3.Voir Dire — Jurors 512 and 517
316 lines(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
MS. CONRAD: This is not the -- this is the juror's daughter, her Facebook page, and it's dated April 19, 2013. It says, "Hey, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, we going to find you" with a picture. And then underneath it says, "Not doing anything productive today. Blaming it on fear and staying in #get the SOB." So at least I think it's something to ask her about. I certainly am fine with the Court asking, but I believe she is on Facebook with her daughter. We've got her Facebook page which shows her daughter as one of her friends.
So presumably it's -- she's seen -- oh, the daughter also had -- I'm sorry -- a second one which is a video of people celebrating in the streets of Watertown after the capture. So I can hand that one up as well.
But I think that one is more concerning, that -- this one is more sort of what was going on; this expresses an affect towards the defendant.
MR. MELLIN: That's fine, your Honor. The Court can ask her if she's aware of this and just leave it -- or pursue it based on what her answer is.
THE COURT: Yeah. I'm not a Facebook user, so I'm not familiar with the mechanics. So what does it mean that it's --
MS. CLARKE: Good time to learn.
(Laughter.)
MS. CONRAD: So the mechanics are if you're friends with somebody and they post something, you will see that unless you have blocked them. Unless you've blocked their feed. So this would have --
THE COURT: You can see it.
MS. CONRAD: You will see it. It will feed into your Facebook feed. You'll basically just get -- I can actually show you from what her Facebook page looks like.
Whenever someone you're friends with posts something, unless they're blocked, it will appear on your Facebook feed.
THE COURT: Okay. This is going to be inept, but like a mailbox kind of thing or like a billboard that you can't avoid?
MR. BRUCK: Exactly.
MS. CONRAD: It's like a billboard that you can't avoid unless you block them.
THE COURT: Is there a way of -- well, okay.
MS. CLARKE: I think you have a future with Facebook.
THE COURT: I don't think so.
MS. CONRAD: This is the juror's Facebook page that shows the daughter as a friend. So I can hand that up as well.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So, your Honor, the government doesn't object to asking questions about this stuff. We think it's completely irrelevant, obviously, but why not explore it while the juror is here.
Just to clarify, though, what you have been given is a Twitter, which is a different vehicle altogether.
MS. CONRAD: Oh, I'm sorry. You're absolutely right. That is a Twitter; it's not Facebook. On her Facebook is one that is the video celebrating after the Watertown capture. I stand completely corrected. I guess it shows what I know. But Mr. Chakravarty's right; it is Twitter.
So I don't know if the mother -- in order to see a Twitter feed, the mother would have to actually follow her on Twitter, and I do not know if the mother follows her on Twitter because I think for one thing you can't really tell -- well, I guess if we went to her Twitter -- I don't know if the mother has a Twitter account. That would be the easiest way of finding out.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: The other thing I would say about the Facebook security settings is there are a variety of communication tools on Facebook. There are chat messages, just as you would through some other vehicle; there's effectively an email-type function; there's a wall that is open to whoever you've given security access to; and then what Ms. Conrad refers to is you get updates from all of the people that you have befriended if you set your security settings to consume those updates.
Typically what happens is there's a name, it says Al Chakravarty, and you will see that this person has updated their account. And then you can hover, I believe, over their account and it will expand. And then depending on your software and where you're viewing it from, you can go through and scroll through whatever those updates are.
So the point being that people can be friends. You don't automatically have total information and awareness of everything about what's in someone else's Facebook account.
THE COURT: I guess that's what I was getting at before. I mean, there's an operation that you have to do to get the full access?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Right.
MS. CONRAD: Well, to get access -- no. Well, I'm not sure -- this is Twitter. I'm not sure how relevant the Facebook stuff is now that I've been reminded that it was on Twitter. And apparently [REDACTED]- -- excuse me. Strike that.
Juror 512 does not have a Twitter account, according to her, and we didn't locate one. So the Twitter feed may be irrelevant. The Facebook may still be relevant, but it's less of an issue, I think, given the content.
But when -- you get a time -- you have a timeline. When somebody, a friend posts on their timeline, then you get a notification that that person has posted on their timeline and you see what that is unless you have blocked them or unfriended them.
THE COURT: So where are we now?
MS. CONRAD: Well, I think I would like to just ask generally whether she's discussed the bombing with her friend -- with her family, for example, and see, you know, what comes out of that. But I just think the fact that the daughter has publicly tweeted about -- in that form is something to explore. And I just want the Court -- if the Court wants to ask about it, that's fine; otherwise, I would like some leeway to follow up.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I think this was the Facebook -- is this for the Court?
MS. CONRAD: Yeah, just to sort of see that she's Facebook friends -- if you look at the left-hand column it says "friends," and then it says 181, whatever the number is, middle left, and then there's pictures, and her daughter is listed there.
THE COURT: And does the -- this just connects them, right?
MS. CONRAD: Right, exactly.
And that's the daughter's Facebook.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: And it may be relevant that the juror answers "none" to Question 81, any family members that were affected, where it indicates that her daughter, at least, sheltered in place.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
COURT CLERK: We're on.
(In open court:)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 512.
COURT CLERK: Juror 512.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Be sure you keep your voice up and speak into the mic, okay?
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: I have. Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And as much as possible avoid media accounts?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. You have the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the things you've told us.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let me start with the nature of your work, your employment.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What do you do?
JUROR: I'm a materials manager.
THE COURT: What's that mean?
JUROR: I coordinate all the material for -- I work for a computer integration system and we do -- build computers. And so I need to order all the material for our customers.
THE COURT: Okay. In -- I'm on page 10. At the bottom, 29, and 30 on the next page we asked about social media.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And there's a slight difference in the two questions. I think 29 is more getting at things that you post or blog and so on. And you said you'd post messages on Facebook. Can you give us an idea of --
JUROR: I'm very limited with my Facebook. I just started to use it. And it was mostly for family -- just to see pictures and stuff of family. If I post a message, it's just usually where I'm at. But I don't do it on a regular basis. I'm not savvy enough for Facebook.
THE COURT: You said about once a month?
JUROR: Yeah, if that.
THE COURT: And then 30 is, I think, more -- a broader question, I guess. And it just says if you use social media please list all the social media you use and how frequently. So this says Facebook three or four times a week. That's --
JUROR: I log on.
THE COURT: -- viewing other people's things?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you use any other --
JUROR: I do not.
THE COURT: Instagram, Twitter, anything like that?
JUROR: I do not.
THE COURT: Do you remember -- you remember, I presume, the events of the marathon day and so on?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: And that week?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Did you exchange messages or postings or anything with people during that time that you remember?
JUROR: I did not.
THE COURT: Were you using it then?
JUROR: Very little. I had just started to log onto an account with Facebook at the time, yeah.
THE COURT: Do you remember whether you used it that week at all?
JUROR: I didn't use it at all that week. The only information or experience that I had with it was just what was on television.
THE COURT: Okay. At the bottom of page 11, Question 33, we asked about connection with -- actually, we were getting at law offices, but we have a question about connection with law enforcement. You gave us a couple of law enforcement people there.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: A sister-in-law and brother-in-law are in the Baltimore Police Department?
JUROR: Yes, they are.
THE COURT: Can you just tell me a little bit about that?
JUROR: Yes. My sister-in-law has moved up to the rank of lieutenant there. She was rated the top one there of a group of about 100. So she's a lieutenant there. And my brother-in-law, who's her husband, is a sergeant in the police department as well.
THE COURT: Okay. Would that have any -- your relationship with those officers have any effect on your ability to be an impartial juror in a criminal prosecution?
JUROR: No, because we see them just a few times a year. It's not like I talk to them on a regular basis.
THE COURT: I see you've had experience sitting on a couple of jury trials?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Can you tell us when those were, if you remember?
JUROR: I don't really know the dates, but there was one in Newburyport. And that was, I would say, within the last two, three years. And that was a DUI case there. And then there was also one in Salem, Massachusetts. And that was regarding fraud, regarding a lemon law for a car.
THE COURT: That was a civil case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: For damages?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you were the foreperson in that?
JUROR: Yes, I was.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you remember when that was?
JUROR: I would say it was probably about ten years ago. It was a while back.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Question 77 near the top of the page.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: This is a multiple-part question in which we tried to learn whether you had formed any opinion based on things you'd seen in the media or on TV or from any other source about issues in the case; in particular, whether the defendant's guilty or not and whether he should get the death penalty or not.
You answered "yes" that you had an opinion that he was guilty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said you were unsure about the penalty. Do you see the boxes there?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Then below that we asked you if you answered yes to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside any opinion you had and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence presented to you in court, and you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: I'm a big advocate for data both at my job, gathering the data, and looking at evidence, or the data, in reference to making a decision; I don't base it on other people's opinions or what I've seen in the media. Even at work, it's mostly data-driven.
THE COURT: Okay. So you've had experience in jury trials, and particularly a criminal trial, you know that a defendant who's accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty unless the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You know those principles because you had to deal with them, right?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: So obviously in a case that gets a lot of publicity, people may have ideas about the matter that they have from seeing things in the news and so on. What we ask a juror to do is to -- if you have anything in that category, that you can put it away and focus on the evidence that's actually produced in the course of the trial and make a decision based only on that evidence and the body of evidence in the trial.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you think you'd be able to do that?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: In Question 82 you -- we asked whether you had participated in any support activities and gave some examples, and you said -- in the end you said you contemplated wearing a Boston Strong shirt. It looks like you first said you wore one, and then it said you contemplated. That was just an interesting amendment and I just wanted to know about that.
JUROR: It was. I used to see them hanging up all the time. It was the blue shirt with the white Boston Strong -- I mean, the yellow Boston Strong on it. And I had gone in to Boston a few times with my husband, and I thought that I had purchased one at one point. But when I recollected, looking at the question again, I didn't purchase one, but I did contemplate on wearing it.
THE COURT: Anybody else in the family have any of that merchandise?
JUROR: No, no, they do not.
THE COURT: Anybody in the family affected by the sheltering in place, do you know? Do you remember at the end of the week people had to stay in because of the police activity?
JUROR: Yes. There wasn't any family members or anybody that I knew that was affected by that.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear the last part of what you said.
JUROR: There wasn't anyone that I knew that was affected by that.
MS. CONRAD: If I could ask you to pull the microphone a little closer. I'm having difficulty hearing what you're saying. Thank you very much.
JUROR: No problem.
THE COURT: Beginning on page 23 at Question 88 we asked a series of questions to try to learn what prospective jurors thought about the death penalty. And Question 88 is a very general question: If you have views about the death penalty in general, what are they, and you said, "The death penalty only if it's warranted, if the crime is proven to be of such severity to impose death on the criminal."
Can you tell us a little bit of what you were expressing there?
JUROR: Based on looking at all of the evidence, and if it was a case in reference to being a severe case with the law, in reference to following the law, whether or not it would warrant to impose the death penalty for the criminal.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 was strongly opposed and would never vote to impose the death penalty and 10 was -- as you see from the preamble, reflects a belief the death penalty should be imposed whenever a defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder. You didn't pick 10, but you came close; you picked 9.
Can you tell us about that.
JUROR: Well, I was strongly in favor of that, but it didn't warrant me to believe it was -- it imposed a 10 on that question. Again, I guess if the data presents itself to warrant the death penalty, then I would be in favor of that.
THE COURT: If you turn to the next page, Question 90, we came at it in a slightly different way but this time with various formulations and words, asked you to review them all and then pick the one you thought came closest to your view. You selected E that said you're in favor of the death penalty but could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release if you believed that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
Is that an accurate representation of your views?
JUROR: Yes, it is. Yes, based on the facts and the law in the case, yes.
THE COURT: So while you're -- I take from that that you're indicating you have sort of a tendency to favor the death penalty in a case but you could be open to considering life imprisonment as an alternative if you thought in the facts of the case that was appropriate?
JUROR: That is correct.
THE COURT: Okay. Follow-up?
MR. MELLIN: Good morning, ma'am.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. MELLIN: I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case. I just want to ask you a few questions about the death penalty.
You indicated -- you just said if the data presents itself to warrant the death penalty, then you would consider it. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: And "the data," I'm assuming you mean the evidence in this case?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And do you understand from Judge O'Toole's instructions this morning and discussion of how this works that there are two phases to this case: that there's the guilt phase, and then if the jury finds the defendant guilty of one of these capital offenses, then there's a penalty phase?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And so understanding that, do you understand that if you get to this punishment phase or the penalty phase where you're deciding between life or death, the jury would have already found the defendant guilty of one of these capital offenses?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Going into that second phase, given your comments about the death penalty, would you be open to considering life imprisonment even though you've already found him guilty of one of these capital offenses?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And at that point would you -- are you going to automatically impose the death penalty or will you listen to the evidence before deciding between life or death?
JUROR: I would listen to the evidence.
MR. MELLIN: Now, you say that you are in support of the death penalty but in a case -- if you were a juror in a capital case and it came to the point where you as a juror were deciding between life and death and you believed that the evidence supported the death penalty, would you actually be able to vote to impose the death penalty against someone else?
JUROR: I would, yes --
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
JUROR: -- based on the data -- the evidence that's presented.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MS. CONRAD: My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Do you know whether you will be paid if you're seated as a juror in this case?
JUROR: I do not think I will be paid.
MS. CONRAD: You do not?
JUROR: Right. I looked at the policy through work, and it covered me for three days of jury duty. And they're kind of struggling now financially. So they know that I'm going through this process, but I do not think that they'll be able to pay me for that, which kind of causes a little bit of problems because my husband is self-employed and I do carry the medical benefits. So I just --
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry, you --
JUROR: I carry the medical coverage through my work. So I just don't know what they'll cover and what they won't cover.
MS. CONRAD: So would not being paid for the duration of a three- or four-month trial pose a financial hardship to you and your family?
JUROR: It would, yes.
MS. CONRAD: May I have a moment?
(Pause.)
MS. CONRAD: Okay. I guess I'll continue.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, it may make sense to explore just the hardship a little bit more.
THE COURT: Yeah. Have you talked to anybody at work, any supervisor or --
JUROR: I have talked to the owner about that, yes. But I did not talk to him in reference to whether I would get paid or not.
THE COURT: With respect to health insurance, do you have any concern that you would actually lose your employment or just that you wouldn't be paid during the --
JUROR: That I wouldn't be paid during this time.
THE COURT: If you stayed employed, even though you weren't getting paid on a weekly basis, do you know whether that would affect your health insurance?
JUROR: I don't know. That's the thing that was kind of bothersome to my husband and I, was whether or not I would get the health benefit or I would continue to get paid during that time period.
THE COURT: Can you give us an idea of, I guess, the size of the company, how many employees are there?
JUROR: There's 25 people -- around 25 to 30 people in North Andover, and then they also have a location in the Chicago area as well. And there's probably about ten people that work there. I'm new to this position. I've been there just about two years now.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 517.
COURT CLERK: Juror 517.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would. Have a seat. Speak into the mic and make sure you keep your voice up, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And avoid any media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I want to follow up on some of the matters you -- the information you gave us in the questionnaire.
First of all, tell us a little bit about your work. It says you're a senior quantitative analyst for an asset management company. Can you tell us a little bit what that entails.
JUROR: Absolutely. So to most people I say that I'm a stock analyst. Technically, I'm a quantitative research analyst. So what I do is bring structure and discipline to the investment process. What we offer is mutual funds and institutional funds for clients. My particular role is in risk management and analysis, ranking companies based on quantitative analysis versus fundamental analysis. I do a little bit of technical analysis along with that.
In addition, I'm co-portfolio manager for a U.S. mid fund and, as of recent, portfolio manager for a small hedge fund.
THE COURT: Okay. Earlier in the questionnaire, it's on page 5, we set out what we expect the schedule of the case to be and asked whether serving on that schedule would be a substantial hardship. You said you don't know. Can you tell us what you were wondering about?
JUROR: Yeah. So there's a couple of reasons for that explanation. I mean, in the reality -- in reality, I have a commitment to work. I had talked to my employer and said should this be the outcome, I intend to stay committed. I understand that Fridays would be off, so I would be able to go in to the office then. And then I would telecommute a couple of hours during the day.
In addition to that, I wanted to make sure that they were good corporate citizens and I wasn't going to forgo my earnings.
THE COURT: Right. Did you get happy news on that?
JUROR: I was -- I was told that they're good corporate citizens. So that's -- you know, hopefully I can take that to the bank.
THE COURT: Okay. So you're feeling comfortable about it, that it's doable, I guess, with some stress?
JUROR: Right. I think it's doable. The reality is for this case in particular, and probably many cases -- I'm not familiar. I have never served in the past. I'm guessing everybody's going to experience some sort of hardship. And so I would say that I'm not an exception to that, if that's what you're asking.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us about social media. We asked at the bottom of page 10 and the top of 11 -- Question 29 at the bottom of page 10 more or less is asking about postings that you might make either to something like Facebook or websites, blogs, things like that.
You say you make a few Facebook postings but they're mostly family related. Is that --
JUROR: Yeah, yeah.
THE COURT: Do you use it at work at all?
JUROR: No, I'm not really active at all. I've probably made half a dozen postings over the course of several years.
THE COURT: Oh, okay. And then 30, it's a broader question, I guess. It asks about any social media you use. You said Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, and then you said "use infrequently."
JUROR: Right. That's a relative term. I probably check Facebook once or twice a week; Twitter basically very rarely, once a month or so; LinkedIn more frequently, but it's more because people are reaching out and it's a means of communication. So --
THE COURT: That's more professionally oriented --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- whereas the others are social, or are they professional as well?
JUROR: The others I would say are social.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: We asked in this question whether, based on things you'd seen or heard in the media or learned from other sources, you had formed an opinion about whether the defendant here was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not. To each of those subparts of the question you checked that you were unsure.
Can you just tell us what you were thinking when you made that choice?
JUROR: I think it's fair to say that I hadn't formed an opinion. I'm familiar with the incidents as they occurred. It's not something I actually followed. So I guess I haven't formed an opinion one way or the other.
THE COURT: Okay. You know that in our criminal justice system a person is presumed innocent, or not guilty, of any crime he's accused of unless -- and stays that way unless the government proves he's guilty by producing sufficient evidence at trial to convince a jury that a person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Regardless of things you may have seen or heard about the case, would you be able, as a juror, to respect and apply those principles if you had to decide the case?
JUROR: I believe -- yes.
THE COURT: You know that a defendant never has an obligation to prove he's not guilty of something; it's always the government's obligation to prove that he is guilty. It's not an even either/or. The question is not which side has convinced me; the question is has the government convinced me that he's guilty.
JUROR: I'm aware of that.
THE COURT: And you would be able to hold the government to its burden of proof?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You weren't personally affected by the events of that week in terms of sheltering or anything like that?
JUROR: In terms of sheltering? I'm not sure -- if you mean the week --
THE COURT: The week after the marathon bombing --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- do you remember at the end of the week where people were asked to stay inside for a while?
JUROR: Right. I think you're referring to when the suspect was ascertained [sic]. I actually did work from home that day. And so if that's what you're asking.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. By the way, you live near the beginning of the marathon, right? Do you have any connection with the marathon? Do you participate in any way?
JUROR: I don't. I did attend the opening once maybe five years ago in Hopkinton. And I'm kind of in transit. So that is my primary address, but I also have a secondary apartment here on Beacon Hill.
THE COURT: Okay. I was just getting at whether you have any close association with the event, the marathon event, because it's an annual event in Hopkinton.
JUROR: Other than in the town itself, I haven't participated in the event. It's certainly a popular thing in town itself. I don't know what you mean by "association" other than with the town that I'm living in.
THE COURT: It's meant to be very broad. Whatever you think it means.
JUROR: Okay. It's a sense of town pride, if that's what you're referring to.
THE COURT: I'm looking to see whether it has any effect on -- it could have any effect on the way you would listen to and hear the evidence in the case. That's all I'm getting at.
JUROR: I don't believe so. I'm not -- I think Hopkinton's a wonderful town. I'm not originally from Hopkinton. But I guess the short answer is no.
THE COURT: Okay. If you would turn to page 23, beginning at Question 88 we asked a series of questions pertaining to the death penalty and attitudes about it. 88 itself is a general question: If you have general views, what are they? And you said, "The state has the right but it is not something to take lightly."
Anything you want to add to that or modify?
JUROR: I think that's my position. Yes, I think it's a very serious topic and -- yeah. Yeah, I think that covers it.
THE COURT: All right. And then below that we asked you to indicate on a scale of 1 to 10 where you thought you might be from strongly opposed to strongly favor. You selected 3, slightly on the opposed side but not at either extreme.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is that a fair temperature for you?
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, these things are hard to scale.
THE COURT: Of course.
JUROR: Okay? Particularly in my line of work, it's like -- you know. When I approached this I was, like, well, am I in the middle? I'm probably not in the middle. So I had to pick a number, and somewhere to the left of that, and 3 seemed about right.
THE COURT: Okay. If you'd go to the next page, here we asked it in words rather than numbers, and asked if you could find a statement among the several suggested that came closest to what your views would be. You picked C --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: -- which is "I'm opposed to the death penalty but I could vote to impose it if I believed the facts and the law in a particular case called for it."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You think that represents your view?
JUROR: Yes, that's a good representation of my view.
THE COURT: So that while you tend to oppose it you would be able to consider the evidence -- you heard me talk about the penalty phase, where there would be evidence from the government about what made this an aggravating situation, and from the defendant that presented mitigating considerations, and then the jurors are asked to weigh all that and come to a conclusion whether the death penalty or life imprisonment without release is the better penalty.
Would you be able to take account of all that, evaluate it and then decide which option you thought was the right option?
JUROR: Yeah. I think in this situation my personal view, which I put on C -- see, in an ideal world we don't have the death penalty, in my opinion. But I think the law is clear. And in this case, in other words, as it's written it's clear. So, again, I think my opinion on the death penalty is I do think the state has the right to do capital punishment. I think even though you pointed out earlier that Massachusetts does not have that but the federal government does, I don't see those as polar opposites. I understand the distinction.
Again, I do think -- I think there are other questions in here, kind of where you stand on that, what do you think is a more severe punishment, I actually do see that as a more severe punishment than life imprisonment, if I recall the questions earlier.
Am I answering your question?
THE COURT: Well, sort of. The question actually was would you be prepared to vote for the death penalty or for life imprisonment, either/or, depending on your evaluation of the evidence that you had before you in the trial? That's really the question.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you open to both possibilities?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yes, your Honor.
Good morning. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I would like to explore a little bit of your work situation a little bit more. Just, I know people in your industry often are paid on commission or are paid with bonuses, expecting bonuses.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: To the extent you're on a three- to four-month trial working when you can, is that going to impact your income?
JUROR: It's a great question. I'm confident -- I can't predict the future. I kind of -- I asked straight out whether it would. The response that I received is that it would not; however, do I feel obligated to actually still connect with work and -- yes, I do.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So the question is: Given the -- again, your industry that works on markets which are, like, nine to four or something like that --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: -- which will be virtually the exact times that our court is going to be in session.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So is your mind going to be able to focus on what's happening in court versus what's happening on your BlackBerry, if you have a BlackBerry?
JUROR: Yes, I follow you. That's a great question. So if I can put it a different way, when I'm on vacation, okay, so when I'm not at work, am I checking the market throughout the day? Typically not. But that's, in part, because I've been with the company for a long time and have a very close colleague that I respect and depend on and feel comfortable with him at the helm when I'm not there.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So we rely on your assessment. You don't think that that's going to be sufficient distraction to prevent yourself from being able to listen to the evidence in this case?
JUROR: I can't imagine it would be. I mean, is there a scenario we can create, some hypothetical scenario where, you know, the market has some huge event that I may ponder on? I guess we can create a scenario if we wanted to that -- but anybody can create a scenario if they wanted to that would distract them from what they're focusing on, right?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yeah, and we're not asking about hypotheticals.
If you wouldn't mind looking at the questionnaire briefly. On page 23, Question 87, you said you weren't sure whether the graphic nature of some of the evidence that's likely in this case might impact your ability to assess it.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Can you elaborate on that?
JUROR: Yeah. So I consider myself to be a little squeamish, okay? I mean, not to the point where -- mildly squeamish. So there are people who get shots and turn their heads or close their eyes or look right at the shot itself. I'm one of those individuals that gets a shot and, you know, kind of looks straight ahead. If -- but, yes, graphic material is impactful and powerful. And so if you're asking if seeing material of a graphic nature stirs up emotions, my answer would be yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So in this case -- I understand you have children.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And in this case there's at least one child involved in some of the evidence.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And what we're trying to determine is whether that emotional component which is intrinsic in some graphic evidence -- whether that might unduly influence your assessment of that information.
JUROR: Okay. So I understand the nature of your question. So I happen to be in an industry where you just want to see the facts and analyze those, you know? You can have an emotional response to even something in the marketplace. You don't want to act on those responses; you want all the information and then act. So is that going to impact my ability to assess the data itself? No.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So 87, not sure, you feel confident that it won't affect -- it will make an impact but it won't affect your ability to assess the evidence?
JUROR: It will make an impact but it will not affect my ability to, right, review and analyze the information as it's given.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, the next couple of questions are related, and they relate to a sidebar issue.
THE COURT: Okay.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Okay. The end of sidebar, I think.
You don't have anything on that?
MS. CONRAD: (Indicating.)
(In open court:)
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So finally the last couple of questions: So in the second phase of a trial, of a death penalty -- in a death penalty case the jury has already convicted the defendant of being guilty of a capital crime, and the jury has to decide whether the death penalty or life without parole is an appropriate judgment. It's one thing to intellectually arrive at a decision based on the facts as they come in, and it's another for a juror to have the courage and conviction to vote one way or the other knowing that that is probably going to be the fate that befalls him.
So if you were seated as a juror and you believed that the death penalty is the appropriate conclusion in a particular case, would you have that fortitude to cast the vote for --
MS. CONRAD: Objection to "this case" and "fortitude."
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I don't think I said "this case." But if you were -- I may have. Excuse me.
If you were seated as a juror, you know, whether this case or in any other case in which you have to make that call, you know, obviously, as you pointed out, a very serious decision, do you think you could do that?
JUROR: Yes, I can. I'm under the assumption that there's some framework provided to the jurors how to reach that decision based off of the evidence and the law. Is that a correct assumption?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yes, there will be.
JUROR: Then yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: And that goes both ways, in terms of life without parole or the death penalty.
JUROR: Right. And I'm -- yes, I can do that either way. And again, I'm assuming that there's some framework provided.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much. I don't have any questions for you.
THE COURT: All right, sir. Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: So we have the completed 534 questionnaire.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 520.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, maybe before the juror comes out, the Court might want to look at the witness question.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MS. CLARKE: The witness question.
THE COURT: Hold off for a second. Yeah, okay. Let me --
MS. CLARKE: You may want to go sidebar so the Court can understand the witness.
THE COURT: Is it -- oh, okay. Yeah, I think we'll need a little sidebar.
COURT CLERK: Sidebar?
THE COURT: Yeah, quickly.