5.Voir Dire — Jurors 529, 533 and 534
427 lines(In open court:)
JUROR: Am I done?
THE COURT: You're done. Just leave it there. Thanks.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: 529.
COURT CLERK: Juror 529.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would, please. Have a seat.
Speak into the mic and keep your voice up, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: It's still morning, barely.
Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid discussion of the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: I've tried, but, of course, some people did know I was coming for jury duty and had their opinions. I had my hands over my ears as much as possible.
THE COURT: You tell them you don't want to talk about it?
JUROR: Right. Unfortunately, everyone has an opinion because there's been a lot of coverage on this.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. Speaking of coverage, have you been able to avoid media coverage of the case?
JUROR: I've tried. I do read the Boston Globe. If I see an article, I'll immediately skip it. With all the blizzards and storms we've had, I've been watching the news a little more, you know, the weather. And, unfortunately, there's been a lot of coverage because this has been going on for quite a while.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: But I've tried to skip that as much as possible also.
THE COURT: Right. So there's the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to have some questions to follow up on some of the things you told us there.
I want to focus -- you're not working and apparently haven't worked for a while?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: When you last worked you were a -- it says you were working as an interior designer. Is that it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked a little bit about use of social media. This is -- if you want to follow along, it's on page 11. You say you use Facebook daily and Twitter weekly?
JUROR: I mean, I don't post that much. I had not been posting that much on Facebook. I do look at Facebook daily, maybe twice a day. Twitter I look at on a weekly basis. I don't read that -- look at that as much. I haven't posted on there in a long time. I also have LinkedIn, which I don't think I've done anything on there in quite a while.
With Facebook, I'm also -- I just started with a local chapter of an organization. They've asked me to do their social media work, so I am -- I did set up a group page for them, and I'm just posting about their events, so...
THE COURT: Okay. And how long have you been doing that?
JUROR: That's been about a month, maybe a month and a half.
THE COURT: Okay. And you expect to continue doing that for a while?
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I volunteered to do it. It doesn't seem to be too much. The thing is that because -- it's a Jewish Zionist organization and there's been, you know, a number of different posts that naturally they've had about Copenhagen and then other issues, you know. And people have asked me, you know, "Can you share that on another page?" And I said, "I don't feel comfortable doing that when I'm in this right now because I don't know if it's a conflict." So I've just posted basically about our own events and meetings we're having and things like that. Other stuff we've just not put on. If somebody else would like to, they can.
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR: I hope that's okay.
THE COURT: Yeah. Any of them -- any of the people who were suggesting those kinds of posts say anything about this case or suggest any posting about the events here?
JUROR: No. I mean, some of them did know I was coming.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: But no one --
THE COURT: But putting any postings about the case --
JUROR: No, because this has nothing to do with them. They're more concerned about -- because this organization has some hospitals in Israel, so they're more concerned about things in Israel than something happening here that doesn't really concern them.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to look at page 20, Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: It's a multiple-part question we asked to see whether you had formed any opinion about certain matters based on things you'd seen or read in the media or otherwise. And you answered that you had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty. You were unsure about the penalty. That's in Part C and D. Do you see that?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: We then asked if you answered yes to any of the questions, and you did to Part A, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment only on the evidence presented to you in court, and you checked "unable."
Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: I feel because I have seen, over the past couple of years, so much on TV and in the media, that still does, you know, linger in my mind and always will linger in my mind. And, you know, I made an opinion from that. And I just think no matter what is presented, I'm still going to feel that same way. So that's going to, you know, really base my decision. I don't think I can change my mind from guilty.
MR. BRUCK: We're satisfied.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 533.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 533.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat. Keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: I guess I may as well say "good afternoon" at this point.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Since you were last here have you been able to avoid discussion of the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And as best you could to avoid media accounts about the case?
JUROR: As best I possibly could.
THE COURT: Okay. Your form tells us you're a restaurant owner?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You've been doing that for a while?
JUROR: Quite a long time, yes.
THE COURT: What are your daily activities like?
JUROR: Daily operation of the -- my business, bookkeeping, personnel, everything having to do with operating a restaurant.
THE COURT: Okay. You've told us that you don't think it will be any problem for you to serve on an extended trial like this? I shouldn't say "any problem." It's obviously something for somebody, but a substantial hardship. It won't be a substantial hardship for you?
JUROR: You know, any time away from my business represents a certain level of hardship. I do have people in place that can run my business when I'm not there; however, you know, being the owner of the business certainly -- you know, part of my daily life is that business. It is my livelihood, and it is, you know, very personal to me. So any time away from that, you know, is -- you know, there's always cause for concern.
THE COURT: Right. The question is whether you could, by rearranging things, kind of --
JUROR: Anything could be done by rearranging things. To the degree that it places a hardship on others, I guess is, you know, more important to me than what it places on me.
THE COURT: In what sense would it place a hardship on others?
JUROR: Just increase workload, increase, you know, number of hours that they would have to be worried about the business. My wife is a part owner of the business as well, and I have a 13-year-old son at home. My daughter is a senior in college, so she's relatively self-sufficient. But, you know, to the degree that it places a hardship on her and my family, you know, I could be away, but it would certainly increase their workload substantially.
THE COURT: We asked about use of social media and you said -- this is if you want to follow. It's on page 11.
JUROR: Sure. 11?
THE COURT: Question 30. You said Facebook, Instagram, Twitter all used rarely and for work-related purposes only.
JUROR: I am a total novice when it comes to being, you know, in the social media world. I know extremely little about it, only what my -- some of what my employees have taught me over the years. I'm not on there on a daily basis, maybe once a month, maybe, to check and see who's, you know, posting things. But I don't -- I am not active on that at all. If I am, it's not for personal use; it's for my business use.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: This is a multipart question in which we asked whether you had formed an opinion about various matters based on things you had seen or heard in the media or otherwise whether the defendant was guilty or not, whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and you checked "unsure" to each of the subparts of the question.
Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: I really haven't followed it all that closely. I've been really involved in my business, and I don't really have time to pay attention to a lot of outside goings-on. I really -- I wasn't even home or aware of what had happened that particular day until, I want to say, maybe six or eight hours later. So I had no real, you know, in touch with the details of the goings-on. So I really don't know how to form an opinion one way or another outside of what other people have maybe told me. But I have not really followed it since it's happened and I really haven't paid much attention.
THE COURT: I'm sure you understand that in a criminal prosecution a person accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty, or innocent, of the crime unless the government proves otherwise, proves that he's guilty by sufficient evidence at trial to convince the jury that -- of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: I understand.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty in faithfully applying those principles if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: None at all.
THE COURT: In other words, focus solely on the evidence in the case and decide what that evidence means in terms of the issues?
JUROR: I think that's the most important thing.
THE COURT: Okay. Beginning on page 23 at Question 88 we asked a series of questions about attitudes towards the death penalty. 88 was a general question, if you had general views, what are they. And you said, "The death penalty may be warranted if evidence proves appropriate."
Anything you want to add or qualify about that?
JUROR: I really think that in any case, you know, if it's proven beyond a shadow of the doubt that it's warranted, then it should be -- it should be applied. It's there for a reason.
THE COURT: Okay. So in Question 89 we asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10. You put yourself kind of in the middle.
JUROR: Right in the middle.
THE COURT: If you look at page 24, Question 90, there's a series of statements that reflect different views about the death penalty. We asked you to look at those and see if there was one that represented your view. You selected D, "Neither for nor against, could vote to impose it or could vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of release, whichever I believe was called for by the facts and the law of the case."
JUROR: That kind of goes back to the question before.
THE COURT: Right. It's kind of a 5 answer.
JUROR: Five, right down the middle, answer. Exactly.
THE COURT: And is that a good summary of your views?
JUROR: It really is. I don't think I could have phrased it much better than that.
THE COURT: You heard me this morning describe what we call the penalty phase. And of course, as I said then and as you know, you only get to the penalty phase after the person's been convicted by the jury of the crime for which the death penalty is a possibility.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So you have a guilty person when you begin to consider those considerations. And as you heard, there will be evidence of aggravating factors that might distinguish the case as more serious than other cases and, therefore, deserving of a more serious punishment, and evidence of mitigating factors that might say this is not the case where the death penalty is appropriate but life imprisonment is a better punishment for this defendant in this circumstance.
Would you be able to pay attention to all of that, evaluate it, and then after weighing it select either possibility depending on how your mind was led?
JUROR: I like to think of myself as being pretty fair. One of my hobbies is officiating sports, being an umpire, being a referee. I officiate fairly and not toward one way or the other. I really don't care who wins; I just have to officiate the rules.
THE COURT: Okay. And you'd bring that attitude to the --
JUROR: I'd bring that attitude because that's basically how I look at things. It's whatever the rules are, that's the way it has to end up being.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So any --
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Yeah, just very briefly. Good afternoon. My name is Aloke Chakravarty. I'm one of the prosecutors.
I just want to ask you a couple of questions on the work situation.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Obviously this is your business.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It's your livelihood. Your family's involved. You're obviously going to be thinking about this at all times. The question is: Knowing that it's being taken care of, knowing we get out of court about four, you'll have Friday, you have the weekend -- I don't know if the restaurant is open on the weekend.
JUROR: Yes, every day.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: So, you know, given the fact that you have these other arrangements, would you be able to listen to the evidence in court, assess it and participate as a juror without having that -- the concern about the business kind of preventing you from doing that?
JUROR: Well, one of the things that I've thought about myself, without talking to other people about it, is -- and I'm not sure what the correct phrasing is, so forgive me if I mess up the wording, but sequestering?
THE COURT: No, you won't be sequestered.
JUROR: From what you said initially, the hearing would be Monday through Thursday from like nine to four-ish?
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: I would still be -- in essence, if I was able to leave and go back to my business, be able to work nights and be able to work weekends, which is a significant asset for me to be able to do. If I can be there to help spell the people that are covering for me when I'm not there, it's very important.
Monday through Thursday in my restaurant is our slower time. Nights and weekends are our busier time. And for me to be able to be there during those times would be great.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That's all I have. Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: That's it?
Hi. My name is Judy Clarke. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev. How are you?
JUROR: Very well, thank you.
MS. CLARKE: I just had a few questions for you if you could bear with me for a little bit of follow-up.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: On Question 77, which is at page 20 -- and the judge went through those questions with you -- you indicated that you were unsure, unsure, unsure, because you really hadn't had time to follow the events?
JUROR: Or form an opinion.
MS. CLARKE: Have you ever formed an opinion before filling out the questionnaire? Had you formed any opinion as to guilt or punishment in this case?
JUROR: No, not really. Like I said, I really hadn't spent virtually any time thinking about it. And, you know, like I said, I'd only learned about it well after -- not well after, but, you know, a number of hours after it had happened. So I really hadn't formed any opinion one way or the other even once, you know, he was apprehended.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. And since filling this out have you formed any -- have you been thinking about it?
JUROR: I've been thinking about it even less.
MS. CLARKE: Even less of an opinion?
You said you learned about it a few hours after.
JUROR: I want to say like six or eight hours after. I was on my way to pick up my son at a friend's house and I was listening to the radio and, you know, chatter was going on about it that day.
MS. CLARKE: So where were you on the 15th?
JUROR: I was at home probably doing yardwork or just outside. I might have been at work on my way to pick up my son.
MS. CLARKE: Okay.
JUROR: But I must confess, I don't remember. It's on -- it was a Monday?
MS. CLARKE: It was a Monday, right.
JUROR: And I generally take Mondays off. And my son was over at a friend's house playing, and I was bringing him his bicycle, I think.
MS. CLARKE: Do you remember where you were at the end of the week during the shelter-in-place day?
JUROR: I was working. I was at my restaurant.
MS. CLARKE: You were sheltering at work?
JUROR: As I'm apt to do almost every day.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Okay.
If I could get you to go to Question -- I'll find the page in just a sec. Question 52 on page 17 you were asked a series of sort of Muslim- or Islam-related questions and the War on Terror, and you indicated you believe the War on Terror is overblown or exaggerated, and you said "yes." Can you help us understand that a little bit, what you were thinking?
JUROR: I think that the media has a tendency to blow up or exaggerate some of the goings-on that may be -- that they feel we need to know about so that they can create news, so that they can -- I don't want to say cause panic or cause concern, but keep it top of mind in the public's eye so that they feel that we always need to be on edge when in actuality maybe we don't. Maybe we should all be living our lives and not being as concerned about it.
MS. CLARKE: So sort of a media frenzy-related --
JUROR: I think that has a lot to do with it.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Thank you.
On -- if we could go over now back to page 23 with the series of questions about the death penalty, and you do -- you're rather forthright about it may be warranted if the evidence proves it appropriate. And you indicated in 91, the next page, that "my views have remained the same."
Can you tell us a little bit about how you developed your views about the death penalty?
JUROR: I guess I don't really remember when they -- when they formed in my mind, but I feel that it's there for a reason and it's there to dissuade certain behaviors. And if a person does a thing that could include the death penalty, then it should be an option. It could be part of the decision-making process, whether that person is put to death or whether they're incarcerated for life. So as far as when that opinion started, I really don't remember, but, you know, it's there for a reason and I think you know it when you see it. You know when -- it needs to happen when you see it. It's hard to explain when that is, but when you know -- I'm sorry -- when you see it, you know it. And when it's proved, you know it's proved.
MS. CLARKE: I think I have that. When it's proved. Are you talking about when the crime is proved?
JUROR: No, it's proved in, I guess, a court of law.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Is the death penalty -- has it been a topic of conversation in your family or with colleagues?
JUROR: Not at all.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. All right.
I was interested in your analogy of you have a hobby of officiating sports -- good luck.
JUROR: Yeah. Thank you.
MS. CLARKE: Because usually the umpire's the one that's already in the middle.
JUROR: You can only satisfy 50 percent of the people.
MS. CLARKE: Right. Well, you're doing pretty good, I guess.
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: But I guess one of the major differences in that analogy is the death penalty, as I think the judge has instructed a couple of times, it's really not a matter of rules; it is aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the jury weighs them, but then it's really a reasoned, moral decision by each individual.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Object, your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: And I'll ask the question.
THE COURT: Yeah, ask the question.
MS. CLARKE: How do you think that that would fit with your sort of officiating and looking for rules? It's really not a --
JUROR: Well, I think the rules would have been established and enforced prior to that when the person was either found guilty or not guilty. Those were done through rules and by laws. I guess rules would be, in your case, laws. And at that point, then it's deciding whether to enforce the death penalty as part of enforcing that rule of guilt or not, having a lesser penalty, okay?
And if I can make an analogy, it would be giving a very, very, very stern warning, life imprisonment, versus ejection, which would be the death penalty.
MS. CLARKE: And those are discretionary calls with the official?
JUROR: A lot of times officials do have discretion to make those determinations, yes.
MS. CLARKE: And I guess that's what I'm wondering.
JUROR: And the phrase that we use is "in my judgment."
MS. CLARKE: As opposed to "the rule says X" or "the rule says Y"?
JUROR: There are times when the rules are not up to interpretation and times when they are.
MS. CLARKE: Okay.
THE COURT: Just for clarity, what kind of sports do you ref?
JUROR: Baseball, basketball and soccer.
MS. CLARKE: You're a busy guy.
JUROR: It can keep you very busy. It's kind of an advocation.
MS. CLARKE: Can I just have one moment?
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Let's just take a moment before the next -- this is where we have the newly filled-out pages. I just thought -- we'll just wait a second to absorb the...
(Pause.)
MR. BRUCK: This juror has a fair amount of -- well, I don't know if we need to go to sidebar or if I could just hand the Court the materials that you might want to be aware of.
(Pause.)
MR. BRUCK: And one other. There's one other document that I would note. I would note the date on this cover photo changed.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Mr. Bruck, do you have copies for us? Is that the only copy?
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry. I just realized that we have only one set for everybody. I apologize.
THE COURT: Where's the date?
MR. BRUCK: January 7th, which would be --
THE COURT: Where do I see it?
MR. BRUCK: On the photograph of the demonstration --
THE COURT: Oh.
MR. BRUCK: -- which would have been after the instructions. This may be an occasion to go back to questioning about events in Paris, among other things.
THE COURT: Was this the profile before?
MR. BRUCK: Yes.
THE COURT: And he changed it to this?
MR. BRUCK: It appears he changed it to that, yes.
THE COURT: It may be a change in a positive direction.
MR. BRUCK: Maybe so.
THE COURT: Have you seen it?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I haven't seen it, no.
MR. BRUCK: I apologize that we didn't have a set for everybody. [REDACTED]I just wanted the record to show --
THE COURT: Yeah, I saw it. I think there's no issue.
Do you know when -- I'll tell you what. Why don't we take a five-minute break so people don't feel rushed.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: No, we're all right.
THE COURT: You looked like you were discussing. I was going to give you a chance to do it.
So we'll ask about it.
MR. BRUCK: I think we just explore it, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 534.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 534.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would. Have a seat. Keep your voice up and make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance of the case with people?
JUROR: Yeah. I am getting questions about, you know, from --
THE COURT: Where you're going?
JUROR: Yeah, exactly. Why do you need to be at jury duty today as opposed to at a different time, but...
THE COURT: Okay. But that's just about the mechanics rather than the substance, right?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: And have you been able to, as much as you can, avoid media accounts of this case?
JUROR: Yeah. You see it come up, but you just keep moving.
THE COURT: Right. So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. You completed it this morning. There were some pages at the end --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Do you remember what the circumstance was that --
JUROR: The circumstances were that as people were finishing theirs, I dropped mine. And when I reassembled it, I lost my place, so...
THE COURT: Okay. But you had a chance to complete the last, I guess --
JUROR: Last few questions, yes.
THE COURT: -- 15 questions or so? So we're going to follow up on some of that.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: So tell us what you do in your work. You say you're a research director and you advise banks and vendors on technology trends?
JUROR: Right. It's the same question my family asks: What do you do? So I follow payment technology, so how money moves from Point A to Point B. And so I help banks and vendors understand what the trends are, but also what the technologies actually do, what the opportunities are and where some of the inefficiencies might be.
THE COURT: Okay. And how long have you been doing that?
JUROR: About ten years now.
THE COURT: It's an interesting specialty. How do you get into that?
JUROR: Interesting technology -- so I was a banker for ten years, went to an information security start-up for a few years after that, and from there went back to advising institutions and the vendors that serve them on how the technologies work and also what some of the pitfalls might be.
THE COURT: So this is more curiosity than germane, perhaps: Do you get involved in analyzing things like bitcoin?
JUROR: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. So I analyze it; I talk to clients about how they can use it, what some of the challenges might be. I was quoted in an article about how the Federal Reserve wants to use something like bitcoin for payment movement, for payment processing. It's a neat technology. It's got some challenges in terms of the money-laundering capabilities, but it's something that the industry just has to figure out.
THE COURT: Okay. At the bottom of page 10 and at the top of page 11 we asked a couple of questions about use of social media, blogs, websites and so on. Let's take them one by one.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Number 9 at the bottom of page 10, these are things more that you post on messages or opinions and so on. The company you work for has its own website, I guess?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And you post on that.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Regularly? Is that part of your --
JUROR: It's part of my job. Every couple of weeks or so I'll post something, whether it's an opinion, an observation or an event that's coming up.
THE COURT: Okay. And it says that -- I think it says you also tweet about those topics?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that, again, official or is that you in your personal capacity?
JUROR: It's -- it's in my official capacity, but my opinions are my own type of thing, so I will -- I will point out something that might be happening or provide an opinion on a particular technology or a particular development.
THE COURT: Okay. Then at the top of the next page we asked another question about social media which may be partly duplicative, but we're also looking to be more general, I think, in this question. Facebook and Twitter: You say you review daily and post episodically. Can you give us an idea what "episodically" is?
JUROR: Just, so a prime example, the snow we've been having, sharing a picture with my friends of how deep the snow is, you know, that much of our six-foot lamppost is still visible. But that's -- that's the nature of it.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you recall -- I assume you remember the events that underlie this case, the marathon events and so on and so forth?
JUROR: Yes. Sorry, yes.
THE COURT: Were you following those with some attention when they occurred?
JUROR: Honestly, it's hard not to. My office looks out on the finish line. And I was traveling the day of the incident, but it's hard not to follow given that where I live is just a few miles away.
THE COURT: Yeah. So as an analyst, you probably won't be surprised by the idea that the parties in the case look at people's Twitter accounts and Facebook?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: And it looks like you're fairly active retweeting during that period of time?
JUROR: Probably.
THE COURT: Do you remember it?
JUROR: Not specifically. More just reaction than anything else, I would assume. And probably especially during the shelter-in-place part of it. But that's -- but I have no specific memory and I didn't go back to -- didn't go back to check.
THE COURT: So what -- to the extent you can remember it, did that continue or was that fairly confined to the time that the events were happening and unfolding and so on and so forth?
JUROR: Confined to the time. Once the arrest was made, if I'm remembering correctly, it would have tapered off. There would be no need after that.
THE COURT: Do you remember whether you sheltered in place?
JUROR: I did.
THE COURT: Was that in Boston?
JUROR: In Milton.
THE COURT: In Milton? Okay.
And, again, I'm advised that you may have changed your -- I don't know what it's called, your --
JUROR: Oh, yeah, my picture.
THE COURT: From "B Strong" to something else?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Was that because you were nervous about the effect here?
JUROR: More just --
THE COURT: It was around that time, wasn't it?
JUROR: Yeah. And I wouldn't say nervous, just more trying to support my town and support the people who were injured. It's -- it was a trying time.
THE COURT: No. But I meant earlier this year, did you change it from a B Strong to a series of pencils?
JUROR: Oh, yeah. Yeah, the --
THE COURT: Did you have any thinking about that?
JUROR: Yeah, that was the -- I'm going to pronounce it -- but the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
JUROR: The idea that -- just that the three pencils is the -- here's how we -- how straight that we were, the pencil was the attack, and then the pencil being resharpened to say we're going to keep going.
THE COURT: Okay. It sounds like you pay attention to events in the world fairly attentively.
JUROR: Well, yes.
THE COURT: Is that right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Oh, I wanted to ask you about -- your father and stepmother are both attorneys?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What kind of law? Are they still practicing?
JUROR: They are still practicing.
THE COURT: What kind of law do they practice?
JUROR: My father -- my father practices tax and estate law, and my stepmother practices family law.
THE COURT: Page 18, Question 67, you indicate you know a little Russian and a little Arabic.
JUROR: Yeah. The -- let's see. Sorry, what page?
THE COURT: Page 18.
JUROR: So I went to Egypt, I went to Jordan and learned, you know, "water," count to five, that type of thing. Russian, a couple of words, a couple of phrases, but nothing...
THE COURT: When were you in Egypt and Jordan?
JUROR: Before 2014. I want to say 2000 -- no, I'm sorry. Before 2009. So maybe 2007, 2008, somewhere in there.
THE COURT: Were those business trips or personal?
JUROR: Personal. So sightseeing.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: In this question in multiple parts we asked you if you had -- based on things you'd seen and read about and so on, whether you'd formed various opinions whether the defendant was guilty or not, whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and you answered yes, you had formed an opinion about whether he was guilty.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And that he was guilty, right?
Then -- but you said you were unsure about the penalty questions. In the second part of the question, 77, we asked you if you answered yes to any of these questions, as you did to Part A, would you be able or unable to set aside that opinion and base your decision about guilt or punishment solely on the evidence presented at court, and you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: So sure. Part of what I do professionally is to form opinions, and sometimes those opinions are wrong based off of new facts, based on interpretations. So I've been wrong before. I could -- I'm sure I'll be wrong again. And so I looked at it from the standpoint of, yes, based off of what I'd seen, I had an opinion, but if the evidence shows otherwise, then I could consider it.
THE COURT: Okay. I'm sure you appreciate that in our criminal justice system a person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty, or innocent, of the crime unless the government proves him guilty by evidence at trial that convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he is, in fact, guilty. The burden of proving someone guilty is always with the government. The defendant has no responsibility to prove that he's not guilty, that he didn't commit the offense he's charged with.
Would you have any difficulty in applying those principles faithfully if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: No problems, no.
THE COURT: And that's notwithstanding any impressions or opinions you may have previously formed? You'd be able to put those aside and focus on the evidence in the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to look at page 21. You have a couple of Boston Strong -- I guess you said you have a blue and yellow marathon ribbon?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: A lapel thing?
JUROR: Yeah, the -- our annual conference took place right after the event, right after the marathon. And so one of our -- one of our sponsors had purchased the marathon ribbons for some of the analysts and gave them out -- gave them out to some of the attendees.
THE COURT: You said right after. Can you --
JUROR: Within a week. I think it was a week after.
THE COURT: And was that here in Boston?
JUROR: Yes, it was.
THE COURT: And the T-shirt you said also was a gift?
JUROR: Yes. And I did buy a B Strong cap. And one thing that I omitted, because I had forgotten about it, was within my church had provided space for a yard sale to benefit the Richard family. So that was -- that was sometime that summer.
THE COURT: Did you take part in the yard sale?
JUROR: I bought things at the yard sale.
THE COURT: Were you part of organizing it or anything?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So now this is the -- let me turn to page 23. Again, at Question 88 we asked a series of questions addressing issues about the death penalty, your views on it. 88 is a penalty question: If you have any views on the penalty, what are they? You said, "I don't have any views on the death penalty; however, I do believe there are situations where it is" --
JUROR: "Applicable." Sorry. I have terrible handwriting.
THE COURT: Do you want to say anything more about that or just --
JUROR: I am -- I'm against the taking of life in general, but there are -- I believe there are situations where that penalty is appropriate depending on whether it was heinous, whether it was cruel. And so while I wouldn't be thrilled with the situation of having to decide or having to opine, I do think that there is a moral responsibility to follow what's set out: Is that a penalty that is on the table, does it fit the nature of the act?
THE COURT: Okay. In Question 89 we asked you to put yourself on a scale from strongly opposed to strongly favor. You put yourself more or less in the middle, 6, neither in favor -- and you wrote in, "Neither in favor or opposed. Rather, the evidence should" -- is that "dictate"?
JUROR: Yes, "dictate whether it's imposed."
THE COURT: -- "dictate whether it is imposed."
And I guess that's similar to what you just said?
JUROR: Yes. Sorry.
THE COURT: If you'd look at page 24, Question 90, rather than on a numerical scale, here we asked you to see if there was a statement that you thought summed up your views adequately, and you selected D, which says you're not for or against the death penalty. You could vote to impose it or you could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release as you believe was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
Is that actually a --
JUROR: That's a fair summary, yes.
THE COURT: You heard me this morning earlier describe the penalty phase of a death penalty case if we get to that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And of course you get to it only if the jury has convicted somebody of a capital crime, so the person is guilty when you begin the consideration of the penalty. You appreciate that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And so there would be evidence of what the government would argue are aggravating factors that make this a particularly blameworthy crime that might, therefore, deserve a more serious punishment than usual, and you hear evidence of mitigating factors that might suggest that the death penalty is not an appropriate response but life imprisonment is more appropriate.
Would you be able to weigh all those things and make a judgment in either direction depending on how your weighing came out?
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: So you're not firmly predisposed to either outcome?
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Any follow-up?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Just one quick question about the last series that the judge asked you about. So if there is a death penalty phase in any death penalty case, not just this one, a juror is asked to weigh the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors that the judge described. As the judge instructed earlier, some of those mitigating factors might not be about the crime but might be about a defendant and his characteristics.
Would you be able to consider those as well as the facts of the crime in order to decide one way or the other and make your decision?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: That's all I have. Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's attorneys, and I've just got a few more follow-up questions, if that's okay.
JUROR: That's okay.
MR. BRUCK: The good news is that I'm the last one, I'm pretty sure.
I wonder if you could tell me -- you said your office is right at the finish line?
JUROR: No, not right at the finish line.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry.
JUROR: We could see the finish line from our office.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Is the building on Boylston Street?
JUROR: No, we recently moved our office, but the office we were in was on Arch Street.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. About how far from the finish line?
JUROR: A mile? I'm not sure. We could -- where we were, we could see right down Boylston Street.
MR. BRUCK: I see. You said you weren't there that day?
JUROR: Correct.
MR. BRUCK: Were coworkers -- was it a workday at your office?
JUROR: Yes, it was.
MR. BRUCK: Did people tell you when you got back to work about what the experience had been like?
JUROR: They shared what they saw. Yes, they did.
MR. BRUCK: So people saw the explosion from the office?
JUROR: Well, they saw the smoke and they saw the -- and they saw the lights from the emergency vehicles.
MR. BRUCK: And did people hear the explosions?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And you got back how soon -- you were out of town, is that --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And how soon did you get back to Boston after?
JUROR: A day or two.
MR. BRUCK: And people were talking about the -- their experience or what they had seen or -- when you got back to work?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And your family, what -- where were you when you first heard about the bombing?
JUROR: I was in an airport in between flights.
MR. BRUCK: Were there people you were concerned about that you wanted to check on or did check on?
JUROR: Yes, yes and yes. So I checked on my family to make sure they're fine. My wife doesn't work in Boston but my parents do, as does my brother.
MR. BRUCK: So you called to check on all of them?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: I imagine you felt some anxiety until you found out everybody was safe?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Did any of those people have any stories to report about what they had seen or heard or experienced as a result of the bombing that day?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think that's getting a little remote.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
I'd like to ask you now a little more about the 19th, the day of the manhunt, I guess you could call it.
If I'm recalling correctly, did you say you stayed home that day?
JUROR: I just remember the shelter-in-place order.
MR. BRUCK: That's what I meant. Right. And did that order affect you?
JUROR: I mean, we stayed home.
MR. BRUCK: You stayed home?
JUROR: Yeah. And I also have the benefit of telecommuting, so I took that option.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And did the shelter-in-place also affect your family?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Everyone stayed home?
JUROR: I believe so.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. The judge was asking you -- you know, this word "opinion" sometimes can get us a little thrown off, and I want to probe a little more deeply about an opinion in the case. What I'm getting at is that we form judgments about thousands of things that we hear about. We don't have all the evidence, but we hear something and we decide what we think about it or we -- and that's what I want to ask you about on the question of the death penalty in this case.
You said you don't generally favor it, but you think it has a place or you -- before you knew -- had any idea you were going to be sitting here or be a juror, did you have a sense about whether this was an appropriate case for the death penalty?
JUROR: I figured it would be on the table, and I figured that something like this it could be appropriate, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell me any more about that? Why did you think that?
JUROR: Sure. Attacks on children, attacks on innocence. That, to me, is an aggravating factor.
MR. BRUCK: Right. So how would you describe -- I mean, was that -- would you say you had made a provisional judgment, or is that not a good description of your state of mind?
JUROR: It was so remote at the time. The -- so as an analyst you start looking at what the options are or what the possibilities are.
MR. BRUCK: Right.
JUROR: The Commonwealth does not have a death penalty. A federal case -- if it became a federal case, it would. So it was more saying, Well, here are the possibilities. We'll see what happens.
MR. BRUCK: I see. But without any sense of which way you thought -- based on what you heard, what you knew, your opinions about the whole picture, did you have any sense of which way you thought it should go?
JUROR: I thought that if it was willful, if it was intentional, if it was intended to frighten, then, yeah, it could be -- it could be appropriate.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. You told the judge a little bit about the Charlie Hebdo expression of support. Is that whole sequence in the course -- and you may have followed subsequent attacks in Europe since then. Is that something that would affect your judgment about this case at all?
JUROR: No. I mean, the Charlie Hebdo case was freedom of speech. I see this as being different.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Bear with me just a moment.
JUROR: Yeah, sure.
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MR. BRUCK: We explored a little bit about your tentative views, I guess you would call them, about the punishment in a case like this. Have other people close to you, either at work or in your family, expressed opinions about what the punishment should be?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: No, if they expressed -- I'm --
MR. BRUCK: Expressed opinions to the juror.
THE COURT: Yeah, expressed to you.
JUROR: Sure. And it basically follows along the lines of what their view of the death penalty is.
MR. BRUCK: So that can you --
JUROR: Sure. If they were against the death penalty in all cases, then they would say life in prison; if they were for the death penalty, then they would say, well, you know, I think that that's what the outcome should be.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. I think that's all. Thank you so much.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 536.
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Let's have a brief sidebar.
COURT CLERK: Cut.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
THE COURT: I see what you're saying. It's a juvenile --
MS. CONRAD: Oh, I guess I hadn't picked up on that. I'm sorry. [REDACTED]so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay. Thanks.