2.Individual Voir Dire — Initial Juror Examinations (Part 1)
734 linesCOURT CLERK: Juror No. 612.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 612.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid discussing the merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: No. I mean, except my boss and, you know --
THE COURT: Let me ask -- listen to the question. Have you been able to avoid discussing the merits of the case?
JUROR: No -- yes -- no. I mean, I had to discuss it with my boss.
THE COURT: I see. The merits of the case, I'm not talking about the logistics.
JUROR: No, no.
THE COURT: The substance of the case, have you talked about that?
JUROR: No, did not.
THE COURT: Just about your having to be here.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's understandable. I told you at the time that you can do that.
Have you also been able to avoid media accounts?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you had when you were here and filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the information you gave us there. Let me begin by your employment. You're a registered nurse.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: At the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I guess my pages are slightly out of order here.
Tell us generally what your duties are as a nurse at that hospital.
JUROR: I work on the Oncology Department, which is on a -- located on the east campus. And it's -- we call our unit 11 Reisman, but it's pretty much oncology.
THE COURT: Okay. What do you do?
JUROR: I'm a staff nurse. I work 36 hours a week. Today was my scheduled day to work. We had to make a few switches and all of that.
THE COURT: If you were called to be a juror on the case, you know the schedule. We pointed it out in Question 10 if you want to take a look. It would be basically Monday through Thursday, 9 to 4.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Is that something you could adjust your schedule around?
JUROR: It will be tough on the staff, but -- you know, it will be very difficult because we do the schedule way ahead. Probably, like, the next three months the schedule is already predone.
THE COURT: I'm concerned about you individually, not about how it might impact others. Would you be able to have your 36 hours a week, for example?
JUROR: Not at work. I will not be able to do every Friday, Saturday, Sunday. I don't think I can do that.
THE COURT: Why?
JUROR: Just because, again, the schedule is predone, and there is people that will be there prefill the shifts. I'm not the schedule coordinator, so I can't -- I don't have control of -- we don't pick and choose the shift. It's done -- you know, we make a request, but somebody else will oversee that.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked jurors about their use of social media. You say you use Facebook a bit.
JUROR: Yes, Facebook.
THE COURT: For mostly personal reasons?
JUROR: Personal, yeah, social media.
THE COURT: Any professional-related use?
JUROR: No, no, no, not at all.
THE COURT: You had -- you've had experience in, I guess, a state case as a juror, a criminal case?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: July of last year, I remember -- if I remember right, yeah.
THE COURT: This last July?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where was it? What county or --
JUROR: Suffolk County.
THE COURT: So right up at Government Center?
JUROR: No. It was Roxbury, the courthouse in Roxbury.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Let me ask you to look at Page 77 -- I'm sorry, Page 20, Question 77. It's near the top of the page. It's a multiple part question in which we asked jurors to tell us whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the media or otherwise, you had formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should receive the death penalty or not. To each of those subparts of the question, you answered you're not sure. Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: I mean, the question, it's just pretty much what you have read in the news media. It looks like, you know, it was one-way direction. And maybe I would be -- you know, it was just what the media was saying.
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: But the evidence are pretty much very strong. And I guess I did not form my opinion just based on that, but there is more evidence, of course.
THE COURT: What other evidence than what you saw in the media?
JUROR: You know, maybe -- it was only one way, the guilty, pretty much. That's it. That's what happened.
THE COURT: So you have that impression from the media; is that what you're telling us?
JUROR: I guess so, yeah. That's --
THE COURT: There was a second part to the question which you didn't answer because technically it called for only if you had answered yes. But it did ask whether, if you had formed an opinion -- which I guess you're saying now you did. In other words, the not sure is not exactly --
JUROR: The way that the question was presented maybe I was not sure, you know.
THE COURT: Will you answer it now that -- as to (a), for example, that you have an opinion that he is guilty?
JUROR: Yeah, I think he's guilty, yes.
THE COURT: So down in the second part of the question, it says, if you had answered yes to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt only on the evidence produced at trial. You didn't answer that question, but I wonder if you could answer it now.
JUROR: Can I read the question again, the second part?
THE COURT: Yeah, take your time. Take your time.
JUROR: Not at this point anymore. I don't think I could be able to do that.
THE COURT: You understand, in our criminal justice system, a person is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless the government proves at trial by the evidence that the person is guilty and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt? Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: Actually, you probably applied them in the criminal case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The question would be, in this case, whether you would be able to set aside any impressions you had from the media or otherwise and listen to the evidence in the case and base your decision about whether the defendant is guilty or not based on that evidence in the case only?
JUROR: I don't think I could.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 617.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 617.
COURT CLERK: 617, over here, ma'am. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And also avoid media accounts as much as --
JUROR: As much as I could, yeah. It's kind of hard sometimes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the information you gave us there. I'd like to first start with your employment. You tell us that you're a self-employed copy editor.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What does that mean?
JUROR: That means I read really boring technical manuals and make sure that everyone else can understand them, you know, check spelling and --
THE COURT: Are you -- is this a free-lance kind of thing?
JUROR: Yes, uh-huh.
THE COURT: How do you get your work?
JUROR: Luckily, I've got a couple of companies that I've done enough work for that they hire me all the time. So it's kind of full time, almost full time.
THE COURT: How are you paid? By the piece? By the time you spend on it?
JUROR: By the job. It's a flat rate by the job.
THE COURT: We had asked -- we had set out earlier in the questionnaire, on Page 5, Section 10 -- Question 10, the schedule that we're going to follow, which will be basically a weekly four-day-a-week, Monday through Thursday, 9 to 4 and so on. And we asked if, on that schedule, you thought you'd incur a substantial hardship if you were called to serve on the case. Given that you're self-employed, would that be an issue for you?
JUROR: Yeah, it would.
THE COURT: Could you tell us how much of one?
JUROR: I would be missing out on quite a bit of money.
THE COURT: What's your usual workweek like?
JUROR: That's a good question. Usually, I work, like, five days a week if I have work. Sometimes I don't have work at all. But in this case, I have work coming up in a couple of weeks, and it's going to go for a good six to eight weeks, the work itself.
THE COURT: I guess we structured the schedule in part to give people at least one full weekday and then time in the -- later in the day after jury service, maybe in the evenings work on things. Would that help at all?
JUROR: Yeah. I could work in the evening and on the weekend.
THE COURT: Would you be able to keep up with your work if you did that?
JUROR: It would be really difficult.
THE COURT: How come? Tell us a little bit about that.
JUROR: Because the work comes in daily, and they expect two sections done a day, so that's 14 sections in one week. And that's a good six hours of work on two pieces. So I would be getting home and working until, like, 11:00 at night and then getting up and coming in here.
THE COURT: Content? Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Oh, sure.
THE COURT: That's it.
JUROR: That's it?
THE COURT: That's it.
JUROR: Oh, thank you. Have a nice day. I'm going home.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 619.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 619.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: You don't have to get that close but that was good.
Since you were here last, have you been able to avoid discussing the merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: No, no. My husband. He's the only one I've told.
THE COURT: Told about your being here. I'm talking about the substance of the case.
JUROR: Oh, no, no.
THE COURT: Just about your scheduling here?
JUROR: Yeah. And just, like, my manager, too. I said I had to go to court.
THE COURT: How about have you been able to avoid media reporting about the case?
JUROR: Pretty much so.
THE COURT: Yeah. If you see anything, are you able to put it away?
JUROR: Yeah. I'm not reading it, no.
THE COURT: Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I work in Shaw's Supermarket.
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: What I do?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Produce clerk in Shaw's Supermarket.
THE COURT: So what does that involve?
JUROR: Cutting up fruit and doing all that stuff. I don't know if you know. We have new owners, and they're just, like, ridiculous with all the stuff. They cut the help, and they want you to do this, that, and -- yeah.
THE COURT: How are you paid? On an hourly basis?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We set out the schedule earlier in the form. If you want to look at it, it's on Page 5 in Question 10. In summary, we plan to be on a 9-to-4 schedule, Monday through Thursday. That will last for several months likely. How would that affect you and your employment?
JUROR: Financially, I couldn't do it, no, because my work only pays three days. They only pay me three days jury duty and that's it.
THE COURT: What's your usual weekly schedule like?
JUROR: I usually work between 30 and 33 hours a week.
THE COURT: What days?
JUROR: I have Thursdays and Saturdays off. So Sunday through -- yup.
THE COURT: Okay. Any issue? Okay. Thank you. That's it.
JUROR: That's it?
THE COURT: Yup.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 621.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 621.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Your Honor. How are you?
THE COURT: Good. Have you been able to avoid any discussion of the merits of the case with anyone since you were last here?
JUROR: I have been, yeah.
THE COURT: How about avoiding media reports about the case?
JUROR: Headlines, no; details, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. You've been able to ignore it if you saw that it was about this case.
JUROR: To the best of my knowledge of it, yes.
THE COURT: Tell us about your work, what you do and so on.
JUROR: I'm an internal auditor for State Street. I basically assess processes for risk and try to find the controls that mitigate them and prove their existence or effectiveness and report it to the board and senior management of the company.
THE COURT: You've been doing that for several years?
JUROR: Three years, nine months.
THE COURT: I think you told us -- this is later in the questionnaire, on Page 26, Question 98 -- that you travel extensively for work. Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Correct, yes. I do travel for work because we are centralized out of Boston, and we do have offices across the globe. I was just in China. I do have to go to a conference in South Florida for anti-money laundering, March 16th through the 18th.
THE COURT: Any others that you can predict at this point?
JUROR: Potentially London in June. That's still to be determined.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked about Facebook or social media use. You post a little bit; you send happy birthday wishes and things like that.
JUROR: Happy birthday wishes and where I am, that's about it.
THE COURT: And some also, I guess rare, you say, Twitter and Instagram.
JUROR: Very seldom.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay. You told us that your father, some time ago, was an assistant U.S. attorney?
JUROR: That's correct, in South Florida.
THE COURT: South Florida.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do you know whether his concentration was on criminal matters or civil matters?
JUROR: Not a hundred percent sure.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked some interesting personal data, and we see that your grandmother, you said, was Muslim.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: It's put in the past tense. Is she deceased?
JUROR: She's deceased.
THE COURT: Did you know her?
JUROR: Yeah, I knew her.
THE COURT: I mean, sometimes -- one of my grandmothers had passed before I was born. That's why I asked.
How was your relationship with her? Tell us about her background. Where was she from originally?
JUROR: She was from Guyana originally. At the time it was a British colony. Then they migrated up to North America, and that's really about it. I don't really know much about her work experience or job responsibilities, but she was a mother of ten.
THE COURT: Your father's side or your mother's side?
JUROR: Mother's side.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to Page 20 of your questionnaire, Question 77, near the top.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: In that question, we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the news or else -- from other sources, you'd formed an opinion about certain matters, whether the defendant was guilty or not, whether he should receive the death penalty or not. You checked "yes." Let's just focus on (a) and (b) for a minute. You checked "yes," you had an opinion that he was guilty; and, no, that you do not have an opinion that he was not guilty. You similarly answered (c) and (d) about the penalty. Below that, we asked, if you had answered yes to any of the questions, as you did to (a) and (c), would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about the guilt and punishment solely on the evidence presented in court? And you checked the box "able."
JUROR: I think I would be able to, but I do have my prenotions. I would require a severe amount of convincing.
THE COURT: You understand, in our criminal justice system, that a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of a crime.
JUROR: Understand.
THE COURT: Unless the government --
JUROR: Proves guilty.
THE COURT: -- proves the person guilty at trial by the evidence produced at trial and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you think you would have difficulty applying those principles in this case?
JUROR: I think potentially, yes.
THE COURT: You think you would require the defendant to prove that he wasn't guilty?
JUROR: Guilty of the crime? That would require a lot to prove not guilty.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 623.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 623.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here -- you can adjust it, sure. Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And have you, as well as you could, avoided media accounts of what's -- about the case or proceedings here?
JUROR: I think so, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. We have the questionnaire that you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the information you gave us there. Why don't you tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I work at Boston Scientific. I'm an engineer.
THE COURT: What -- tell us a little bit --
JUROR: I work in the Equipment Maintenance Group, and we support the research and development laboratories there. I generate procedures to validate equipment so that the data generator from that equipment can be used to support regulatory findings for submissions for medical devices.
THE COURT: You've -- we asked -- if you want to follow along, this is on Page 10. You said you have -- Question 28, we asked about whether you'd published, and you said -- you put "scientific papers and patents." Can you give us a little information about that?
JUROR: Well, from the time that I was in graduate school, I've written a number of papers submitted to scientific journals. Mostly been biochemistry, describing immobilized enzymes. I've generated patents for similar things to be applied to medical devices. I've contributed technical work to publications for enzyme -- or controlled delivery -- controlled drug delivery devices. There was a company in Cambridge called Alchemy. I did a lot of work where we developed a product that was designed to treat children of short stature with human growth hormones so that they could get an injection once a month rather than every day or whatever the more frequent protocols required. There's patents that I've written -- that's a little bit of an overstatement maybe. I have the ideas, and then the company I work with now, Boston Scientific, has a group, a legal group, that helps put those into a form that can be submitted for a patent application.
THE COURT: Are you listed as an inventor on patents?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How many?
JUROR: Two at this point. I have several applications.
THE COURT: What are the subject matters?
JUROR: One of them is immobilized enzymes on the surface of a medical device in the -- the enzyme would be used to catalyze the reaction or treatment of some medical conditions. So, for example, you could have an enzyme attached to a stent that would degrade cholesterol. Someone that -- I mean, some of these things wouldn't actually work, but there are -- it would take quite a bit of development to actually get something like that to work. That would be the sort of the things that would be --
THE COURT: You have some pending as well?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Similar area?
JUROR: Similar, yeah, medical device and biochemistry --
THE COURT: Biochemical interface?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just -- before we go on about you, we asked a little family information. You tell us your wife is retired. What field of work was she in?
JUROR: She was a medical transcriptionist for the State of Rhode Island, and then she worked for the Department of Environmental Management in Rhode Island for the Investigative Division. So they would investigate the toxic waste dumps that people did in.
THE COURT: Okay. Back to you and back to Page 10. At the bottom we asked about posting messages on websites or blogs or things like that. And I guess you say you use Facebook for personal matters and LinkedIn for professional matters as well, I guess. Is that pretty much a summary?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: On Page 14 now, Question 43, we asked whether you or family member or a close friend had ever been treated unfairly by a law enforcement officer. You wrote, "Foster son harassed by police." Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JUROR: I had a -- we had a foster son who stayed with us for about five years. He was Haitian. He was placed with us when he was a teenager, and he had had no real parental involvement until that time, so he was kind of a challenge. But, you know, he got older. And then I know that we were in a neighborhood where we were the only Caucasians. So we were kind -- we kind of stood out. You just see things that happen to people, sort of like what's in the news today. You know, I knew [REDACTED], and, you know, I knew the circumstances that he may have been in at the time. And, you know, the police would just -- just picked them out and bother them just because they were -- I don't know. The term that people use now is "driving while being black."
THE COURT: Would any of those experiences or feelings interfere with your ability to be a fair juror in a case where the prosecution is presenting evidence through police officers?
JUROR: I don't think so. I mean, I don't think -- that doesn't seem to be relevant to this.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question 77, near the top. It's a multiple part question. We asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the news or learned from other sources, had you formed an opinion about various matters, (a), whether the defendant was guilty, and you said "yes"; and (c) and (d) about the death penalty. Let me ask you particularly about question Subpart (a). If you see down below, the question goes on. "If you answered yes, to any of these questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt based solely on the evidence presented to you in court?" And you selected "able." Could you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, in reading that question, it seemed to me that the question had to do with whether he was guilty or not and not about the consequences of guilt. And, you know, I'm not sure -- so that's how I answered it.
THE COURT: Right. So the question is -- it's not surprising that given the coverage of this -- these events that people have ideas and impressions about what happened and who's responsible. The question is whether, if you were a juror in the case, you would be able to put those to the side and decide the issues in the case based on the evidence produced in the course of the trial and not on preconceived ideas about guilt or not or appropriateness of a particular punishment or not. So I'm not sure --
JUROR: I'm not sure. I said I am guessing that I can. It's kind of -- after reading this and thinking about it after that on that day, it seemed like kind of an intangible thing. There's no real measure of whether you can or not. You just say you can or -- I don't know.
THE COURT: Right. I think you told us -- these pages are out of order. Actually, I'm missing Page 15.
MR. WEINREB: It's, I believe, later on.
THE COURT: I see it. Thanks.
You say you sat on a state jury case for a drug dealer. Do you remember when that was?
JUROR: It was when I lived in Rhode Island, probably it was 1989.
THE COURT: Okay. At any rate, I expect you understand that in our criminal justice system a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at trial and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt. What we ask jurors to do, even if they have an impression about guilt or innocence going in, we ask them to put aside that -- those thoughts and pay attention to the evidence produced at the trial and make a decision based solely on that body of evidence.
The government has the burden of proof to prove that a person is guilty. A person accused of a crime never has any burden to prove he's not guilty. In other words, it's not a question of which side has convinced me. It's has the government convinced me that he's guilty of what he's charged with? Do you think that, if you were a juror in this case, you would be able to do that notwithstanding the fact that you have some impressions from the media?
JUROR: I think so, yeah.
THE COURT: If, in particular, with respect to any of the particular charges, if you thought, after considering all the evidence that as to a particular charge you were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed that offense, would you be able to find him not guilty of that offense?
JUROR: I think so. I was -- had imagined that some other events could be presented that hasn't been in the news, and that might say that he wasn't guilty.
THE COURT: Or --
JUROR: So you would have to --
THE COURT: My question is whether the government's evidence might not just be convincing enough on any particular charge.
JUROR: It's possible.
THE COURT: If you were in that condition, would you be able to vote not guilty on that?
JUROR: I hadn't really thought about it in that way. But if I say that I can set aside whatever I've heard to this point in time, then I would have to say yes to that question.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked -- this is on 21. Again, the pages got jumbled a little bit. I don't know if it's in your copy. It's Question 82, whether you had participated in any of the post-event support activities that people had been doing. And you said you think you made a donation to the One Fund.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: Shortly after the event. That had been talked about a lot in the news. And I didn't go back to look and see if I did or not, but I'm pretty sure that I did.
THE COURT: Question 85, you recognized a name on the list, No. 314. I have the list here if you want to look at it.
JUROR: Yeah. When I was looking over this list -- I know a lot of athletes and a lot of people I know that run. I thought that maybe I would see someone's name in there. And I don't know if this person is a competitor but -- I don't know if it's the same person, but there's somebody from work that has that same name.
THE COURT: Somebody who works at --
JUROR: He's not there now, but I worked with him.
THE COURT: Okay. How closely do you know him?
JUROR: I knew him name, and we were on some groups together. I didn't really ever have a lot of interaction with him other than at meetings.
THE COURT: Is it the kind of person you would give extra weight to his testimony over other witnesses just because you've had the past experience with him?
JUROR: Probably, because I know -- if it's -- if that was the person that came up, I know him, and I know his work.
THE COURT: You talked about running competitively. Do you do that?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Or did you?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: No. How do you know people who do that?
JUROR: Well, I do a lot of bike riding, and I know a lot of other endurance athletes. I know people who have run the Marathon.
THE COURT: But you haven't?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23, we asked a series of questions to gauge potential jurors' ideas about the death penalty. In Question 88, we asked a general question. Do you have any general views about it? And you said, "Against using the death penalty." Do you want to explain that a little bit?
JUROR: Yes. I've always -- well, as long as -- since I've read about it, I've been against it. I don't think it's -- you can't undo it. That's just wrong, I think, for the state to do it. I don't know. I don't really have a -- I've never really had an opportunity to talk about it, and I'm not sure if I have coherent thoughts about it. But I just don't think that it's right for the state to do the same thing to the person found guilty as the person had done himself.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question, 89, we asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 was strongly opposed, reflecting a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed; and 10, on the other hand, reflects a belief it should be imposed whenever a defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder. You selected 2. Can you tell us what you thought as you did that?
JUROR: I guess I'm thinking someone that's strongly opposed that would be writing editorials to the newspaper and conducting a campaign against it.
THE COURT: Actually, it's a defined term. If you look above, it says --
JUROR: Maybe I didn't read it carefully.
THE COURT: It says, "1 reflects a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed." And I guess that means under any circumstances. And 10 represents the opposite, sort of absolute, view that it should always be imposed when someone has been convicted of murder. So in light of that, could you explain your thinking behind choosing No. 2?
JUROR: So it might look like there are some situations when I would find it acceptable? Is that the --
THE COURT: That's what I'm asking. Do you think that's the case or not?
JUROR: I suppose there's maybe a case out there, but I haven't seen it. I mean, I haven't seen everything so --
THE COURT: Let's look at the next page. Here we asked it not in numbers but in words. There were a series of statements proposed, and we asked if you could tell us if there was one that represented your view. Why don't you take a minute to read through all of them, and then we'll talk about --
JUROR: Question 90?
THE COURT: Question 90, yeah. After you've read through, we're going to ask about your selection.
JUROR: I don't know. I think (b) is still the right answer.
THE COURT: Okay, that you are opposed to it and would have a difficult time voting to impose it even if the facts supported it.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: In the next question, we asked if your views had changed over ten years, and you wrote "more opposed." Does that mean you grew more opposed to the death penalty over the last ten years?
JUROR: Yeah, I think so.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why you think you --
JUROR: I guess I can think of one example and it was probably recently. They are having a hard time actually administering the death penalty. The states can't find the drug cocktails to actually do it. And it seems like it's in some ways it's a theoretical thing. If they can't actually kill somebody, how can you actually assign it? What's the point of assigning it if you can't execute it?
THE COURT: Just to finish up, look at the bottom of Page 25, Question 95. We asked, if you found this defendant guilty and you decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you answered "no."
JUROR: Yeah. I mean --
THE COURT: Let me -- before I ask you to explain that, let me call your attention to Question 99, where you wrote -- this was, "Did you have any problems reading or understanding the questionnaire?" And you wrote, "Question 95 seemed contradictory." Do you remember what --
JUROR: Yeah. I remember writing that. I'm not sure if I was fatigued from answering all those questions. Let me read it again.
Yeah. It seemed contradictory because, if you decide the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, if it was the right thing to do, then that's the same as voting for it. You can't vote for something that you think that is a wrong thing to do.
THE COURT: So -- right. So you answered "no," though. So --
JUROR: All right.
THE COURT: Were you rejecting the premise? Is that what --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You didn't think you could find it was the appropriate punishment; is that what you're saying?
JUROR: I guess there's probably two ways you could answer this. Could I vote for the death penalty? No. And would I ever decide that this was the appropriate punishment, would be no.
THE COURT: All right. Follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors.
So if you don't mind, I just want to follow up on a couple things you just said.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: So with respect to Question No. 95, did I understand you correctly that, regardless of which way you interpreted it, your answer to that would be no?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Meaning that you couldn't find that it was the appropriate penalty, correct?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
JUROR: I don't think I would change what I said. I think the ways I looked at it are -- so the answer is no.
MR. WEINREB: No to Question 95?
JUROR: I'm not sure I understand your --
MR. WEINREB: Let me just ask the question right out. Could you conscientiously -- here we're talking about not as a theoretical possibility but as an actual reality. Could you ever find that it was the right thing to do, to impose the death penalty on another human being?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: And if, theoretically, intellectually, you decided it was appropriate, could you take the next step and actually vote to put someone to death?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: I have nothing further.
MS. CONRAD: No questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you very much, sir. That's it. Just leave the questionnaire there.
COURT CLERK: 628.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 628.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
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: And, as best as you could, have you been able to put aside or avoid media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So we're going to ask you about some of the things you wrote in the questionnaire just to follow up on some of the answers you gave.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Actually, let's start with a short sidebar, if we could.
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: Are the other two --
MR. WEINREB: These are members of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
[REDACTED]
. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Right. Okay.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 634.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 634.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning, Judge.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the merits or the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Have you been able to, as best you could, to avoid media reporting about the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: All right. Tell us about your work.
JUROR: I work at -- when you say tell you about my work, meaning?
THE COURT: What do you do?
JUROR: I'm a receptionist/administration.
THE COURT: At a law firm?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You've been doing that for quite awhile?
JUROR: Fifteen years. And I was told to let you know that when I spoke to you.
THE COURT: Which?
JUROR: To let you know that I work for a law firm.
THE COURT: Right. We had that in the -- you told us that in the form. Does that indicate that the firm is concerned about your serving as a juror?
JUROR: Not at all. The fact that I was told to mention that I work for a law firm that is representing the little boy's family. And I did not know that because I'm in administration. I'm not --
THE COURT: You're talking about Martin Richard?
JUROR: The little boy, yes, sir. And I was told to let you know that. That's not something I -- through whispers, through the firm --
THE COURT: That's an important thing for us to know.
JUROR: It's very important.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. That's it.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 637.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 637.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning, Judge.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes, I have. I've avoided it.
THE COURT: And also avoid media reporting about the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have. I've avoided it.
THE COURT: Turn it to the side?
JUROR: I turn it to the side, yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay, great. We have the form that you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the information that you gave us there.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: We see that you're a teacher.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And you indicated that -- in the question about whether it would be a difficult thing for you to serve, you indicated you would not have any hardship beyond the usual in serving, is that correct?
JUROR: This would not be a hardship for me.
THE COURT: Your wife is a nurse?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where does she practice her nursing?
JUROR: She works at Rhode Island Hospital.
THE COURT: Rhode Island Hospital. Is that in Providence, Pawtucket?
JUROR: It is, yes.
THE COURT: Providence?
JUROR: Providence. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: How many years has she been there?
JUROR: Over 20. She's been there for a few.
THE COURT: Any specialty?
MR. BRUCK: She works on the neurosurgical floor so brain aneurysms, anything dealing with the brain or the spine.
THE COURT: As a staff nurse on the floor?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You're a graduate of UMass Dartmouth?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: What year?
JUROR: I have to stop and think because I took a little extra time. I believe 1991, 1992.
THE COURT: You know that there's some involvement of UMass Dartmouth and its personnel in the case?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: As an alumnus, would that cause you any difficulty about being an impartial juror?
JUROR: No, sir, it wouldn't.
THE COURT: We've asked people about social media. You seem to use Facebook but not very often.
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Any others?
JUROR: I recently deleted my Twitter account after it was made apparent that some of my students were going on there to see my postings. So I -- upon the request of my principal, I deleted that account. It was nothing bad, but I just --
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: A couple of months ago. But I normally --
THE COURT: Prior to that, how did you use your Twitter account?
JUROR: Basically to look up information about sports or entertainment or things like that.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to turn to Page 20, Question No. 77, near the top.
JUROR: Can I take that off?
THE COURT: Sure, absolutely.
JUROR: Which question?
THE COURT: Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: It's a multipart question. We asked, based on things you'd seen or heard in the media you'd formed an opinion about the various matters.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: As to Part (a), you indicated that, yes, you had formed an opinion about his guilt.
JUROR: That's just the information I received from the media. That's what -- the opinion I formed, yes.
THE COURT: As to the death penalty, you said "unsure," "unsure," as to either alternative there.
JUROR: Would you like me to speak on that?
THE COURT: We'll come to that. I want to focus on the first one first. You answered "yes" to Part (a).
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Further down we asked, "If you answered yes to any of these questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about," in this instance, "guilt solely on the evidence that would be presented to you in court?" And you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes, I would.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: The information that I received from the media is all that I had, and I never really took into account that I would be asked to either use or not use that information. So just from what I received, that's what I believed.
Upon being called upon for jury service, I realized that there's more to the case, and I would have to see that in order to really understand what's going on before I could actually make a -- form an opinion on that.
THE COURT: I'm sure you appreciate that in our criminal justice system a person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of the charged crime unless and until the government proves the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the evidence at trial. You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: Yes, sir. I'm familiar with them, yes.
THE COURT: What we ask jurors to do, if they have some idea before sitting as a juror, to put those ideas aside and to face -- to concentrate only on the evidence produced in the trial and make the judgments based on that body of information and not on what they think they might have heard from other places.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is that something you think you would be able to do?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: You understand that a defendant never has any burden to prove he's not guilty of what he's charged with. The government always has the burden to prove guilt. It's up to the government to prove that. If it does, it's entitled to a verdict of guilty. But if it doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted. If that were the case on any particular charges, that you thought the government had not carried its burden of proof, would you be able to find the defendant not guilty as to that matter?
JUROR: I believe I would, yes.
THE COURT: In the next question, you said -- you mentioned your wife. You're against the death penalty but not sure if you would still be, meaning in this case -- is that with reference to this case or generally?
JUROR: I believe that would be generally. I -- personally, I don't feel that the death penalty is morally right. But, once again, I've never really been called upon to demonstrate that or asked to support that. So I don't really know how I would vote in that situation or what the circumstances would be. I would hope that I would follow the guidelines that I feel -- that I put down there, but I really can't say until I see all the evidence.
THE COURT: Let's go to Page 23. Question 88, beginning there, we asked a series of questions about the death penalty. In Question 88, we asked a general question. If you have general views about the death penalty, what are they? You said, "Ethically, I'm against the death penalty, but I don't know how I would vote after this trial." And I guess that's somewhat ambiguous because it could mean you might change your general views about the death penalty, or it could mean you have some idea about how you might approach the question in this trial specifically apart from your general views. Could you help us with what you were thinking?
JUROR: Yeah. As far as the death penalty goes, I -- as I stated before, I feel that it's wrong. But I really don't know, after seeing the evidence of what's happened, whether or not that will be tested. Once again, I'd like to hope that I will follow through on what I originally feel, but I -- I cannot honestly say that I'm going to vote one way or another.
THE COURT: In the next question, 89, we asked you to place yourself on a numerical scale where 1, strongly opposed, represents a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed under any circumstances; and 10, on the other hand, would be a belief that it should be imposed whenever a defendant is convicted of intentional murder. You put yourself at 3. Can you explain that? It's a little hard to explain a numerical scale.
JUROR: But I understand what you're saying. If I were to do this scale without these proceedings, I probably would have gone a lot higher towards -- actually, I have to stop and take a look. I probably would have gone a lot lower than 3. With these proceedings, once again, I feel it's more I'm going to be tested. I hope, if the situation does come up, that I will follow what I feel is right. But I can't give you a definite answer of, yes, I'll go one way or the other.
THE COURT: Let's go to Page 24 and Question 90. That question set forth a series of possible views about the death penalty and whether a person could support it or not. We asked -- why don't you take a minute to read through all of the options. We asked you to select one you thought applied to you. You made a selection. After you've reviewed them all, let's talk about that.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: So you selected (c). Do you think that still represents your view the best of the options presented?
JUROR: After reviewing the options and having more time to contemplate this, I would probably today have selected letter (b).
THE COURT: So (b) is, "I'm opposed to the death penalty and would have a difficult time voting to impose it even if the facts supported it."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: That's different from what you selected, which was, you thought you could vote for it if you believe the facts and the law in the particular case called for it. So you think that is not fully representative of your thinking on the matter?
JUROR: I would go with (b). I think it's -- it would be a difficult decision either way. And I really don't feel that it would be fair for me to say I'm ruling out anything.
THE COURT: You're not choosing (a), which is the never question?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: In no case.
So I guess the question is: Are you realistically open to voting to impose it, or are you sort of hypothetically open to it or uncertain or -- I'm trying to gauge. This is fine grading, obviously, between (a), (b), and (c). We're just trying to understand where your thinking is.
JUROR: Honestly, as an English teacher, I'm afraid of the word "never." I don't think that there's a situation where the word "never" could really come into play as an English teacher. That just automatically -- I rule that out automatically. It is between (b) and (c). Really it's a close line. After thinking about this -- and I have thought about it -- I would probably lean more towards (b), that it would be very difficult. But, once again, I can't rule it out.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Page 25, Question 95.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: In that question, we said -- asked, if you found the defendant guilty and if you thought the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty? And you wrote "not sure." Tell us a little bit about that.
JUROR: I believe that answer still holds true. I really -- until I am faced -- until I face that road, I can't honestly tell you which way I would go. Once again, ethically, I would hope that I would lean towards not implementing the death penalty; but until I get to that point, I really can't say.
THE COURT: So you're an English teacher, so you'll note that the question is a little awkward because one of the premises is that you decided the death penalty was appropriate, and then the question was could you conscientiously vote for it under that circumstance.
JUROR: Are you asking me to correct the grammar or understand the question?
THE COURT: It presents -- it sort of asks you to accept that you've made a decision, and then asks whether you can execute on it, I guess, is really what it's asking.
JUROR: I see. You're asking me if I could consciously do that -- conscientiously do that. I don't know. I'm sorry. I wish I had a better answer for you, but I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you, your Honor. Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. WEINREB: For another minute or two. My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
I just want to follow up on some of these questions about the death penalty. So turning back to Page 23, Question 88.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: So you essentially wrote there that you believe the death penalty is unethical.
JUROR: That's correct. That's how I felt before this happened.
MR. WEINREB: And you no longer believe it's unethical?
JUROR: No. I do. I'm sorry. I do believe that it is unethical.
MR. WEINREB: Then I thought I heard you say just now, you would say ethically -- when the judge was asking you if you could impose it, you said, Ethically, I hope I would not impose it.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Would it be unethical to impose the death penalty, is that --
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead.
JUROR: I would have a very difficult time to impose it. It would be -- I don't really know how I would feel afterwards. And I have thought about this a lot. One of my -- if I could kind of digress a little bit, one of my favorite books is To Kill a Mockingbird. I've been coming back to this book a lot with Atticus Finch, whose moral dilemma -- I'm sure you're all familiar with the story -- his moral dilemma of what he feels he has to do for what's right. He sticks to his guns. I've always aspired to him, and I hope that I can still do that. But I can't -- I don't know if I could do that.
MR. WEINREB: So what would -- what could cause you to do something that, again, you think is unethical?
JUROR: The evidence in the case and the -- the evidence that's presented in the case. I don't really know how that will affect me, if that will change my feeling towards the death penalty.
MR. WEINREB: So you would need the evidence in the case to change your feelings about the death penalty in order to be able to vote for it?
JUROR: That might be the case. I don't -- I've never had to take a decision like this, so I don't really know how I'm going to respond.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thoughtful people give thoughtful answers. I understand that you're thinking a lot about this. But what we're trying to ask you to do here really is to determine if, realistically, in a death penalty case, you could really consider voting for the death penalty and then imposing it if you believe that it's unethical. And that's the question.
JUROR: The question is I will consider it. I will consider both sides to it, absolutely.
MR. WEINREB: All right. And what -- let me ask you again then. So I'm a little -- I'm still a little unclear on whether what you're saying is that you would have to be convinced by evidence in the case to change your ethical beliefs about the death penalty, go from believing that it's unethical to believing that it's ethical in order to impose it.
JUROR: I never thought I would be asked these questions in my life, and so it -- I don't really know how to answer that question. I don't. I would like to -- I think that I could go either way on it, and that kind of troubles me because I always thought a certain way. But now that I'm in a situation, I don't really know which way I would go. Once again, from previous years, I would have thought against the death penalty, but I really can't say that now.
MR. WEINREB: Why is that?
JUROR: Because I don't really know the situation, and I don't -- and I want to do what is right for the law and for everyone. So I'm having a hard -- struggling with that.
MR. WEINREB: You understand that the law never requires anyone to vote for the death penalty.
JUROR: I understand that.
MR. WEINREB: So -- and the law doesn't require you to change your ethics about something.
JUROR: I understand that, too.
MR. WEINREB: So -- but it does require you to be able to consider the death penalty as a real possibility along with life imprisonment without parole.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. WEINREB: So, again, let me return to the question that I asked before and ask you: Would you have come to the -- would the evidence have to persuade you that the death penalty was an ethical thing to do?
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: No. Overruled.
MS. CONRAD: Well, the form, your Honor, and, also, it's unclear whether it's this case or generally.
MR. WEINREB: Well, if you were to sit in a capital case, not necessarily this one, any capital case, would you have to hear evidence to persuade you that the death penalty was ethical and not unethical in order to be able to really consider it?
JUROR: I think that this is bringing up whether or not I actually believe that the death penalty is ethical or not. I think that's where this is going for me personally. That's where it is.
MR. WEINREB: You believe it's unethical?
JUROR: I'd have to -- I'm considering it. I'm -- everything that's coming up, I'm considering what my beliefs are, and that's why I have a hard time saying I'm either for it or against it right now. That's why.
MR. WEINREB: Can I just ask you about something else for a minute? Could you turn to Page 22?
JUROR: 22?
MR. WEINREB: Yes, Question 85.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Excuse me one second.
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. WEINREB: You mentioned that you know the witness who was identified as No. 7.
JUROR: Yes. Actually, that was -- that was a mistake. I know another person who has a very close name to that, and I was -- so I put down that -- I'm sorry, No. 7.
THE COURT: Here's No. 7.
JUROR: I'm sorry. Yeah. Actually, I don't know that person. There is another person in the area who has a name similar to that, and I -- I was mistaken in that.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. No problem.
JUROR: That's why I wrote the little --
MS. CONRAD: Can I just clarify? That's as to No. 7 or 272 or both?
JUROR: Number 7, I don't know; No. 272, I am familiar with.
MR. WEINREB: Nothing further, your Honor.
THE COURT: That's it.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. Can I just pass something to Mr. Chakravarty real quickly on that last point?
Good afternoon. I'm sorry. I'm Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Hello.
MS. CONRAD: It sounds like -- and tell me if I'm wrong -- let me back up. Mr. Weinreb asked you some questions about your views of the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Sounds like they're a little bit in flux right now. Is that fair to say?
JUROR: I think that's fair to say.
MS. CONRAD: And so, as you sit here today, would you be able, as a juror, to listen to the evidence, to discuss the evidence with the rest of the jury, and to come to your own decision, understanding that you're never required to vote for the death penalty, as to whether death or life without possibility of release is the appropriate sentence?
JUROR: I believe that I would.
MS. CONRAD: So you would not go into this with your mind already made up?
JUROR: I would not.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Let's take a short, ten-minute break.
(Recess taken at 12:08 p.m.)
(The Court entered the room at 12:21 p.m.)
THE COURT: Give us just a minute so I can look at this.
[REDACTED]
. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 638.
COURT CLERK: Juror 638.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Also, as much as you could, avoid media reporting about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Putting aside things if you see them?
JUROR: I'm not a big media, so that's a yes.
THE COURT: Tell us about your employment. You work for the Department of Developmental Services. Tell us about the department first. What's the scope of its responsibilities?
JUROR: I don't know if you're familiar, but it recently had -- a few years ago it had a change. It used to be the Department of Mental Retardation. Now it's the Department of Developmental Services. We try to teach people everyday living skills, things like how to brush their teeth. We do a lot of direct care providing, like bathing and changing.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I'm a supervisor.
THE COURT: You're a supervisor. Do you spend most of your time supervising, or do you do patient -- client attention as well?
JUROR: I do everything.
THE COURT: All right. You've indicated, in answer to our question about the schedule in the case and so on, that you're not concerned about it being a --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- real burden for you?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And that includes financially? You will be paid for being here?
JUROR: Yes. As long as I get my mileage back, I'm good to go.
THE COURT: Don't worry about that.
Tell us about your use of social media, I guess, Facebook, is that it?
JUROR: Yeah, Facebook.
THE COURT: How do you use it?
JUROR: I'm connected with families and friends on it. It's -- I like the funny little pictures and videos and games. And every morning I pop on, and I say "happy" whatever day it is.
THE COURT: Okay. Could we have a brief sidebar?
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: We'll go off or back on, I guess is what I mean, off sidebar.
. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you to look at Page 20, Question 77, near the top. In that question we asked jurors whether, based on things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources, you had formed various opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should receive the death penalty or not. To each of the four subparts there you indicated "unsure." Would you tell us about that? Why did you answer that way?
JUROR: Because I have not sat in the courtroom and heard what the attorneys and the prosecutors have to offer. I really don't follow the news media on anything.
THE COURT: Okay. So you understand, I'm sure, that in a criminal justice system, a person who's accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, unless the government proves the person guilty by the evidence at trial and proves that to the jury so that they have no reasonable doubt about the fact of guilt. Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to listen to the evidence presented in the case and make your decision ultimately based on only the evidence presented in the course of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You understand that a defendant has no obligation to prove he's not guilty, that the burden is always with the government to prove that he is guilty. And if the government satisfies that burden, it's entitled to a verdict of guilty. But if the government fails to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to any particular charge, that the defendant is guilty of that offense, the jurors are obliged to find the person not guilty?
JUROR: I understand.
THE COURT: If you thought the government, as to any particular charge, had not sufficiently convinced you that the defendant was guilty of that offense, would you be able to find the defendant not guilty?
JUROR: My comprehension is a little flustered because this is a really big --
THE COURT: Yes, it is. It's an intimidating circumstance. Let me try to simplify it. The government has the burden of proof.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If it carries the burden of proof by convincing the jury as to a particular charge that the defendant is guilty, then it's entitled to a verdict of guilty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If it doesn't convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to a particular charge, if the government's evidence fails to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person has committed the particular crime charged, then the defendant is entitled to be and should be -- must be acquitted. And the question is: Would you be able -- if you were not convinced on any particular charge that the government had proved that charge beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be able to find the defendant not guilty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you understand the question? You're scowling a little. That's why I'm asking.
JUROR: Uhm.
THE COURT: Let me try it another way. You understand the burden of proof is always with the government and not with the defendant. The defendant has no obligation to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Yes. It's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt.
THE COURT: Right, right. The question never is which side has convinced me.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: The question is has the government convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, any defendant, is guilty of the crime charged in this particular case -- in the particular count of a case. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So the question is: If you, after listening to all the evidence, had a doubt about whether the defendant was guilty of that offense or not, would you be able to vote for not guilty on that count?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I gotcha.
THE COURT: Are you following me now?
JUROR: I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.
THE COURT: It's a lot of legal terminology.
JUROR: I'm nervous.
THE COURT: Understandable. You're clear now?
JUROR: I follow you. I clearly follow you this time.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We asked a series of questions about attitudes toward the death penalty beginning on Page 23. At Question 88, that was a question whether you had any general views about the death penalty. That is, as a general proposition, are you for or against the death penalty in general? And you said you have no views.
JUROR: I have no views.
THE COURT: Is it something you've spent any time thinking about?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I think that's why I have no views.
THE COURT: Question 89, we asked you to see if you could tell us, on a scale from 1 to 10, where you might be, where 1 is opposed to the death penalty so that you could -- you think that it should never be imposed, 10 being strongly in favor so that you think it should be imposed whenever a defendant is convicted of intentional murder. And you chose 9. Can you recall what you were thinking when you chose 9?
JUROR: I think if enough -- I think if enough evidence is presented that it was absolutely horrific, then something could qualify for the death penalty. But other situations might not.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's turn to the next page. Here we set forth a number of different propositions that you might or might not agree with, and we asked you to choose one you thought came closest to your view. Would you take a minute and read through all of them, and then we'll talk about the selection you made.
Okay. So you selected (d). "I'm not for or against the death penalty. I could vote for it or I could vote to impose life imprisonment without possibility of release, whichever I believe was called for by the facts and the law in the case." Does that accurately represent your thinking about this?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that, in a given case, after -- you heard me describe the penalty phase.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So you start now -- the penalty phase only occurs if somebody has been convicted of a crime that qualifies for the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Right? So you have a guilty person, right? Then there's evidence about aggravating factors that might tend to show this was a crime worse than others and, therefore, deserving of a worse penalty than others. And you would have mitigating factors shown perhaps that would tend to show this is not a case for the death penalty. This is a case for life imprisonment instead. You'd weigh all that. Would you be able, after weighing all that and talking about it with your fellow jurors, be open to either possibility?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Depending on the facts as you heard them?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Let's go to the next page, 25, at the bottom, 95, at the very bottom. Coming at it again at a different way, if you found the defendant guilty and decided the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said "yes."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And at the top of the next page, If you found the defendant guilty and you decided that life in prison without the possibility of release was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for that sentence?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And that represents your disposition going in?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You could go in either direction?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. WEINREB: No questions.
THE COURT: No questions.
MS. CLARKE: Yes. Hi. My name is Judy Clarke. I already got to ask you one question. But I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers. I just had some follow-up if I might, is that okay?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: You mentioned to the judge on Question 77 -- that's Page 20 --
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CLARKE: -- that you marked "unsure" essentially because you haven't sat in court and listened to any evidence, right?
JUROR: Correct.
MS. CLARKE: Question 73, I think, asked you -- I think that's the page before -- how would you describe the amount of media that you've seen about this case. And you said "a moderate amount." Right?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Can you help us understand what it is that you recall reading or hearing about the case?
JUROR: I took the word "seen" very literally. I've seen flashes of clip -- flashes of news stuff on the TV. Where I work, there's a TV on every single dorm. News is on all the time. I'm more into what I'm doing for work, so I'm not hearing it. I'm not just really listening to it. I'm not really even seeing it. I see the news and I see names and stuff, but I'm not following it.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. Can you tell us, though, what stands out that you've heard or seen?
MR. WEINREB: Objection in light of the previous answer. It's irrelevant.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: Like, what I remember hearing?
MS. CLARKE: Sure.
JUROR: On TV?
MS. CLARKE: Yeah.
JUROR: I know there was a bombing at the Marathon. I know they were looking for people. And they found someone in a boat. That's about it.
MS. CLARKE: Did you draw any opinions, conclusions, impressions, based on that information?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Do you ever go to the Marathon or know anything about the Marathon or follow the Marathon event?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: No. Do you have -- do you remember where you were on April 15, 2013, the day of the Marathon?
JUROR: Do you know what day of the week it was?
MS. CLARKE: It was a Monday. It was Patriots' Day.
JUROR: I was working.
MS. CLARKE: So it was a Monday; you were working?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CLARKE: Do you remember how you heard about the Marathon bombing?
JUROR: I don't remember. I don't know if it's something I saw or something I heard.
MS. CLARKE: From a coworker or a friend?
JUROR: Pretty much. I mean, I know that when it happened it was everywhere. I don't know how much I'm allowed to talk either.
MS. CLARKE: Sure. You're allowed to talk.
JUROR: I'm allowed to talk. I apologize to the news media, but I just -- I don't believe anything that they put on TV. I'm more of a -- I'm better if I can read something. I don't like the newspapers. I don't like the news media I see on TV. I don't like the news clippings I see on the whole Facebook. I'm just -- I'm kind of introverted, too, so I don't get a lot of social experience, which is why this is so -- my face is probably really red.
MS. CLARKE: You're doing fine.
JUROR: Sorry.
MS. CLARKE: The end of that week, do you remember where you were that day, the day of the shelter in place?
JUROR: No.
MS. CLARKE: Did you have to shelter in place?
JUROR: Shelter?
MS. CLARKE: You know what I'm talking about? On the -- at the end of that week when the governor asked everyone to stay home?
JUROR: (Shakes head.)
MS. CLARKE: You don't remember that?
JUROR: I am essential staff. It wouldn't affect me.
MS. CLARKE: It was a Friday.
JUROR: It was a Friday?
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
JUROR: I was home.
MS. CLARKE: You can get it by the days of the week.
Could I take you to Question 50? It's at Page 15. You talked a little bit about a case that you took some interest in, the Schiavo case out of Florida, and your feelings about that case. Can you help us understand how your feelings about life in that case relate to your feelings about the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. If at all.
MS. CLARKE: If at all.
THE COURT: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: You know what I mean?
THE COURT: The views that led you to be interested in that case -- I guess you were interested in whether -- you said your interest was, hopefully, they would let her live, which they would keep her sustained on life support, so on and so forth. Does that -- do your views about that relate in any way to your views about the appropriateness of the death penalty in general or in any particular case?
JUROR: I took an interest in her because she was receiving all her nutrients through her G tube. The people that I take care of -- I'm trying not to cross any HIPPA lines either because --
THE COURT: You can talk generally.
JUROR: The people that I take care of, a lot of those people are on feeding tubes. They communicate via facial expressions and eye gazes and stuff. When I had heard some things that -- I think it was her husband was saying that she was a vegetable and there was just nothing there, but her mother was pleading, saying that she could carry a conversation with her or get yes-or-no answers from her eye gaze or facial expressions. I'm familiar with that, and I wanted to see where they were going to go with that because, to me, it would be like taking one of the individuals I care for and just deciding I'm done caring for this person. We're going to unplug them and go about our business.
MS. CLARKE: That makes sense. Thank you. So they don't really connect to your views on the death penalty at all?
JUROR: No, no. It had more to do with what I do for work.
MS. CLARKE: More for who you care for now.
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CLARKE: I think that's got it. Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Just leave the questionnaire there. Thanks.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Hold up just a minute. Let me assess this.
[REDACTED]
COURT CLERK: Juror 645.
COURT CLERK: Juror 645.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would.
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 merits or substance of the case with anyone?
JUROR: I have.
THE COURT: And, as much as you've been able, to put aside any media reporting you see about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to follow up on some of the things you told us in the questionnaire. Let's start with your employment. You're the owner of a meat processing facility.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us a little bit about the business.
JUROR: We manufacture ground beef and ground beef patties and supply to various distributors in New England area.
THE COURT: How big an operation is it?
JUROR: We do -- there's only eight employees.
THE COURT: How many?
JUROR: Eight. And we do probably 4 million in sales a year.
THE COURT: Okay. And you're the president and owner?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You are aware of the schedule that we'll follow on the case?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Monday through Thursday, 9 to 4.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Fridays off. So will you be able to sort of remotely manage the business?
JUROR: It's kind of tough because I oversee all the day-to-day purchasing and accounting of the business. So for me to not be there -- I would have to actually come, do my service, try and purchase for the company to keep all my guys going. The downfall is I'm also -- we're such a small operation, I am the repair guy for all the machinery as well. So if something goes down while I'm not there, even today, they would have to shut down until I actually showed back up to repair the unit.
THE COURT: Do you count yourself as one of the eight, eight employees?
JUROR: I do, yes.
THE COURT: Among the other seven, are there any other people who are sort of front office type people or are they just line people?
JUROR: My son works for me, and he could probably step in, but he doesn't know how to repair any of the machinery yet. He's just out of college so he just stepped into the business with me.
THE COURT: So give us an idea of what the hazard is for repairs? How often does that occur?
JUROR: It could happen, you know, usually there's something that happens once a week, sometimes minor, sometimes major. Like a bearing or a gear will -- thing. If the guys set up the machine wrong, one of my employees, it becomes major because it will actually tear the machine apart. Normally, I have a back-up machine in place but not at this time.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll continue?
Tell me about use of social media. You say you have a Facebook listing.
JUROR: Yeah, but I've only been on it -- somebody else set it up for me, but I don't know. I try to keep private what's private.
THE COURT: Can we do a sidebar, please?
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. We'll go back on.