4.Individual Voir Dire — Prior Opinions, Emergency Response, and Financial and Family Hardship (Part 2)
421 lines(In open court:)
THE COURT: Would you turn to page 20. Question 77, near the top, in this question we asked a series of subparts in asking about whether you had formed any opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty if he is, and you checked "unsure" to each of those.
Could you tell us what you were thinking, why you made that choice?
JUROR: I don't know any facts, you know, of the case other than slightly what you see on the news. So how are you going to tell me -- I know I've gotten in trouble -- when I was in high school I got in trouble then and, you know, it was dismissed. You know, they yelled at me as a dumb kid, you know, not doing anything illegally, terribly wrong.
So you ask me an opinion on a case I don't know any facts, so it's hard to give you a straight answer.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm sure you understand that in our criminal justice system a person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Right? You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: A defendant never has any obligation to prove that he's not guilty; it's always the burden on the government to prove affirmatively that he is guilty of what he's charged with.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: It's not surprising that people have some impressions about what happened in this case from the news coverage and so on and so forth. If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to put to the side any impressions you have and focus on the evidence in the case and make your decision solely on the basis of what's produced in the trial of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have any hesitation about that?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We asked about, you know, any connection to the events and so on and so forth. One of the questions was whether you had participated -- you or anybody close to you had participated in any support activities, you might call them. And you noted that a good friend has a Boston Strong T-shirt?
JUROR: Yeah, they bought one as a gift for my girlfriend.
THE COURT: Oh, girlfriend?
JUROR: Yeah, my girlfriend.
THE COURT: I thought it said "good friend."
JUROR: No, no.
THE COURT: I hope that's the case too.
JUROR: Yeah.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: You gave it to her?
JUROR: I did not.
THE COURT: Somebody else gave it to her?
JUROR: A girlfriend from work gave it to her.
THE COURT: On page 23, beginning at Question 88, we asked a series of questions about the death penalty and your attitudes about it. 88 itself is a general question, if you have general views, what are they, and you answered "no."
JUROR: No, it's part of society. It's part of the law. If need be, it can be used, if it needs to be, and you go from there.
THE COURT: Okay. On the next question we asked you to indicate where you might be on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 strongly opposed, 10 strongly in favor. You picked 7, which is a little above halfway --
JUROR: Yeah. You know, the punishment should fit the crime, and the crime should fit the punishment.
THE COURT: All right. The next page, Question 90, we asked you to read the various proposed statements and see if there was one that you thought represented your view. You selected D.
JUROR: D.
THE COURT: Would you just review the whole question quickly and just see if that still represents the view you have about the death penalty?
(Pause.)
JUROR: Yeah, it could go either way depending -- you know, you would have to see the facts or something. If it -- if it needs to be, you know, sentenced, put someone to death, it needs to be done. You know, I seen, you know, through history classes in school, you know, some things that maybe should have been pressed weren't, and some stuff that -- I think they got it right in most cases that, you know, people that should just be in prison, they are.
So I think every case is going to be different. And unless you were sitting on the case, how are you going to know the actual -- you know, the facts to make a decision on something?
THE COURT: You heard this morning I described in brief terms the so-called penalty phase?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Where the government would try to convince the jury that this was an aggravated offense, more serious than --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- other cases, and it therefore deserved the more serious punishment; while, on the other hand, the defense would try to bring out things that mitigated the seriousness, or things about the defendant that might lead you to think that the death penalty was not appropriate and that life in prison was a better choice.
You heard generally that term?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Would you be able to reserve judgment as to whether the death penalty or life imprisonment should be imposed until you evaluated that penalty phase part of it?
JUROR: I feel so. I would say yes to that.
THE COURT: And let me just ask you to go to the bottom of 25 and then the top of 26.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: First at the bottom of 25 and Question 95, 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?
JUROR: Yeah. If the punishment -- if everything's found to be true -- you've listed off the charges, that's pretty serious -- if that need be, then that should be done. I mean, I don't think there's any use or good that would be -- of leaving him in prison if he's found guilty on all them charges.
THE COURT: Well, let me ask you to go to the top of the next page. Here we asked kind of the other side of the question: If you found the defendant guilty and you decided life imprisonment without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of release?
JUROR: You'd have to know the facts of the story. But, yeah, if he's not found guilty on everything, not all of it --
THE COURT: I want to be sure you understand that when we're talking about a penalty phase, what has preceded is a phase in which he has been found guilty; in other words, you have already convicted -- you, the jury --
JUROR: Okay. I didn't quite understand that.
THE COURT: -- had convicted the person of a crime for which the death penalty is a possibility.
JUROR: Then you'd have to go --
THE COURT: So he's guilty.
JUROR: Then you'd have to go with the death penalty, then, if he's guilty of all the charges.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I misunderstood that. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: So your view would be if he is eligible for the death penalty because of his conviction or convictions, then you would tend to automatically impose it?
JUROR: I would think so. The charges that are being brought forward, I would say yes.
THE COURT: So you wouldn't be able to evaluate the evidence in what we call the penalty phase? You'd have your mind made up going into the penalty phase?
JUROR: You kind of lost me there but -- so explain to me how that works. You get -- I thought once you're found guilty and that was a charge, that was what happened.
THE COURT: No.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: In these cases if a person is found guilty of a crime for which the death penalty is possible, there is a second phase to the case.
JUROR: Oh, okay.
THE COURT: In an ordinary criminal case, if a person is found guilty by a jury of what he's -- what the person's charged with, the judge imposes the sentence. He looks at what's available for the sentence, listens to the parties, but it's the judge makes up his or her mind as to what the sentence should be.
In a death penalty capital case, that's different. The judge doesn't make the sentence decision.
JUROR: That lands on the jury.
THE COURT: The jury makes the decision, and it does it in a phase called the penalty phase which follows what would be the first part of the trial in which the question of guilt or not is an issue, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: So you only get to the penalty phase and consideration of what the appropriate punishment is after the jury has already concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty of the capital crime, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: The jury concludes that, then begins the second phase where, as I say, the government presents evidence in support of its urging that there be a death penalty that tends to show -- the government hopes, anyway -- that it is an aggravated case worse than other cases of intentional murder and, therefore, deserves this most serious punishment.
In the same phase the defense will produce what we call mitigating evidence that, taken all together, the events of the crime, the personality and characteristics and so on of the defendant, this is a -- the defense would argue this is not a case for the death penalty and you should understand it because of these mitigating circumstances.
The jury then considers whether there are aggravating factors, whether there are mitigating factors, balances it all together, and then each juror makes up his or her mind what the penalty ought to be in light of all that evidence.
JUROR: Okay. Now I got it. I kind of understand better. Then you'd have to hear all the facts, then, before you could make a decision.
THE COURT: Right. I guess -- so here's the question: I think you had been saying you thought it more or less followed from conviction that he should get the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Now that I've explained again the penalty phase, are you changing that?
JUROR: No, I'd stay probably with the death penalty. I'd kind of lean more towards it if that's where you think my mindset would be.
THE COURT: I don't think it should be -- I'm trying to find out where you think it would be.
JUROR: That's what I would say.
THE COURT: Would you be able to evaluate the evidence or do you think your tendency is so strong towards the death penalty that really it would be hard for you --
JUROR: I wouldn't say I'm that strong towards it that I couldn't look at all the evidence and make a decision from there.
THE COURT: Well, the real question is: Could you be -- it's hard to say what you'll do because you don't know what the evidence will be.
JUROR: I understand.
THE COURT: But the question is whether you're able to give a fair consideration --
JUROR: I'd be open --
THE COURT: -- of both possibilities with the prospect that, depending on how you're persuaded, you could vote for the death penalty or, if you were persuaded in the other direction, that you could vote for life imprisonment.
JUROR: I would say I would be open-minded to the possibility either/or.
THE COURT: Okay.
Follow-up? Mr. Mellin.
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon, sir. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just want to follow up a little bit with those answers.
I guess what we're trying to drill down to is in order for the jury to get to this phase where the jury would be deciding life or death, the jury would already have found the defendant guilty. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So now the question is: Would you -- because you found him guilty, would you automatically vote to impose the death penalty before hearing the evidence in the penalty phase, or do you believe you would listen to all of that evidence and decide the appropriate punishment based on that evidence?
JUROR: I'd listen to the evidence first and go from there.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So is there anything in kind of your -- as you sit here today -- you believe would make you automatically impose either punishment in that penalty phase?
JUROR: No.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Now, understanding that when you get to this penalty phase the jury would have already found the defendant guilty or a defendant guilty -- we'll take you out of this case and just kind of generally, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
MR. MELLIN: A jury would have already found the defendant guilty of a capital offense, like the killing of someone else, okay, would you be able to keep your mind open to listen to all of not only the government's aggravating evidence but also the defendant's mitigating evidence before you decided what the appropriate punishment would be?
JUROR: I feel I could do that.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Do you have any hesitation in saying that?
JUROR: No.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. All right.
Thank you, your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: Good afternoon. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
How are you?
JUROR: Good morning. Or good afternoon maybe now. There's no clock.
MS. CLARKE: It does seem like morning to you. You've been locked in a room.
Let me go back to your job very quickly. I think we were all concerned about whether you would be paid while you were on jury duty if you were selected. Is that the policy of the group, to give paid leave for jury duty?
JUROR: I don't know if it would be a policy. We're a small dealer. It's a family-run, you know, dealership. I just, you know, had a small discussion with my boss if I was to be on it, how it would go. She said they would work out something, you know, to help take care of me if I was gone for an extended period of time.
MS. CLARKE: And was there any discussion about the case itself when you had that conversation?
JUROR: No, they asked me just, you know, where I was, and I had to give them a paper that they give you at the door, you know, about coming into court. But they didn't ask any questions on what happened or what was really going on.
MS. CLARKE: And are they aware you could be on jury duty for three or four months?
JUROR: I made them aware. I told them that was a possibility.
MS. CLARKE: And no conversation about what the case was or what it was about?
MR. MELLIN: Objection. Asked and answered.
THE COURT: Well, no, I want to make sure I understand that.
Did they know it was this case? Eventually. Maybe not the first day you came --
JUROR: Maybe not the first day.
THE COURT: They know now?
JUROR: I think they understand now that it's potentially this case.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Can I take you back to page 20, Question 77?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: And that was the series of "unsures" --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: -- on the opinion?
Have you ever had an opinion about guilt or penalty in this case?
JUROR: Not really. I mean, I don't know -- other than what I seen on the news of, you know, that day while stuff was going on, I don't know any real facts about it. I haven't really looked into it. We were told not to, so...
MS. CLARKE: Well, that was after you got there. But before you came on January the -- whatever that date in January was you came, had you formed an opinion?
JUROR: Not really. I mean, I'm not paying attention to the news that closely. I knew something happened in Boston, you know, but other than someone telling me, I didn't know on my own.
MS. CLARKE: Had you formed any opinion as to the penalty that should be imposed in this case?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Have you talked to anybody about that?
JUROR: Not really. I mean, I work in a dealership. Usually we're talking cars and, you know, motor stuff.
MS. CLARKE: Volkswagens?
JUROR: Volkswagens, you know.
MS. CLARKE: On page -- Question 88. Where are we? Page 23?
THE COURT: Page 23.
MS. CLARKE: And I think maybe I just didn't hear your answer to the judge when he asked you what your beliefs about the death penalty were. And you had some answer other than "no," and I just didn't hear it.
JUROR: What are you asking? I mean...
MS. CLARKE: Or maybe I didn't hear the question right. Do you have any views on the death penalty in general?
JUROR: It's used, if need be, in our society. It's part of, you know, the way our culture works, I think, here in the United States. You do a crime, you get punished.
MS. CLARKE: And when you answered "no" on 88, what were you thinking?
JUROR: You know, I'm not for it, against it or, you know, in that sense. I don't have -- like, you know, I'm not picketing in the lines out in front of a jail saying it shouldn't be used.
MS. CLARKE: You're not picketing one way or the other?
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: You don't have strong views about it but you have some views about it, it sounds like.
JUROR: Yeah. If it needs to be used, it should be used. You know, if it's not needed, it shouldn't be.
MS. CLARKE: And can you tell us when, in your opinion, it needs to be used?
JUROR: Well, if you're found guilty of, you know, terrorism or killing people, you know, intentionally, you know, to cause chaos, then maybe yeah.
MS. CLARKE: So I guess what we've all been trying to get at is it sounds like if you found a person was guilty of terrorism or intentional murder --
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: -- then that would mean that they should get the death penalty?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. MELLIN: Objection. It's not a fair question, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, okay. I understand the context of the answer.
MS. CLARKE: And I guess where we come down to -- and it's okay. I mean, all we want to know is how you feel about it. There's no right or wrong answer to this question at all.
So the question is: If somebody is found guilty in such a circumstance, would you automatically impose the death penalty?
JUROR: Well, that's hard to say. You don't have the facts of the case. I mean, if it needs to be used, it will be used, but you're asking me to make a judgment on nothing.
MS. CLARKE: No, I guess what I'm really trying to explore with you is when you say the punishment should fit the crime, what do you mean? It sounds like --
JUROR: Well, if you go rob a store and you steal 50 bucks, you shouldn't be sent to death. But if you go around with a gun and go into an open theater and you kill 100 people, then the punishment would fit the crime.
MS. CLARKE: So in a circumstance where there is an intentional murder with no excuse, is that a case that you would automatically think the death penalty is the appropriate punishment?
MR. MELLIN: Objection.
THE COURT: No, go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: I would say it's a possibility, I mean, if all the factors are there, you know.
MS. CLARKE: And when you say "if all the factors are there," what are you talking about?
JUROR: If a person's mentally ill or they're pushed by, you know, other people, then it might not be -- it might be helpful to question that person than sentence him to death. You know, keeping him in jail, you might be able to ask him what went on than, you know, getting rid of that person. But I'd feel that, you know, it would need to be enforced if those factors weren't there.
MS. CLARKE: If those factors weren't there. In other words, if it was a deliberate, intentional murder without a defense, I mean, such as somebody who's insane, which is what I'm hearing you say, then what I'm hearing you say is that means that you would impose the death penalty?
MR. MELLIN: Objection. It's misleading.
THE COURT: Yeah, sustain the objection to that question.
MS. CLARKE: When you say the death penalty -- let me just take a look at page 25, Question 93. Do you see where you say "The death penalty is needed sometimes but a person in prison can answer questions," can you help us understand what you meant by that?
JUROR: Well, it depends on the case. You know, you might be able to get useful information out of somebody in a prison to understand why they did it, and maybe if you can prevent it from happening again, it would be useful to have someone in prison. But I can understand why it might not be helpful at all to -- you wouldn't bring closure to the people that were hurt by it, so the sentence of death might be better for society than it would be to just leave somebody in jail.
MS. CLARKE: I think you said at one point -- and I guess this is just sort of our interest in figuring out where your head is at on the death penalty. I think you said at one point if you're guilty or you're found guilty of these charges, then the death penalty would be appropriate. There's no use leaving you in prison. Can you help me -- did I get that right?
JUROR: I don't know if you got it word for word, but if you're found guilty and that's the appropriate, you know, means to an end, then, yeah, I would think it would be the proper course of action.
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Just leave those there. We'll put them together.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: 490.
COURT CLERK: Juror 490, please.
COURT CLERK: Juror 490.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Please come forward. Be sure to speak into the microphone.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to follow my instructions not to talk about the substance of the case with people?
JUROR: Pretty much, yes.
THE COURT: Is there a qualification? I know you have to tell people where you're going and --
JUROR: That's about it. Yeah, that kind of stuff, right.
THE COURT: Not the merits of the case or anything?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And how about avoiding, as much as you could, media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yeah, I haven't read very much. I pretty much skim most of the articles I read in the paper.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you been seeing articles about this?
JUROR: Not that much.
THE COURT: You manage a significant retail store?
JUROR: It's a Macy's. It's a department store.
THE COURT: Yeah. And I guess tell us generally what your job duties are.
JUROR: Pretty much I'm the store manager. It's, you know, one of our stores. It's in Warwick, Rhode Island. I pretty much help run the business.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77. In this multiple-part question we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read at the time you filled out the questionnaire, you'd formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty, and, if so, whether he should receive the death penalty. And you checked "yes" to both of those questions, right?
The question went on then to ask 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 will be presented to you in court, and you checked "able." Do you see that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you explain what you were thinking when you said that?
JUROR: Well, basically what I meant was from all the media that I'd seen at the time and footage, it appeared that he was guilty, from what I had seen. And that as a result should he receive the death penalty that was charged, I felt yes. But then again I hadn't seen all of the evidence. So then the question obviously was, if there was some evidence, would I listen to the evidence and make decisions based on that? And I said yes, I would.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm sure you understand that in our criminal justice system a person who's accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty, or innocent, unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: True.
THE COURT: Right? You're familiar with those concepts?
JUROR: It sounds a little backwards what I said, I know, yeah.
THE COURT: So what we ask jurors to do is to put aside things they may think about the case from other sources. And it's understandable in this case people have some ideas about those matters. But to put them aside and pay attention to the evidence in the case and confine their attention to that evidence and see what that means in terms of the charges in the case. Do you think you could do that?
JUROR: I could, yes.
THE COURT: On page 21 would you look at Question 81. You report -- this is about how people in your family or close to you may have been affected by the events. And the second part first was that your daughter's school, I guess, was cancelled --
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- that Friday?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: That was not a school vacation week for her school?
JUROR: No. No.
THE COURT: I'm more interested in the first line. Your son's math teacher was hurt in the bombing?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Is this somebody you know personally?
JUROR: I don't know real well. It's a teacher. You go to parent-teacher councils and things like that, so I'd seen him through that.
THE COURT: Is this a person who was his teacher at the time or who is now his teacher?
JUROR: It was his teacher at the time.
THE COURT: Okay. Is he in the same school now?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And is the teacher still there?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you know what the nature of the injury was?
JUROR: I know he was in the hospital for a couple of days. You know, it was sort of head and on his face. But I know he's better. He went back to teaching there so...
THE COURT: Have you talked with the teacher about his experience?
JUROR: No, I didn't really ask questions about that.
THE COURT: Is it -- I imagine it's generally known in the school that he --
JUROR: Yeah, obviously. An email was sent to the parents, pray for them and all of that. It's a Catholic school. And yes.
THE COURT: And in Question 82, it looks like you made a relatively substantial donation to the One Fund?
JUROR: I did.
THE COURT: Do either of the matters that you set forth in -- or any of the matters, I guess I should say, that you set forth in Questions 81 and 82 give you any concern about your impartiality in the case?
JUROR: Not really because, honestly, I pretty much consider myself a person of integrity and honesty, and facts are facts.
And that's -- relatively speaking too, that's a pretty consistent donation we would make for a lot of different charities and things.
THE COURT: Okay. Beginning on page 23 at Question 88 we asked a series of questions to try to get at jurors' views about the death penalty, if any. Question 88 was whether you had -- whether you had general views about the death penalty, and if you did, what were they. And you wrote "none."
JUROR: Let me read the question. You mean just the fact that I could have written I support it or something like that? I just didn't give it --
THE COURT: So, I mean, you don't have to stick with that answer if you think it needs amplification. I mean, do you have any policy, moral or views or anything like that about the death penalty or not? I mean, you don't have to have them. I just --
JUROR: No, I feel obviously in certain situations you should have the death penalty. This just the kind of way I look at it.
THE COURT: Okay. And actually, you placed yourself relatively on the favor side of the 10-point scale that we gave you there, correct?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Is that an accurate --
JUROR: I would say so.
THE COURT: On Question 90 on the next page we asked you to see if there was a statement that best expressed your views. You selected F. Would you just take a minute to look at all of the options and see if that still is, in your view, an accurate statement of your views?
(Pause.)
JUROR: I'd say E or F.
THE COURT: E or F?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And what is it about those choices that --
JUROR: Well, obviously, like I said -- I mean, if the -- the facts are the facts. I'm not going to disregard facts if I'm making a decision.
THE COURT: Right. So let me just -- you heard me this morning describe in sort of general terms what the so-called penalty phase of the trial would be? This is a phase that occurs, of course, only after someone has been convicted of a capital crime; that is, a crime for which the death penalty is authorized, right? So the jury has already convicted the person of a crime.
And then the penalty phase commences, and the jury will be presented additional evidence not about whether the person is guilty or not but about what the sentence should be. Should it be the death penalty, which is authorized, or should it be life imprisonment without the possibility of release, which is authorized. And the jury will be asked to decide that ultimate question, what should the penalty be, after an assessment of all the evidence that's been produced in the so-called penalty phase.
If you're at that stage, having found the defendant guilty of a qualifying crime, would you be able to have an open mind and evaluate the evidence in either direction or would you have a tendency in one direction or another -- and perhaps as indicated in your selections here, would you have a tendency to go into that phase thinking that the death penalty was the right punishment?
JUROR: I mean, it's hard to say, but probably.
THE COURT: You probably would?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon, sir.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. MELLIN: I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case.
Let me just follow up on what you said. You said -- in answer to Judge O'Toole's last question, you said you would probably lean towards the death penalty. Is that what you're saying?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Can you expand on that? Why do you say that?
JUROR: Well, again, you know, without hearing all the evidence and going through everything, it's hard to say exactly. But my thought process there was if the person's guilty and then we're trying to decide -- you know, then that person could be given the death penalty -- and that's one of the things, then I would assume that -- I guess unless I heard all the information, I'm not understanding it -- potentially why you would not at that point, I guess. You know, that's what I'm just trying to figure out.
MR. MELLIN: Right. Well, you've heard the judge now twice kind of explain that before the jury would get to the sentencing phase, there would be a determination of guilt by the jury. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Correct.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And so it's only if the jury finds the defendant guilty of one of these capital offenses that you then go to the penalty phase, right?
JUROR: Right.
MR. MELLIN: Are you with me so far?
JUROR: Right.
MR. MELLIN: And then it's in the sentencing phase where the government puts on more evidence of why we believe the death penalty is appropriate. Do you understand?
JUROR: Right.
MR. MELLIN: And then the defense has the opportunity at that time to put on evidence as to why they believe life imprisonment is appropriate. Are you with me?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. MELLIN: You have to say "yes" or "no" for the court reporter.
JUROR: Oh, yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So the question is: As you go into that phase, are you going to be -- would you immediately vote to impose death, or would you listen to all of that evidence before you decided what the appropriate punishment is?
JUROR: I mean, I would obviously listen to the evidence. But as I said in my -- I would probably lean towards the death penalty going into that phase.
MR. MELLIN: All right. Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: Hi. My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers, and I've got a few more questions, if that's okay.
MR. MELLIN: I believe we're in agreement.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry?
MS. CLARKE: We're in agreement.
MR. BRUCK: Oh, very good. Sorry.
I guess I don't have any questions. Thanks.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir. Just leave the form there and we'll put it back together.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 499.
COURT CLERK: Juror 499.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Please be seated right up here. Just make sure you speak into the microphone.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you also been able to, as much as possible, avoid any media accounts about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us a little bit about your employment, what you do, what it entails.
JUROR: Yeah. I work for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Division of Insurance. I review financial statements of domestic insurance companies.
THE COURT: Is this part of the regulatory function of the division?
JUROR: It is. It is, yes.
THE COURT: What's the process, just generally speaking?
JUROR: They file statements quarterly, financial statements, and we pretty much monitor for solvency.
THE COURT: Okay. And you've been doing that for almost 20 years, it looks like?
JUROR: Just about.
THE COURT: Okay. You told us -- this is Question 34 on page 12 -- that your sister is in the Boston Police Department. Has been for, I guess it looks like, about ten years?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about what you know about her work or assignments and so on.
JUROR: She works out of East Boston. I think she's in patrol.
THE COURT: Obviously this is a case that involves the Boston police, and there will probably be a lot of Boston police witnesses. Does the fact that your sister is a member of that department give you any concern about your ability to be a fair judge of the evidence in the case?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: No?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We'll do a quick sidebar.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
THE COURT: All right. We'll go off sidebar.
(In open court:)
THE COURT: Let me ask you to go to Question 77 on page 20.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, I think we're okay.
THE COURT: Okay? Let me just ask you to explain your answer there. We asked if you had opinions about the -- whether the defendant was guilty or not, and mostly you answered "unsure." Could you just tell us what you were thinking?
JUROR: Well, I guess it was tough to develop an opinion whether he was -- I'm sorry.
I guess it was difficult to develop an opinion without any evidence. I mean, to suggest he was guilty before trial just doesn't make any sense to me.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 503.
COURT CLERK: Juror 503.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Please come forward. Have a seat right here. Be sure to speak into the microphone.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: We're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave to the questions in the questionnaire. Let me first ask: Have you been able to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anyone since you left here?
JUROR: I have.
THE COURT: And also to avoid media accounts about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I want to ask you to turn to -- I guess it's page 15. You wrote a rather extended answer to Question 50 which asks what court cases have you followed with interest, and you said principally this one?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And then you explained why, and that recalled your actual participation in some of the occurrences around the time of the event.
JUROR: That is correct. I ran the local command center at the hospital that I'm employed by during the -- you know, during this time period. There was an issue with regard to the University of Massachusetts - Dartmouth and local law enforcement being coordinated by the Dartmouth police, the state police, and even the New Bedford police had interaction with our hospital.
They had asked us to stand up and prepare operating rooms, have enough emergency department staff onboard because there was concern with regard to substances that they were uncertain that they might find when they raided the dormitory and an apartment complex that was also located in Dartmouth where there was a U-Haul truck or some kind of a van that was parked outside the home of acquaintances. And there was concern that there might be explosives or other substances in there.
So my job was to make sure that our facility was at a level of emergency preparedness where we could respond if anybody was injured.
THE COURT: So you were fairly actively involved that week in events that emanated, I guess, from the bombing events?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you think that that would affect you as a juror if you were the juror in this case?
JUROR: I think it -- I think it reinforces my perceptions with regard to the case. So I do think it has an impact.
THE COURT: What do you mean by reinforces your perceptions?
JUROR: My perceptions of how I put together the account from exposure to the media, whether it be in the Globe or the Times or the Post or GBH or BUR. Everything that I've heard as well as my experiences that day lead me just to have an opinion with regard to this.
THE COURT: Right. So let's look at that. Page 20.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: In Question 77 -- I think you may have been referring to this -- we asked you whether you had some opinions, and you said you did have an opinion that he was guilty --
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: -- and so on.
And that's what you were just referring to?
JUROR: That's correct, sir.
THE COURT: And do you think it would be difficult for you to forget what you know from your own participation and look only at the evidence in the case, or do you think you could do that?
JUROR: I think my views and perspectives are slightly tainted by what I experienced while on duty.
THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you, sir.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: This next juror answered a number of questions private, so I think we should just start out that way and find out what that is. So this will be sidebar.
MR. BRUCK: Just a very private person.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
COURT CLERK: Juror 504.
COURT CLERK: Juror 504.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Please be seated over here. Be sure to speak into the microphone.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you had when -- you filled out when you were here before, okay? Let me just ask you: Have you been able to avoid talking about the substance of the case since you were last here?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And have you been able to avoid, as much as you can, any exposure to media coverage of the case?
JUROR: Yes. There have been cases where I would see a headline scrolling through, but I opted not to click on the article.
THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. That's what we asked you not to do.
[REDACTED]
MR. BRUCK: We're satisfied, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay?
MR. MELLIN: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: We'll go off sidebar? Back onto the...
(In open court:)
COURT CLERK: Juror 505.
COURT CLERK: Juror 055.
COURT CLERK: Please come forward.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Be seated right here. Please be sure to speak into the microphone.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Let me just ask at the beginning, since you were last here have you been able to avoid talking with anybody about the substance of this case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Any exposure to media stories about the case that you couldn't avoid?
JUROR: No. You know, I don't read the newspaper, so if it's on the news on my TV I usually walk away. I don't research it.
THE COURT: Thank you.
So that's the questionnaire that you completed when you were last here. I want to follow up on some of the things in it.
You tell us that currently, I guess, you're a sales associate for a retail store?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: And what's your normal workweek like?
JUROR: I usually work 30 to 40 hours a week and varied hours, day and night. It's not a set schedule.
THE COURT: We explained earlier in the questionnaire that the schedule we're going to follow would be a nine-to-four, Monday-through-Thursday?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And you indicated, when we asked whether that would be a substantial hardship, that it would not be. Do you think that that's still the case?
JUROR: Financially it would be a hardship, but that aside, the hardship that I feel bothers me is I have two 18-year-olds that are graduating from high school in May. And I am concerned or -- you know, just worried that I will not be available to them except in the evening. And I'm not sure that I need to be, exactly, but that's -- you know, I'm thinking about them more than anything.
THE COURT: When is -- do you know precisely when --
JUROR: It's Sunday, May 30th, I believe they graduate.
THE COURT: It's fairly late in May.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But there probably would be things running up to that?
JUROR: Well, some things. But some things are in the evening, of course. They're very active in school, of course, so they have banquets and breakfasts, you know, and awards and all. So I was just thinking about that today.
And my son has two hockey games left to play for varsity high school, and one is tomorrow. And I was just really glad that it wasn't today.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me come back to the financial aspect.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You said it would have some impact there. Can you give us a sense of how serious that is?
JUROR: Well, my husband was out of work for five years. He started working again in 2012, I guess. 2012. And in that time we ended up having to file bankruptcy, okay? And then it's been very difficult to pay our mortgage. I mean, we pay but we're not -- that's hard. So whatever money I make is -- you know, I put to my kids and food, usually.
THE COURT: I guess what I'm --
JUROR: So we're not --
THE COURT: Outside the sort of nine-to-four schedule here, Monday through Thursday, you would have some -- I presume some working time available?
JUROR: Right. I would.
THE COURT: And so it wouldn't be a 100 percent loss. I guess I'm trying to figure out what percent it would be.
JUROR: I'm not sure, you know, exactly, because the hours are given out depending on the week and how busy it would be. I mean, it's all programmed that way. So I wouldn't know how many nights I could work. I probably could work every weekend, though.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I think the parties are okay.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thanks.
JUROR: Okay.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: I think that's it for today in terms of the interviews.
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
THE COURT: Quarter to four okay?
MS. CLARKE: That should do it.
MR. BRUCK: We may need less than that.
(The Court exits the courtroom and there is a recess in the proceedings at 3:14 p.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 3:53 p.m.)