about the death penalty. So I haven't had any conversations about guilt or innocence or the circumstances or the facts. I really -- I can't remember any conversations that I've had.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So let's get to the death penalty question. Take a breath. If you're selected as a juror, if you decide that the death penalty is appropriate in a case, a juror has to then cast a vote. As the judge explained, you know, a juror doesn't have to cast that vote, but the consequences of that vote could be that a person will be killed. Can you do that?
JUROR: I'd have to be really convinced that that was appropriate, I mean, obviously. It wouldn't be my tendency, but you would have to make a really good case. I don't know what I'm going to hear. There's going to be -- if we're going to be hearing things for four months, that's an enormous amount of information and, you know, hearing from people who have been hurt and lost people. I just can't imagine it. I have trouble wrapping my brain around it. I don't know. I don't know how I'm going to feel at the end. All I can say is I am opposed to the death penalty, but I would leave open just that crack of convince me.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: May I have one moment, please?
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. CONRAD: Good morning, ma'am. My name is Miriam Conrad.
JUROR: Good morning.
MS. CONRAD: So you said that you could keep an open mind as to guilt and listen to the evidence. With respect to penalty, am I understanding you correctly that you would be willing to listen to the evidence and consider the possibility of the death penalty understanding that a juror is never required to vote for it?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right, ma'am. Thank you very much.
JUROR: My pleasure.
THE COURT: The pleasure was ours.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 471.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 471.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 471. You can have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: How are you?
THE COURT: Good, thank you. Thanks for being here.
Have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid discussing the case with other folks?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And, as much as possible, have you been able to avoid media reporting on the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you filled out when you were here. I'm going to follow up on it. I want to start with your current employment. You're a general manager of a restaurant. Is that still the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us generally what your responsibilities are?
JUROR: I oversee shifts, handle cash, do orders, just make sure the restaurant doesn't burn down.
THE COURT: Keep things going.
If you were on the jury here and were with us for a few months, would that be a problem for you?
JUROR: I mean, it would -- it would affect the restaurant, but, I mean, I'm sure they could find coverage until I get back.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked some questions about whether you had connection with people that served in the military. You had a cousin who is or was in the Marines.
JUROR: Is. I'm sorry, was.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: That was five years ago.
THE COURT: Okay. Was he overseas?
JUROR: No. Yeah. I'm sorry, yes, he was.
THE COURT: Where did he serve as far as you know?
JUROR: I think -- I -- honestly, I don't know too much about it. I think he was in Afghanistan, but I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Do you know whether he was in combat, wherever he was?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: He wasn't?
JUROR: No, he was not.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to go to Page 20. In Question 77, we asked whether -- based on things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources, whether you had formed certain opinions, and there's (a), (b), (c), (d), that the defendant was guilty or not guilty, that he should receive the death penalty or should not receive the death penalty. And you answered you had an opinion that he was guilty, and you had an opinion that he should receive the death penalty. Am I reading the answer right?
JUROR: You are.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked then in the second part of the question below that, "If you answered yes to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence that would be presented to you in court?" And you checked the box "able." You thought you would be able to do that.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Actually, I've had a lot of time to think about it in these past couple weeks. I don't normally -- I am not a hundred percent for the death penalty. I'm more in favor of, you know, life in prison. But I work in Watertown, and the day of the Marathon, I witnessed a lot of people, like, coming into the restaurant that I work, and they were, like, crying and everything. So, I mean, I don't know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm really nervous.
I definitely -- like I said, since I'm not for it, like, normally, I would definitely be able to -- I have, like, formed an opinion, but I am able to put that opinion aside if that makes sense.
THE COURT: Well, let me back up just a little bit. The first part of the question was about whether the defendant was guilty or not. And so the first thing the jury has to consider is whether the government has proved him guilty of the crimes he's charged with, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You understand that in our criminal justice system a person is presumed to be not guilty, or innocent, of the charge made -- just because the charge is made. He's guilty only if the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial and convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt about that fact.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: It's not surprising that people have impressions about what happened those days. The question is whether, if you were to serve as a juror, you could focus on the evidence produced at trial and limit your judgment to that evidence in deciding whether the government had proved the defendant guilty of the crimes he's charged with or not.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you be able to do that?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: We're going to come back to the questions about your attitude about the death penalty in a minute. But I want to talk about what you said about your experience in Watertown those days. First of all, it wasn't clear from what you said -- maybe I just didn't hear it correctly -- whether you're talking about the day of the Marathon itself or you're talking later in the week when what might be called the manhunt was going on.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Or both.
JUROR: Actually, both. The day -- actually, the day of the bombing, a lot of people that did run the Boston Marathon, they -- I mean, a lot of people did come and they were, like, crying. Honestly, I had no idea what was going on. I'm, like, what is -- why are these people upset? What is going on? And they -- you know, I found out what was going on. So that kind of, like, right there formed my opinion.
And then the day of the manhunt, as you called it, that was, like, the whole, like, media thing, that was in the same parking lot as where I work.
THE COURT: You mean media vans and things like that?
JUROR: Yeah, that whole, like, you know, took place, like, right there. Obviously, the restaurant was closed that day so --
THE COURT: Were you there at the restaurant?
JUROR: I was not. It was closed so --
THE COURT: So you know the media trucks were there because you learned it later?
JUROR: They were all there the next morning, too, and I opened the next morning.
THE COURT: On Saturday morning you opened the restaurant?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would those events, you know, your closeness to Watertown and the events physically, would that have an effect on your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
JUROR: I -- I want to say no, but I've seen -- like I said, I've seen, like, the people and everything, so I'm kind of --
THE COURT: How many people were there that day?
JUROR: I saw probably, like, four people that were, like, they came in and they were, like, sobbing. They were like really upset.
THE COURT: Were these people who were spectators or runners?
JUROR: Runners.
THE COURT: Runners?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me turn to the death penalty questions. That begins on Page 23 at Question 88. Question 88 itself asks, if you had any general views about the death penalty, what were they? You said you're in favor of the death penalty because you're concerned that even when there's a life sentence somebody might get out.
JUROR: Right. I mean, that's -- like I said, I've had a lot of time to think about it. I, obviously -- I don't -- I would prefer not to send somebody to death, but, I mean, if they do find a way, like, good behavior or something to get out, you know, I'm kind of tossed.
THE COURT: Right. Okay. Very good. Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 478.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 478.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 478. You may have a seat. Just make sure you speak into the microphone.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions not to talk about the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also to avoid any media reporting about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's the questionnaire there that you filled out when you were here. We're going to follow up with some additional questions about those matters. I understand from the questionnaire that you are retired.
JUROR: Uh-huh, yes.
THE COURT: What did you do before you retired? What kind of work did you do?
JUROR: Auto body.
THE COURT: Were you self-employed or did you work for somebody?
JUROR: Self-employed.
THE COURT: How many years did you do that?
JUROR: Twenty years.
THE COURT: I'd like you to turn to Page 20. Did you find it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I want to direct your attention to Question 77, near the top of the page.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have it?
JUROR: Yes, I've got it.
THE COURT: We asked in that question whether -- as a result of things you'd seen or read in the media or from any other source, whether you'd formed certain opinions, that the defendant was guilty or not or that he should receive the death penalty or not. To each of those sections of the question you answered "unsure." Could you tell us a little bit about that, why you made that selection?
JUROR: Well, at the time I didn't -- I didn't hear much.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: At the time I didn't -- before I came to the court, I didn't hear about what was going on. So I wasn't sure, so that's why I put "unsure."
THE COURT: At the time the events occurred, do you remember -- did you pay attention or did you learn about the Boston Marathon events?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The bombing?
JUROR: I heard it -- I heard about the -- what happened at the Marathon, yes.
THE COURT: At the --
JUROR: I wasn't really -- it would show -- it was -- Mr. Tsarnaev -- it was on the news that I would read, about his background and all that stuff.
THE COURT: So what we'd ask of jurors, if they sit on a trial of a case and have to decide the issues, is that they pay attention to the evidence in the course of the case and make their judgments based on that evidence. Under our law, a defendant who is accused of a crime is presumed not to be guilty until the government proves otherwise by proving it at trial.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you familiar with those ideas?
JUROR: Yes, I know, yes.
THE COURT: Do you have any difficulty in applying those principles if you were a juror on the case? Would you --
JUROR: Right now, after I been in the court a couple of times and I've been hear what's going on, I can make a better decision.
THE COURT: What do you mean?
JUROR: About being guilty, sentenced to life or death, and that's my --
THE COURT: I guess what I mean -- you said you could make a better decision. I'm wondering what you meant by a "better decision."
JUROR: After I been in the court a couple times, like, the first time and now.
THE COURT: Well, okay. So the question is whether you could, without favoring either side, listen to the evidence in the case and decide what you thought the evidence meant in terms of the charges that are made.
JUROR: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Whether you would be able to consider the charges that are made against the defendant.
JUROR: Yes, uh-huh.
THE COURT: Based on the evidence at trial.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Without considering evidence or ideas or information that you think you might have from some other source.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you be able to do that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you a little bit about the death penalty, which is one of the possibilities. Beginning on Page 23 we asked a series of questions. Beginning with Question 88, near the top, in that case -- in that question, we asked whether you had any general views about the death penalty and, if so, what were they? You left the answer blank. Do you have any views about the death penalty in general, not about this case but in general?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: You don't?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to go to the next page, Question 90. In that question we set out a number of possible positions that a person might have about the death penalty and asked if you could select one you thought represented your view. Why don't you take a minute, if you would, and review the question. Then I'm going to ask you about the selection you made. Okay.
JUROR: Okay, sir.
THE COURT: You picked letter (c) as the statement you thought was your view. Do you think that's still correct? You think that still summarizes your ideas about the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you're generally opposed, but you could be open to the possibility --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- in a particular case if you thought it was appropriate?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything else you want to add to that?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yes, your Honor. Good almost afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors, the prosecuting lawyers.
If you look on Page 26, Question 99.
JUROR: Excuse me. What the page?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Page 26, Question 99.
JUROR: 99.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It suggests that there are some of the questions that you had some difficulty with. Can you just explain what the difficulty was, or was it a series of questions? Was it one question? What were you referring to here?
THE COURT: He's looking down at the bottom, Question 99, where you said you had some difficulty.
JUROR: Oh, I did. Some of them, right, all that questionnaires, all that page, yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Were there any in particular?
JUROR: No.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: No. So the questions that the judge just asked you, those you understood when --
JUROR: I understood, yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: There were several questions that you just left blank on, and there were some that you said you did not have an answer to. Why did you leave them blank, I guess, is the question?
THE COURT: I think that's hard to ask in the general -- with respect to the whole form.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Page 18 and 19, for example, there were several questions asking about what media coverage you listen to or watch, and you left all that blank. So on these pages, these questions about the media, what you had seen in the media or what -- excuse me, what you regularly view or listen to, were these things that you had difficulty understanding, or was it that you skipped the page or something else?
JUROR: First of all, I don't quite listen to many on the media. I don't listen to many. As far as skipping the page, I just feel I -- at that time I just -- that was the only one. I answered it.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So on the -- if you turn the page to Page 20, so you can see on several of the questions you answered none because you --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That was the answer. But on 79 you left that blank. Is that for the same reason, that you just don't listen to much media?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Getting to your views on the death penalty, you said you're -- on the answer that you circled on Page 24, you said you're generally opposed, but you could impose it. Can you give us a sense of how much you've thought about the death penalty? Like, is it a religious belief of yours to oppose it? Have you discussed it with other people? I'm just trying to get a sense of what you thought about it.
JUROR: Yeah. This is -- not that I discussed it with people. Just at that time that's how I -- that's how I describe it. But now I -- I feel strong about the death penalty, yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: When you say you feel strongly about it, what do you mean?
JUROR: After I read all the evidence, I mean, after I listened to all the evidence.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Do I take that to mean that after you've looked at all the evidence, you could --
JUROR: I could.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: -- vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: When you say you feel strongly about it, I'm trying to get a sense of what your belief is about the death penalty itself, not just whether you can vote for the death penalty.
JUROR: Well, this was on my -- after I hear all the evidence and everything, if it's on my mind, it comes to death penalty, yes, I would feel strong about it.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. So you would support whatever decision you --
JUROR: Right, right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And so turning to Page 25 and the next -- on Question 95 and then also on 96, you said you were not sure whether you could give either the death penalty or the life in prison.
JUROR: Well, that was the time I fill up all the questionnaires at the time, yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay. And you understood these questions?
JUROR: Yes. I understood them all.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. No questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Just leave that there.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 480, please.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 480.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 480. Please have a seat. Just make sure the microphone is pulled up to you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid talking about the case with anyone?
JUROR: Pretty much, yeah. It's really hard to avoid.
THE COURT: Well, I told you that you could talk about the fact that you had to come here. But have you talked about the case itself?
JUROR: Somewhat.
THE COURT: Tell us what you've talked about.
JUROR: Pretty much with my mother as far as having to call every week. And it was starting to get stressful. And then when it came down to every other day, I knew I would get called in sooner or later.
THE COURT: Okay. So you've talked about the schedule that you've been on to try to keep up with whether you had to come back, is that --
JUROR: Yes, because I spoke to them at work, made sure it was okay with them that I would be able to serve.
THE COURT: Is it okay with them?
JUROR: Yes. And it -- basically, the unknown. You call up. Okay. Wait till -- I'm sure everyone is going through it, but --
THE COURT: Have you talked about the merits of the case at all with anyone?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Have you also been able to avoid reading or hearing media stories about the case?
JUROR: That's very hard, too, yeah. So much news on lately with the storms and everything. You try to look the other way. So, for the most part, I try to do my best there.
THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you about your work. You are a telecommunications engineer, is that it?
JUROR: Yup. I'm a telecom engineer for Partners HealthCare. I work at Mass. General. I really don't have patient interaction. We've been working on a big upgrade with 30,000 phones. So it's a big overtaking.
THE COURT: Is your work confined to the Mass. General campus? Partners has other entities.
JUROR: Partners has Brigham's and Nantucket.
THE COURT: Are you involved in any of the others, or are you just Mass. General?
JUROR: We are involved in them. Whether we have to go to those sites is a different story. Mostly it's remotely.
THE COURT: Okay. The day of the bombing, after it occurred, people were brought to the emergency room at MGH. Were you working that day?
JUROR: I was working. We have a lot of buildings at Mass. General. The building I'm in is White Building, and it's sort of like near the main entrance. But I'm on the 14th floor. We had the TV on. As far as seeing patients come in, they have a new entrance and stuff like that, that they come in that way.
THE COURT: So you were in the hospital itself, but you weren't nearby where the people were --
JUROR: Yeah. We're sort of out of the way. We don't hang out in the E.D. There's just so much going on there.
THE COURT: Let me just go back to -- if you'd look at the questionnaire, I want to go back to Page 5 for a minute, Question 9.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Let me just ask: Would that be an issue for you if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: It's hard to say because, like, when we were sitting up here earlier, I was focusing on you, and I could pick up everything pretty good.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you use any assists?
JUROR: I don't wear a hearing aid. I did years ago. It was too distracting. Maybe some day I'll try it again, but --
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just ask you. We asked about use of social media. You use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, almost daily.
JUROR: Pretty much, yeah. I'm on those.
THE COURT: Can you tell us what kinds of things you do?
JUROR: Before I got back to Mass. General, I used to work for a travel company, and I've been -- I traveled all over and met people all over. It's a good way to keep in touch with people from the Caribbean and stuff like that.
THE COURT: Okay. As a social matter rather than as a business matter?
JUROR: Just basically social.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Page 20, Question 77, near the top.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: We asked here whether -- based on things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources whether you had an opinion -- formed any opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should receive the death penalty or not. That's Part (a), (b), (c), and (d). And to each of those you checked "unsure." Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yeah. Basically, when it did happen, it was all over the media. Everyone comes up with their own opinion. Mine is I don't know whether he was involved or not. I'm not there. I mean, I need to sit and look at evidence that would be provided and make my decision from that.
THE COURT: You understand that in a criminal case the defendant is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, of anything he's charged with unless the government proves him guilty by producing evidence at trial that is convincing to the jury so that they can conclude that the defendant is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. You understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you saying you would be able to faithfully apply those principles if you were a juror on the case?
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: And if -- for any particular charge, if you thought the government had failed in its burden of proof, would you be able to vote not guilty on that charge?
JUROR: I could, yeah.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about your attitude toward the death penalty beginning at Page 23. And in Question 88 we asked a general question. If you had any views, what were they?
JUROR: What question was that?
THE COURT: 88. It's on Page 23. There it is. Can you tell us what you were getting at in that answer? Take a minute to read it.
JUROR: I guess basically what I was saying is, in terms of the death penalty, sometimes it's -- I feel it's better to have life in prison depending on the situation.
THE COURT: Okay. Well -- okay. Let me ask you to turn to Page 24, Question 90. We set out a series of possible statements and asked if there was one that you thought best reflected your own view, and you selected statement (e). Why don't you just take a minute to review the question and see -- what I'm going to ask you is whether that still represents your best choice as to what matches your thinking about the matter.
JUROR: I think that goes back to the last question where I felt that life in prison could be in some cases more favorable than the death penalty.
THE COURT: More favorable to whom?
JUROR: Be more favorable to -- I don't know how to put that.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, Statement (e) says if -- I'm just reading Statement (e). It says, "I'm in favor of the death penalty." So that indicates a general disposition to favor the death penalty. Is that your view?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: "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 in the case." Is that also your view?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: I'm trying to -- depending on how you understood the facts -- and you heard me describe the so-called penalty phase this morning, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Are you prepared to be able to consider that the death penalty is the right punishment?
JUROR: I believe so.
THE COURT: And also consider that life imprisonment might be the right punishment?
JUROR: I believe so.
THE COURT: Okay. Follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Just very briefly. Good afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. Just a couple quick questions.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your work in the telecom department at Mass. General, will that affect your ability to be fair and impartial and listen to the evidence in court to be able to make up your decisions in this case?
JUROR: I don't think it would affect it because I'm working with telephones and stuff like that. I'm not doing anything with patient care or -- you know what I mean?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And the -- whatever you had seen about the case on the news, are you prepared to put that aside and listen to the evidence in the case in court to be able to make up your decisions?
JUROR: Yeah, I could.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That's all. Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: Hello. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev, and I had a few questions if that's okay.
JUROR: Sure.
MS. CLARKE: Just to follow up on your work, inside Mass. General, you're actually stationed inside the hospital facility?
JUROR: I am -- most of our telecom people are placed over in the Charlestown Navy Yard. Unfortunately, we're -- have lack of space, and we are building a new site in Somerville in a couple years. Then we will be all together. We'll be out of the hospital. There is a spot up on the 14th floor at the hospital that they've had forever, so they decided to keep that for now.
MS. CLARKE: So that's where you actually work out of?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: The 14th floor of the hospital?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: You were there at the hospital the day of the Marathon?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Working?
JUROR: Working.
MS. CLARKE: Can you tell us what you saw or heard that day?
JUROR: Basically, there's about six to eight of us in the office at any given time. We do have a TV if there's emergencies. One of the gentleman that works with us, his brother works for BWH. He called him. He said, There's an emergency going on at the Marathon, so we turned the TV on. That's how we knew.
MS. CLARKE: And saw the events of the day?
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: What about, as people came into the hospital facility, did you see any of that activity?
JUROR: Like I mentioned, Mass. General is so big. I could be at one end of the place, and the other end could be something going on and we would never know.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. But did you see anything --
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: -- that afternoon, the rest of that day or the next day?
JUROR: No. They have a brand-new emergency room that the ambulances and patients come in at this different entrance. So us, where we were, I wouldn't see them.
MS. CLARKE: Were you aware of any of the activities at the hospital that week or in the few days after the Marathon?
JUROR: Obviously, I was aware that the bombing did happen, and they brought people to all different hospitals throughout the city. That is usually common knowledge. They send out all user emails stating what's going on.
MS. CLARKE: What did you learn from those emails?
JUROR: Basically, the same as what we heard on TV when we were -- when we turned the TV on after we heard of the incident.
MS. CLARKE: Can you recall more specifics about what you got from the emails as opposed to what you got from the TV?
JUROR: I think it was basically the same. A lot of times they get the emails from the reports from the news media.
MS. CLARKE: Were there any fund-raising efforts at the hospital or any meetings about helping people?
JUROR: Like I said, I'm more of a technical person, and I'm not involved in any patient care and stuff like that. So it was sort of out of the picture.
MS. CLARKE: Were you able to carry on your work that week the same as ordinary?
JUROR: Yeah. Like I said, I mean, Partners and Mass. General have so many sites and -- you could feel something in the air. You know what I mean? You could feel a buzz that something happened.
MS. CLARKE: Could you describe that a little bit more for us?
JUROR: I think the thing was -- I mean, you -- how do I put it? You know something is going on, but you don't really have all the facts. We knew there was a bombing. We knew there were a lot of injured people. Other than that, we -- I mean, even though it was up there, we still have work to do.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. I guess one of the things to think about is whether you got information that nobody else got. And so you got that sort of buzz feeling. That's what I'm really trying to explore.
JUROR: Well, I think -- if I was in patient care, I would have got probably different emails. I get the generic email for --
MS. CLARKE: The telecom email?
JUROR: Yeah, basically, an all-user email. But if you're in patient care, I mean, there's probably different types of information provided.
MS. CLARKE: Okay, okay. On Question 77, which was at Page 20, that was the questions about the opinions. And I certainly appreciate you saying it was all over the media, but as a juror, I have to listen to the evidence. The question is: Have you ever formed an opinion about Mr. Tsarnaev's guilt or about the penalty outside of thinking about being a juror?
JUROR: Well, I would say so when -- first happened, I mean, with all the media attention, you say, Okay. They got the person who they assumed did this. Other than that, I mean -- they had two or three other reports out there that other people had done this as well. So it was, like, who was right and who was wrong? So, I mean, so --
MS. CLARKE: But you weren't able to form an opinion based on anything you knew before you came in to fill out your questionnaire?
JUROR: Not really, no.
MS. CLARKE: How about as to the penalty that should be imposed?
JUROR: I haven't had a chance to go through all the counts and all the charges.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. That makes absolute sense that you would wait to hear the evidence. But did you have an opinion when you came in to fill out the questionnaire --
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: -- about the penalty?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: You didn't?
When you say, on Question 88, Page 23, that the "death penalty can be overrated sometimes and it may be better from the defendant's view if he is guilty than to live out his life in prison." Can you talk to us just a little bit more about what you meant?
JUROR: I guess -- I mean, when I came in to fill this out, it was a long day already. I guess what I was trying to say, I mean, due to the fact his age was -- he was in his 20s and stuff like that, sometimes I thought it might have been -- this is my answer I should have said to you earlier -- was it might be, from my standpoint, that he lives the rest of his life in prison versus the death penalty. I mean, I'm still going back and forth on that. I mean, I wrote something down, but I'm not sure what I really was trying to get across.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Can I just have one second?
JUROR: Sure.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much. Thank you.
THE COURT: All set. Just leave the form there. You're done.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 481, please.
COURT CLERK: Juror 481.
COURT CLERK: Juror 481. You may have a seat. Just make sure you speak into the microphone.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able to avoid discussion of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes. I've had to tell people not to talk to me, but I have done that.
THE COURT: Some people have approached you to talk about it?
JUROR: Yeah. Well, I work with lawyers so they --
THE COURT: They're trouble.
JUROR: They like to talk about it.
THE COURT: Also, as much as possible, avoid any media accounts of the case --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- or of the proceedings?
Let's talk about your employment. You are an attorney.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And you've been, I guess, with the Commonwealth on and off, is it?
JUROR: Yeah. I have been there at the Department of Labor Relations for the past four and a half years almost; and then a few years prior to that, I was at a different agency.
THE COURT: Okay. Give us just a sense of what your workload is like. What do you do?
JUROR: I'm mostly a hearing officer, so I hear cases involving state and municipal employers and their unions that represent the employees and the employees themselves. So they are labor dispute cases. I also mediate sometimes and work as an arbitrator sometimes.
THE COURT: All within your official duties?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In other words, you're not --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- moonlighting by arbitrating?
JUROR: No, no. All of that, just one job.
THE COURT: Does it involve the civil service system as well?
JUROR: Not really. Some of the employees are also part of civil service, but if they have -- they can go to the Civil Service Commission for civil service type cases. There's some overlap, but we don't work with them, the Civil Service Commission. But I did -- I was involved with the civil service cases when I worked at the Human Resources Division of the Commonwealth a few years ago.
THE COURT: Okay. And you say you're mostly a hearing officer?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When you do that, are you sitting by yourself or part of a panel?
JUROR: By myself.
THE COURT: When you're not being a hearing officer, are you arguing cases for --
JUROR: No, just a neutral. But I did at my previous job, at the Human Resources Division, argue cases.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77, where we asked about whether you'd formed opinions about the case from things you'd seen in the media and from other sources.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You checked to each of the boxes in the four subparts "unsure."
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I just -- I don't know if it's because of my job or just having a legal background, I don't really like to form a complete opinion on something like this. I know that there has to be evidence, and I don't think what you necessarily hear in the media is the evidence that, in a case like this, you would rely on.
THE COURT: Have you ever had any part, either as a lawyer or not, in a criminal case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You do know, of course, I'm sure, that the government has the burden of proof in every criminal case. The defendant doesn't have to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The government has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you be able to, as a juror, listen to the evidence, absorb it, think about it, discuss it with your fellow jurors and then make whatever decision you thought the evidence called for without any preconceptions?
JUROR: As far as guilty or not guilty?
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let me just ask you about Question 80, if you want to take a minute to refresh your recollection about that.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: As -- correct me if I'm wrong. As I understand, your present fiance was running then, but he was not your fiance at the time.
JUROR: Right. We had broken up at the time. We hadn't been engaged at all at that point, and we weren't together at that time.
THE COURT: He was in the race, but he finished before the events?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you talked about it with him, his feelings or --
JUROR: Yeah, I mean, before all this. I know that -- well, we don't talk about it a lot because it was a -- it was a hard time for us since we weren't together at the time, so I don't really like to talk about it with him, but we have discussed it some. And he, you know -- I know he had a hard time after going through it.
THE COURT: In what sense?
JUROR: Well, he just told me he was very freaked out afterwards. I only talked to him briefly the next morning and then not for a couple months. But just upset and just kind of shocked and I think just felt lucky that he was not closer --
THE COURT: Do you know --
JUROR: -- to the explosion.
THE COURT: Do you know how much time interval it was before --
JUROR: I think it was about ten minutes.
THE COURT: So it was fairly close?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And then on Question 81, on the end of the week when people were sheltering in place, you -- I guess you were living outside Boston?
JUROR: Yeah. I lived in Stoneham.
THE COURT: You were just told to stay home rather than come in?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Were you confined to your residence in Stoneham?
JUROR: Not that I remember. I know I didn't go out, but I don't remember being instructed not to go out.
THE COURT: On Page 22, Question 85, you recognize somebody on the witness list. Can you tell us what your relationship is, if any, with that person?
JUROR: I don't -- I don't know him anymore. When we were in college, I was pretty good friends with him in college, I think our junior and senior year. The only reason now I know that he works for the FBI is I saw a story on the Whitey Bulger case on 60 Minutes, and he was interviewed. So I hadn't known he was an FBI agent until I saw that.
THE COURT: Give us an idea of when you were in college together.
JUROR: 1992, 1993. We graduated in 1993.
THE COURT: Do you know -- have you had any contact with him since then?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty in being a critical judge of his testimony if he were to be a witness?
JUROR: I guess I probably, from my memory of him, think he's a good, honest guy, so that would be my preconceived idea of him. So I guess that could change if it seemed like he was being inconsistent in his testimony.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about jurors' views about the death penalty beginning on Page 23, at Question 88.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And you said you have conflicted feelings. In general, you're opposed, but you can foresee circumstances where it could be justified.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Does that remain your view?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Would you qualify that or add to it in any way?
JUROR: I mean, I guess I would usually say that I'm opposed to the death penalty, but you do -- or I do hear certain cases or crimes that are just really horrific, and it wouldn't bother me to know that the death penalty was imposed or especially in cases maybe where there's some chance that that person could still be a danger, whether it be through contact they still have through people outside. It's a tough --
THE COURT: Okay. Let's --
JUROR: I go back and forth.
THE COURT: Let's look at the next page, Question 90. We set out a series of statements that -- and asked -- reflected different views about the death penalty and asked if you could find one you thought best expressed your views. You selected (b).
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You're opposed to it and would have a difficult time voting to impose it.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Even if the facts supported it. That's the end of the sentence.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that, you think, an accurate --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: On Page 25, at Question 95, there we asked, If you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was an appropriate -- was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And it looks like you originally checked "no" and then changed it to "unsure." Tell us about that.
JUROR: That's because of my -- I've thought about that a lot since then, and my answer is no.
THE COURT: Is no?
JUROR: Yes. I can't picture myself ever doing that. I can't see myself sitting in a room with somebody for four months and then deciding to sentence them to death.
THE COURT: Okay. Questions?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Some, your Honor. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors.
I just want to explore a little bit some of the questions that you weren't asked about your -- sounds like when you first got the subpoena -- excuse me, the summons -- you were concerned about the duration. I think you wrote you were worried about what your employer might think.
JUROR: Right, yeah.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: A couple of questions. One, do you have your standalone department?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah. So I was referring to my director of my agency, not the whole Commonwealth.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Is the director a political appointee?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: From the governor?
JUROR: Yes, from the last governor.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So is that expected to change?
JUROR: It could. We really don't know right now what's going to happen with that.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: In that context, given the fact that the current governor is more outspoken about this case than the last governor, will that affect your ability to serve?
JUROR: I actually didn't know that, so, no, that wouldn't.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Sorry. Just checking to see if any of the questions I had asked -- I wanted to ask hadn't been answered. They look like they have been, so thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon. My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's attorneys, and I just have a few questions I'd like to ask you.
I heard what you told the judge at the end about the death penalty, and I'd like to sort of bear down on that a little bit. You're a lawyer and you know what the difference between holding a personal opinion is and being an objective judge. Jurors are judges.
I guess the real question is whether or not you could put to one side your feelings about the death penalty and be guided by the evidence in the case.
JUROR: As far as sentencing, whether I could sentence him to death, putting aside --
MR. BRUCK: I'd like to break it up first.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: The first question, before you have to decide whether to sentence somebody to death, is whether you could listen to the evidence --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: -- on both sides.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Now, let's assume that you're on the jury and guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So there's no doubt about guilt. You're in the second phase that the judge told you about. In that second phase, could you listen fairly to the evidence favoring the death penalty and the evidence favoring life without release?
JUROR: I could listen to it, yeah.
MR. BRUCK: And you mentioned some things that you would consider as -- even with your views about the death penalty, as weighing in favor of the death penalty. You gave some examples.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: So in this or any case, could you watch for those things and watch for other things that might weigh in favor of the death penalty?
JUROR: I guess I just -- which maybe isn't right, but I see a difference, for me anyway, from being the one to make that decision. I just don't think I could be the one to make that decision.
MR. BRUCK: Could that --
JUROR: In favor of the death penalty.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry. Could that feeling you have about yourself change based on evidence that you heard if the evidence was strongly enough in favor of imposing the death penalty even though you wouldn't want to?
JUROR: I don't think so. I think it would be something that I couldn't get over, like, for the rest of my life actually. I don't know if this -- I'm not religious at all right now, but I don't know if this goes back to some Catholic upbringing many, many years ago, but I just -- I don't think I could do it.
MR. BRUCK: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 482, please.
COURT CLERK: Juror 482.
COURT CLERK: Juror 482. You may have a seat. Make sure to speak into the afternoon if you would.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You've been able to avoid any discussion of the case with people except to tell them where you're going?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How about media coverage of the case?
JUROR: I haven't watched or read online.
THE COURT: This is the questionnaire you filled out when you were here. I want to follow up on some of the things you told us there. I want to actually start on Page 20, at the bottom of the page, with Question 80 and then the next several questions. Maybe the way to approach this is to have you just take a moment and read, I guess, through Question 83, which is on Page 22, so you refresh what you had written and over to Question 83, first question at the top there.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. So it appears from those questions that you have family and friends who were fairly in the middle of things when they were happening in Watertown.
JUROR: Yes, that's correct.
THE COURT: Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JUROR: My parents live in East Watertown. They were asked to shelter in place. My parents were actually at work at the time. My dad drives a cab in the area. He had to go home. My mom works at a restaurant in town. She had to go home as well. I have family friends who were on the same street where the defendant was found hiding in the boat. And they had bullet holes in their bedroom window, in their bedroom walls. A lot of friends live in Watertown and surrounding areas. I grew up there as well. And I know members of the police force.
THE COURT: You know members of the police force?
JUROR: I know a couple members of the Watertown police force. None that were listed on here. The ones that were listed on the list are people that I know their names but do not recognize them personally. They are not people I grew up with or went to school with.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in the case, do you think all those connections or relationships would affect you in some way?
JUROR: It's hard to say for sure. I would try not to let them, but it's -- I can't give a hundred percent one way or the other.
THE COURT: These are all someone else, right? It was not you who was there.
JUROR: Right. It was not me who was there.
THE COURT: How much have you talked to people about those experiences?
JUROR: At the beginning when all this was taking place, there was -- I talked to people a lot in the area because all of my friends and family are sheltering in place. Everyone is hunkering down. You know, they're going up my parents' street in tanks and everything. So it was kind of weird.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. But as you sit here, you don't think that would have an effect on you if you were in a sense hearing about those events in the evidence?
JUROR: It probably would to a certain degree. It's really -- it's hard to say not in the moment.
THE COURT: Okay, yeah. I think that's enough. Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 487, please.
COURT CLERK: Juror 487.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 487. You may have a seat. Just make sure you speak into the microphone.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi. How are you?
THE COURT: Have you had success in avoiding any discussion of the case with people?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And how about avoiding media coverage?
JUROR: Absolutely, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that's the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the questions.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: I want to start with Question 10 on Page 5 where we asked about the schedule in the case and what it might mean for you. First of all, did you have your trip?
JUROR: Yes, I did. Can you tell I was a little panicked about that?
THE COURT: You only said it three times, I think. But anyway --
JUROR: Happy belated birthday to me.
THE COURT: Hope you had a nice trip.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: That's one of the few advantages of this drawn-out process, is that people get to take their trips.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Now, you also were, I think, concerned about whether, if you were a juror on the case, you would be sequestered. That would be a problem for the family. That's not going to happen.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: With that -- the way I read your answer, that if it's not the case, you're okay with the schedule?
JUROR: Yeah. My -- I have four kids: one in college; my next one is a senior in high school, who has her own car, who would be able to help with my two eighth-grader twin boys. It's not ideal coming from the Cape, but there would be worse off people than me in that sense.
THE COURT: Would it be okay with your employer?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Will you continue to get paid?
JUROR: I do get paid.
THE COURT: So I think the next thing I want to go to is Page 20, Question 77.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: There we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read or learned from whatever source, you had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not. As to (a) and (b), which were about whether he was guilty or not guilty, you said you had formed an opinion that he was guilty. As to the appropriate penalty, you said you're unsure. Okay.
Then at the second part of the question, just below that, you were asked, If you answered yes to any of these 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 solely on the evidence presented to you in court, and you checked "able." You would be able to do that. Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Okay. Basically, I'm not a huge news follower to begin with. But the little bit that I knew of the case, you know, there was video evidence and, you know, being in the boat, the whole bit, obviously, it seemed he played a role in it. So that was, like, my feeling of guilt.
On the death penalty, I've never had an opinion about it one way or the other. I just didn't -- I've never been questioned on how I feel about that. So, to me, since I don't already have strong feelings about it, I could -- if -- once I knew the rules of it and what goes into it, then I think I could be -- form an educated opinion about it. Whether -- that's what I mean about, like, on the evidence presented to me. Like, I understand you're not guilty until you're proven guilty.
So I would have to -- I think I would be able to put that aside until I see all the evidence because, obviously, I have not seen any evidence really other than what's been out there. But if someone said to me, like this, Do you think he's guilty?, Yeah, I thought so because of what I've seen so far.
THE COURT: But from what you've said, I guess you recognize the principle that the government has the obligation to prove somebody's guilty --
JUROR: Right, right.
THE COURT: -- by the evidence at trial.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And that's what the jurors will focus their attention on and decide whether, based on that evidence and not ideas from other sources, they can make their judgment.
JUROR: That's what I feel. I would be able to put that aside and see what the real evidence really is.
THE COURT: Do you understand that the burden of proof is exclusively with the government; that is, the government has the responsibility to prove somebody guilty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: A person accused doesn't have any obligation to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: It's always -- the question is never which side has convinced me. It's has the government convinced me that this person is guilty as charged. Do you understand that?
JUROR: I do understand that.
THE COURT: Do you think you could apply that principle?
JUROR: I do think that I could apply that principle, yes.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about the death penalty and your attitudes about it beginning on Page 23, and Question 88 is the first one. That asks whether you have any views about it in general; and, if so, what are they? And you say you've never really had a strong opinion either way. Is that --
JUROR: It's true. You know, I -- I don't have an opinion either way. I do think life imprisonment is a horrible life, but it's a life, you know. Obviously, death would be the worst penalty you can have. But I've never felt it shouldn't exist. I really didn't have an opinion one way or the other on it.
THE COURT: Okay. On Page 24, Question 90, we asked you to review a series of statements and see if one of them reflected your feelings about the death penalty involving someone guilty of murder. You picked (d). If you want, why don't you just take a moment to review the entire question and see -- obviously, what I'm going to ask you is does that still represent your choice?
JUROR: Okay, yeah. It definitely -- I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, so it would have to be
(d).
THE COURT: Okay. Based on your -- I gather from the answer then, you think that, based on your assessment of the evidence -- you heard me describe the penalty phase and how the government would be trying to convince you that there were aggravating factors that made this a serious -- more serious offense and, therefore, punishable by the death penalty while the defense would likely present evidence of things that arguably mitigate the punishment and make life imprisonment the better punishment and so on. You would be able to consider all that before making up your mind whether death --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- or life imprisonment was appropriate?
JUROR: I would hope so, yes, I mean, because I'm not for or against it. So I think I would think, once I knew the criteria and if it felt that the guiltiness leaned more towards what that criteria is, then I would be for it. If it wasn't, I would be against it.
THE COURT: All right. Follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Just very briefly. Good afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Just a couple quick things. One, on Page 23, Question 87.
JUROR: Yup.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I just want to -- so nobody wants to see disturbing things. The question is will you view the evidence -- will you be able to view the evidence even if it's disturbing and pay attention to it and not look away essentially even if you -- it's not a pleasant experience? You think you will be able to do that in this case?
JUROR: I think that would be the hardest part for me, but I would know that would be my job to do that, so I would have to.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Then on Page 26, Question 98, I think it's just a clarification. Your answer there, was that in reference to essentially whether you were going to get paid?
JUROR: No, no, because I do get -- I receive child support. He's not an option. If I was sequestered, he's not an option for my kids to go to him.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So it's the commuting.
JUROR: It was the commuting, like, them having a parent around. I'm their only parent.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Finally, at the end of the day in this case, there will be two phases. It's one thing to intellectually arrive at a decision that the death penalty or life imprisonment is appropriate.
JUROR: Right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: But do you feel confident that you can make the decision to take somebody's life?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah, phrased that way.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Sorry. In -- not in this case particularly but just in the process of doing a death penalty trial in federal court, a juror is asked to cast a vote for life imprisonment or the death penalty. And you will be given the criteria, and you will be given the rule of law from the judge. You'll have to assess the fact as to whether it merits that.
JUROR: Right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Do you feel confident that you can make that decision?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
MS. CONRAD: "Feel confident"?
THE COURT: Go ahead. Answer the question if you can, if you understand it.
JUROR: I do understand it. I would feel confident if I -- from the evidence presented and the criteria, if it's met and that's the law and those are the things that it falls under, then I would feel confident that that would be the choice I would have to make.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Well, you never have to make -- you have your own will to be able to make whatever choice you want.
JUROR: No. Right.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I just want to get a sense of whether -- if you thought conscientiously that it was the appropriate thing, that you could cast that vote.
MS. CONRAD: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead. You can answer it.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MS. CONRAD: My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: First, let me ask you a little bit. You work for the school system?
JUROR: I do.
MS. CONRAD: Were there any events that the school system held either to raise money for victims of the Marathon bombing or sort of Boston Strong type events that you recall?
JUROR: No, not on -- at our school.
MS. CONRAD: What about the schools that your children attend?
JUROR: My children attend the school I work at right now.
MS. CONRAD: But then?
JUROR: But then, no, no.
MS. CONRAD: Do you know anybody who was present?
JUROR: My ex-husband's cousin was a runner, but I didn't even know that until afterwards.
MS. CONRAD: How about anybody within the schools?
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: And did you talk to your kids about the events?
JUROR: Well, my kids are a little bit older. And we were in Texas for April vacation that year, and we couldn't fly home. So, yeah, I mean, they understood. They knew what was happening. They knew the flights were all canceled and we couldn't get back.
MS. CONRAD: Were they upset?
JUROR: I don't -- I mean, I wouldn't think it was -- probably not to the extent. We were on vacation, so they weren't sitting in front of a TV. They didn't see a lot of the -- you know, it kind of -- it downplayed it a little bit in that sense for them. You know, they didn't see a lot of it.
MS. CONRAD: Do you understand -- I assume you know that one of the people who was killed was an eight-year-old boy.
JUROR: Yes, I knew that.
MS. CONRAD: As a mother of three sons --
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: -- do you have any thought about how you would feel listening to and hearing and seeing evidence about that death?
JUROR: Yeah. That would be -- I would think that's going to be the hardest part for me.
MS. CONRAD: Do you think that would make it hard for you to be impartial, listening to the evidence?
MS. PELLEGRINI: Same objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, sustained, I think. Up to there it was okay, but --
MS. CONRAD: Do you think that would affect your decision about the appropriate penalty in this case?
MS. PELLEGRINI: Objection.
MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, if I may, Mr. Weinreb asked that exact question in a previous --
THE COURT: The problem is that it asks both permissible effect and impermissible effect. I assume -- maybe this is a rash assumption, but I assume that that would be part of the government's aggravation case.
MS. CONRAD: Fair enough, fair enough. Let me try a different question.
If I could just ask you, ma'am, to turn to Question 89.
JUROR: Which page is it?
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. It's Page 23.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You selected 6 on the number scale.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: Does that reflect that you are slightly more in favor of the death penalty than against it?
JUROR: Oh, isn't that interesting? I didn't even realize that I did that. No. I think that I would be right in the middle.
MS. CONRAD: And that's what you reflected on the next question.
JUROR: Right because, I mean, I just --
MS. CONRAD: You also said -- well, strike that.
Let me stick with the death penalty for a second. You mentioned the guidelines, that you would listen to what the guidelines were for the penalty phase --
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: -- if you got to that point.
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: As Judge O'Toole told you this morning, the penalty phase would include things about the crime as well as things about the defendant.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: Would you be willing to consider things that have nothing to do with the crime itself, but facts about the defendant, in deciding whether or not the death penalty was appropriate?
JUROR: Not the evidence itself?
MS. CONRAD: No, not the crime itself.
JUROR: Not the crime itself.
MS. CONRAD: You would hear evidence, for example -- let me just make this general. In a death penalty case generally, would you be willing to consider facts about the defendant such as his criminal history, his personal background, childhood, and so forth?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: The judge also described how you would -- the jury would be instructed to weigh the aggravating factors and mitigating factors. Do you think that the fact that the death of a child was part of this case would make it difficult for you to weigh both sides before --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
MS. CONRAD: -- before coming to a decision?
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. CONRAD: On Page 19, Question 74.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: You said that when you realized when you -- basically, when you realized it was this case, you weren't very happy about it. Was there anything about that other than the length --
JUROR: Length. Well, I mean, and the brutality and the gruesomeness of it probably, you know, is my first -- and the length.
MS. CONRAD: On Page 21, Question 82, you said that you bought a Boston Strong T-shirt for your nephew.
JUROR: Yeah. He's a cross-country --
MS. CONRAD: What does that phrase mean to you?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah. I'll sustain the objection to that. This isn't a discovery deposition.
MS. CONRAD: Well, your Honor, but I think it's a reflection --
THE COURT: You can ask about the circumstances if you want.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. So can you tell us why you bought a Boston Strong T-shirt for your nephew?
JUROR: My nephew is a cross-country runner, and he originally lived in Boston. And so, to me, it was more like a Boston thing.
MS. CONRAD: How old is he?
JUROR: How old is my nephew? The same age as my oldest. Nineteen.
MS. CONRAD: Would the fact that you have children of your own make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
MS. CONRAD: Your Honor, that's the exact question Mr. Weinreb asked. I have it in my hand from the transcript.
THE COURT: Was it objected to?
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry?
THE COURT: Was it objected to?
MS. CONRAD: No, it was not objected to, but it seems to me -- well, I still think it's a fair question. It wasn't objected to because it's a fair question.
THE COURT: Go ahead. You can answer it.
JUROR: Repeat the question.
MS. CONRAD: Sure. Would the fact that you have children of your own, including three boys, make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
MS. PELLEGRINI: I'm going to object to the question being phrased that way because that puts more emphasis, sounds to me, on the gender of the victims, and we get right back to the question of the child.
MS. CONRAD: I'm tracking what Mr. Weinreb asked. But would the fact that you have children of your own make it difficult for you to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
JUROR: No. I mean, Mr. Tsarnaev was a child also during this. Is that what you mean? Because of him?
MS. CONRAD: No, I meant more that a victim was a child.
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. We're done. Thank you very much. Please leave that there.
We'll take a break. I think we still have a bunch to go so maybe 2:00.
(Luncheon recess taken at 1:15 p.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:10 p.m.)
THE COURT: Okay?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, with regard to the next juror, I think this was somebody who the government thought that there was reason to call him in for the -- to tease out the hardship issue.
THE COURT: Yup.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So I just wanted to alert the Court to that.
THE COURT: That's what I had in mind when I suggested it.
(Laughter.)
MS. CLARKE: We can take credit for agreeing with you on it.
THE COURT: Are you ready to agree on it?
MS. CLARKE: We did.
THE COURT: Oh, you wanted to see him.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: We thought we should just ask him -- so I was suggesting that if you wanted to go straight to that.
THE COURT: Yes, we will.
MS. CLARKE: Stop while you're ahead, Al.
THE COURT: So 489.
COURT CLERK: Juror 489.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Please be seated right here. Be sure you speak into the microphone.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 489.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: You've been able to avoid talking about the case with anyone except to tell them you're here?
JUROR: My boss knows, and they understand what's going on with my coming in.
THE COURT: Have you also been able to avoid any media reports of the case?
JUROR: Yeah, no news, nothing like that.
THE COURT: Well, you mentioned your boss, so let's talk about that. Looking at your form, you tell us you're -- I can't quite read the writing. Maybe you can translate it. It's on page 10.
JUROR: Yeah, I work for Mattie Volkswagen in Fall River. Audi dealership, Volkswagen.
THE COURT: Technician, is that what you say?
JUROR: Technician, correct.
THE COURT: That's what I was trying to read.
Tell me what you do.
JUROR: Fix and repair automobiles, Volkswagens, Audis, you know, general maintenance.
THE COURT: Kinds of --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: This is a dealership?
JUROR: Dealership, yeah. New car dealer.
THE COURT: And let me just ask you how you're paid. I mean, are you on salary or are you on an hourly wage?
JUROR: No, I'm a flat-rate tech. I work per vehicle, and we get paid per repair, depending on what I do.
THE COURT: Give me an example.
JUROR: You bring your car in, it's an oil change, I get 50 time units, which would be a half-hour. So I get paid a half-hour of my hourly wage.
THE COURT: I see. So it is ultimately an hourly wage; it's just --
JUROR: It depends on --
THE COURT: -- how many hours is not by the actual clock but how many jobs you do and the value that they have on that work?
JUROR: Right. It would be similar to piecework.
THE COURT: So tell me about what would happen if you were here for several months.
JUROR: I started -- I tried to discuss that with my boss. I believe the dealership's going to try to pay me in some way of -- you know, some sort of salary, just if I was gone.
THE COURT: That sounds a little general. Can you tell me what you think they mean?
JUROR: They'd give me a paycheck still, paying me for being on jury duty. I don't know the amount. I don't know how --
THE COURT: Do you know -- that's what I was getting at.
JUROR: That I don't know. My boss hasn't gone over that with me yet.
THE COURT: But is it fair that you think that they're trying to make it comfortable for you?
JUROR: Yes, my boss -- it's a family-owned business. They own one dealership. They're pretty close-knit.
THE COURT: Are you related to them?
JUROR: No, I am not.
THE COURT: So, you know, you're the best assessor of this situation.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: We don't want it to be a significant hardship to you financially, but if you think it's not going to be --
JUROR: I don't feel so. I feel that my work will try to compensate me the best they can, and, you know, work Saturdays and try to make it up the best I can and go from there.
THE COURT: Do you generally work full time; in other words --
JUROR: Yes, I work full time.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
JUROR: Monday through Friday and every third Saturday.
THE COURT: And eight-hour days?
JUROR: Eight to five.
THE COURT: Okay. But what I'm hearing from you is you're content to go forward with this process right now?
JUROR: Yeah, I have no problem.
THE COURT: Okay. So I'm going to ask you some questions about things you wrote in the questionnaire --
JUROR: No problem.
THE COURT: -- to follow up.
Actually, could we have a sidebar?
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
THE COURT: We off? Okay.
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: All right. Thanks.
We'll go off sidebar.