3.Individual Voir Dire — Final Juror Examinations (Part 2)
720 lines. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
THE COURT: So I'd like you to look at Page 20.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Question 77, near the top. We asked here, in some subparts of the question, whether you had formed an opinion about various matters based on things you'd seen in the news or heard from other sources. And (a) was whether you had formed an opinion the defendant was guilty. You checked "yes."
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Then, (c), that he should receive the death penalty, and you checked "yes" there as well.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: The question went on to say, "If you answered yes to any of these questions, would you be able to or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence that will be presented in court?" You checked "able."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: Even though you've seen what's happened in the media -- I mean, it was broadcast everywhere -- could you actually say it was him, you know? There was actually -- it's all hearsay by the media pretty much. To be objective, you have to answer yes. You have to get all the evidence and then form your opinion.
THE COURT: Okay. So --
JUROR: I mean, answering yes to the "Do you think he's guilty?", just from what you hear, yeah, probably.
THE COURT: I'm sure you appreciate that in our criminal justice system a person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent or not guilty.
JUROR: Until --
THE COURT: Unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by the evidence at the trial and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: For any juror in this case, it's not surprising if they've seen things about the case in the media and have formed some impressions as a result of that.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: What we'd ask jurors to do is, if they sat on the case, to pay attention to the evidence actually produced in the course of the trial and focus only on that and not on information they had from any other source including prior news reports.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Do you think you would be able to do that if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And make your decision only on the trial evidence?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Do you understand the burden is always on the government to prove a person guilty of an offense that's charged?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: A person charged never has any obligation to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: It's always a question of has the government convinced me by the evidence that this person has committed the crime that he's charged with.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you thought on any particular charge that the government had not shown enough evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed that crime would you be able to find him not guilty?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: On the next page, 21, we asked about whether you or people close to you had -- this is in Question 82 -- participated in various support activities and so on. You say you didn't personally, but you have two sisters-in-law who have Boston Strong merchandise.
JUROR: I mean, they're marathoners and were there at the time.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us about that.
JUROR: They were just in that general area being support people.
THE COURT: Were they running in that Marathon?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: They've run in others, is that it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And so they were -- were they at the finish line?
JUROR: They were at the finish line.
THE COURT: Were they at the finish line when the explosions occurred?
JUROR: No, they weren't.
THE COURT: So they had left?
JUROR: They had left, yeah.
THE COURT: Beginning on Page 23, beginning at Page -- I'm sorry, at Question 88, we asked a series of questions about -- are you on 23?
JUROR: Oh, sorry.
THE COURT: -- series of questions about the attitudes towards the death penalty. And 88 itself is a question. If you have any general views about the death penalty, what are they? And you said "no opinion." Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, I mean, I'm all for the death penalty if it warrants it, but I could go either way. It's solely based on everything that's presented.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I mean, so it's kind of either/or.
THE COURT: Is this something you've thought much about or a little about?
JUROR: The death penalty?
THE COURT: Or a great deal about it?
JUROR: This?
THE COURT: The death penalty in general, as a policy matter.
JUROR: Not in great detail. You just hear things that happen in certain cases, other cases in the past, and, you know, have -- you know, do people deserve it? Yes, if -- you know, if it warrants it, you know.
THE COURT: Let's turn to Page 24, Question 90. Question 90 sets forth a series of various positions that somebody might have on the death penalty, and we asked you to read through them and select one that came close to you. Would you just review that? Take a minute now and read through all of them, and then we'll talk about the choice you indicated.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. And you selected (e).
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Which is, "I'm in favor of the death penalty, but I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release if I believed that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case." Is that accurate?
JUROR: Right, yes.
THE COURT: Let me ask you for a minute to go back to the previous page, Question 89. There we asked you to put yourself on a scale from 1 to 10 about the death penalty, where 1 is strongly opposed. If you read in the preamble, "strongly opposed so that the death penalty should never be imposed." See that? 1 reflects a belief that the death penalty should never be imposed. And as the question puts it, a 10 reflects a belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. That seems a bit inconsistent with the (e) answer on the next page. Could you reconcile those things for us?
JUROR: Well, let me just read through the other ones, so I'll breeze through those again here.
I mean, by saying I'm strongly for it on the previous question, even though (e) is -- you know, it's almost like a -- even though, like, you're going from being a death penalty to life imprisonment, that's basically -- you know, it's almost the same as the death sentence because you're never going to leave prison, ever, you know. I mean, that's kind of the way I see it. Either way, it's one -- it's either death or you're going to be incarcerated for the rest of your life. Is life really worth living if you're going to be behind bars for the rest of your life?
THE COURT: This morning I gave you an overview about what we call the penalty phase in a case like this.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that occurs only after the jury has convicted somebody of a crime --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- for which the death penalty is a possibility, right? So you start the penalty phase with the person you have just found guilty of a qualifying crime.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Okay. The question then is, after considering the evidence, what should the penalty be for this person, for this crime, okay?
JUROR: Right. But all the facts will, hopefully, give you the sense to either -- go either way with it.
THE COURT: That's my question.
JUROR: There's a lot more facts that are unknown to us at this point in time.
THE COURT: But that's my question.
JUROR: So that would have to make your -- your judgment sway either way.
THE COURT: Right. That's what I'm asking you. You tend to be, I hear you, in favor of the death penalty in an appropriate case.
JUROR: Exactly.
THE COURT: Okay. Would you be open to a decision in either direction, either for the death penalty or for life imprisonment, based on your evaluation of the evidence you heard in the penalty phase?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In other words, you wouldn't be precommitted --
JUROR: Right, exactly.
THE COURT: -- to one or the other?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You'd be open to either?
JUROR: You would have to go in with an open mind.
THE COURT: Even understanding that the person has been guilty of a capital crime?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: I just wanted to follow up a little bit on your -- what you were saying about your job.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. WEINREB: So I notice that -- I think you listed here that from 1981 to 2004 you were the general manager.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: And then you took over?
JUROR: It was my father and his partner's company. And then they wanted to retire, and I bought the business from the both of them.
MR. WEINREB: Got you. Now your son is there, too.
JUROR: My son. He just graduated college a couple years ago, and now he's -- the job market isn't so good.
MR. WEINREB: Is he essentially the manager?
JUROR: Yeah. He's the general manager, yeah.
MR. WEINREB: So he doesn't have your repair skills?
JUROR: No, no, no. I'm just -- I'm basically breaking him in. As something happens, him and I will work together in conjunction. I want him to learn because I want to -- I don't want to stay in the business, like my father did, until 79. I want to retire a little early.
MR. WEINREB: I understand. If you were selected to be on the jury and a machine broke, is it possible that your son could get a repairman to come in and fix it?
JUROR: You know, the guys that used to do it are a dying breed. It used to be you could pick up the phone and call any one of a half a dozen. These guys are all gone and retired. You're pretty much on your own. Unless you call a manufacturer, but he's in Chicago. Then you would have to fly him out and get him to repair the machine. Is it practical? No.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
JUROR: Because then you'd lose a whole day's worth of production.
MR. WEINREB: Speaking of that, so if the machine broke and it was a complicated repair, the kind you had to do yourself, could it be done at the end of the day when you were done or on a Friday?
JUROR: Oh, yeah. I could do it at the end of the day if I had to go in and get it done and then go home, along with doing all the regular book work, payroll, and such.
MR. WEINREB: The book work and the payroll, is that something somebody else could potentially do?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I could talk them through it.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thanks.
JUROR: You're welcome.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad, and I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
Just to follow up a little bit on the impact on your business.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: So if one of these machines broke in the morning --
JUROR: Yup.
MS. CONRAD: -- and you couldn't fix it till after you got done here -- where is it actually located?
JUROR: New Market Square, about ten minutes.
MS. CONRAD: So close by.
JUROR: It's close by.
MS. CONRAD: What would be the financial impact of that?
JUROR: You lose a day's production. And the business that we're in, if you don't supply somebody with something and then they go to a competitor to buy it, then there's always that potential that that customer liked his product more than yours, so you could potentially lose a customer. That's why, I mean -- my father's motto is never let your customers go away to somebody else, so you always made sure you had stuff on hand.
MS. CONRAD: How many regular customers do you have?
JUROR: I probably have maybe -- regular customers, a weekly basis, maybe 250.
MS. CONRAD: Would that be a concern to you, a distraction, if you were picked for this jury?
JUROR: It would be on my mind all day long, make sure that things were operating correctly and sufficient. My son has a good handle on it. He's a bright kid. And, you know, he's coming along pretty well. Some of the minor repairs, he's, you know, been able to take care of. Some of the major ones, no.
MS. CONRAD: Can you give us an idea, over the course of three or four months, you know, how often --
JUROR: How often?
MS. CONRAD: Yeah.
JUROR: Maybe ten repairs, twelve, at best.
MS. CONRAD: So that could represent up to ten lost days of production?
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. We don't need --
THE COURT: That's a little leading.
MS. CONRAD: What would that translate into in terms of lost production?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think we have that.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. You also -- you gave an answer on Question 74 I couldn't quite make out, Page 19, that related to this, I think.
JUROR: 74?
MS. CONRAD: Can you just read that out loud for us, please?
JUROR: "As much as I would like to be on any trial for the experience and duty, I feel it would be a burden to me for the proper running of my U.S.D.A. meat processing plant."
MS. CONRAD: Do you still feel that way?
JUROR: I do.
MS. CONRAD: You also mentioned something about purchasing. What would be the impact --
JUROR: I purchase meat to manufacture on a daily basis. My son has -- actually, I've been training him, you know, over the last couple years. So, yes, he could fill in and do it for me.
MS. CONRAD: Okay. You mentioned that -- I think it was your two sisters-in-law that were at the Marathon that day.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Are those your wife's sisters?
JUROR: My wife's sisters.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me a little bit more about that? Do you know how long before the bombings they left?
JUROR: No, I'm not sure. I just know they were there.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I just knew that they were there.
MS. CONRAD: Did you know that beforehand or you found that out --
JUROR: I knew it afterwards.
MS. CONRAD: Did your wife know beforehand that they were there?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Was she concerned about them when she heard about the bombings?
JUROR: Yes, she was.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me a little bit about that? How long?
JUROR: I didn't really get into too much of the conversation with her. I just knew that she was concerned that they were in the area. And then after she found out that they weren't anywhere near it, at the time it had already left, that everything was okay. Close-knit family.
MS. CONRAD: Do you know how long it was between when she heard about the bombings and when she found out they were okay?
JUROR: I don't know. I was in the office.
MS. CONRAD: Did you -- I'm sorry. Did you shelter in place on the 19th of April?
JUROR: Did I -- excuse me?
MS. CONRAD: Shelter in place during the manhunt on April 19th, that Friday, when people were told to stay home. Did that affect you?
JUROR: No. I was heading to the Cape.
MS. CONRAD: Okay.
JUROR: I had a ferry to catch.
MS. CONRAD: Sorry?
JUROR: I have a house on Martha's Vineyard so --
MS. CONRAD: You mentioned your son. I think you put down on Question 7 that you also have nine- and ten-year-old sons.
JUROR: I do.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sure you're aware that one of the victims in the bombings was an eight-year-old boy. How do you think the fact that you have sons close to that age, or actually who were that age at that time, would affect you in listening to the evidence in this case?
JUROR: I don't think it would affect me one way or the other. It's just -- the case is based on all the evidence. And even in other cases that you see in the media, I mean, it's unfortunate, but, you know, that's just part of the whole grand scheme of what's happened.
MS. CONRAD: You put down on Question -- on Page 20, Question 77, the judge asked you about Part (a), but I'd like to ask you about Part (c).
JUROR: Yup.
MS. CONRAD: So you said that you had formed an opinion that Mr. Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty.
JUROR: Right. That was basically based on, you know, what you hear in the media and stuff like that. So I answered yes to that question because of what I've heard so far.
MS. CONRAD: Now, you understand there's two parts to the trial, right?
JUROR: I do.
MS. CONRAD: And so when you talk about things you've heard in the media, I assume you're talking about things about the crime itself?
JUROR: Absolutely.
MS. CONRAD: And so based on what you've heard about the crime itself --
JUROR: That's --
MS. CONRAD: -- you formed an opinion --
JUROR: That's why I answered --
MS. CONRAD: -- that he should receive the death penalty?
So during -- if at the end of the guilt part of the trial you and the other jurors found or believed that the government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Tsarnaev had committed these crimes, would you then still believe that he should receive the death penalty?
JUROR: Could I answer that?
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. That's asking him to --
THE COURT: That's a little too case specific.
MS. CONRAD: But that's 95, your Honor.
THE COURT: You can ask it in a different way. Let me try, actually.
You said you formed an opinion that he should receive the death penalty. That's Question 77(c).
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: The question is: You've also told us that -- at least in a general way, that your understanding of the penalty phase is that you consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: The question is: Would you be able to put aside any present opinion you have about the penalty that's appropriate for this defendant and pay attention to the evidence in the penalty phase and be open to either option --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- for this defendant notwithstanding the opinion you have?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Or -- let me finish the other side of the question. Or is your opinion fixed enough that it would interfere with your ability to truly make a considered judgment on the evidence in the penalty phase and be open to either side? Would it interfere with your -- would your existing opinion interfere with your ability to truly fairly evaluate both options in the penalty phase?
JUROR: No. I could -- basically, I'm going to wait until all the evidence -- if I am a juror, you wait. And then you can make a decision then.
MS. CONRAD: You seem like you wanted to say something before when I was asking the question. I don't know if the judge will let you say what you wanted to say. You said something like, Let me explain. I would like to let you explain.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, there was an objection that was sustained.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think --
MS. CONRAD: On Question 89 on Page 23, you selected 10, which is -- in the question it says that that reflects a belief that the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. Is that correct?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: That's your view?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: So if the evidence proves in any death penalty case beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant convicted -- excuse me, committed an intentional murder, it would be your belief that the death penalty should be imposed?
JUROR: Could I vote -- you're asking could I vote for the death penalty?
MS. CONRAD: No. I'm asking whether it would be your belief, if a defendant is convicted of intentional murder, not an accident, not self-defense --
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: -- not insanity but an intentional murder --
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: -- whether it would be your belief that in that case the death penalty should always be imposed?
JUROR: Could I -- yes. I could answer yes to that question.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry?
JUROR: Yes, I could answer. That's yes.
MS. CONRAD: I'm not asking whether you could impose the death penalty. I'm asking whether you would automatically vote for the death penalty in any case.
JUROR: That all comes down to the evidence that's been presented.
MS. CONRAD: Okay.
JUROR: You're saying there's a verdict of guilty, intentional murder. Yes, I could. The answer would be yes.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry. You keep saying, "Yes, I could." I feel like we're talking past each other a little bit, and that's my fault. I apologize.
I'm not asking whether you could. I'm asking whether you would always vote for the death penalty in a case where the defendant was convicted of intentional murder.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: So -- may I have one moment, please?
(Discussion held off the record. )
MS. CONRAD: So if a defendant were convicted of intentional murder, would you be willing to consider facts about the defendant, such as his background, his criminal record, or would you automatically vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: Well, wasn't that going to be presented prior to?
MS. CONRAD: No. So there's two parts to the trial.
JUROR: Oh, the second part.
MS. CONRAD: Right. So the first part you would hear evidence about the crime.
JUROR: Right.
MS. CONRAD: The second, if the jury found the defendant guilty -- and I'm talking about any death penalty case now, not this one -- then the jury would decide whether the government had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning proved intentional murder, not accident, not self-defense, not insanity, beyond a reasonable doubt. And then after that, the jury would hear additional evidence about the defendant and about the crime and then would be asked to decide whether, based on their own individual judgment, the penalty should be death or life without possibility of release.
So my question is: Based on your answer to Question 89, whether having already heard the evidence that convinced you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant in this hypothetical case, in this example, let's say, was guilty of intentional murder, would you automatically vote for the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: That's all right. You can answer.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: The answer may stand.
MS. CONRAD: Can you explain to me why you picked 10 on 89?
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think that's been asked and answered a couple times now.
MS. CONRAD: I think there's been different answers.
THE COURT: There has been.
MS. CONRAD: I'm just trying to clarify it.
THE COURT: Let me try to clarify it. I've heard you say at different occasions two different things. They do seem inconsistent. Question 10 is kind of -- Question 89, the answer 10, if you look at it.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: It was defined in the paragraph that appears above the scale. 10 is should be imposed whenever a defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. That means there are no exceptions. It should be imposed if the -- it follows from the conviction that he should get the death penalty, okay.
In the next page, with Question 90 -- and we've talked about this in some of our dialogue -- you picked (e) that said, while you are generally in favor of the death penalty, you could also vote for a life imprisonment sentence depending on the facts and the law in the case. We talked about the penalty phase and assessing that.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You told us there that you thought you could wait and hear all that evidence and then make a decision and not automatically choose the death penalty as the punishment for someone guilty of the capital crime.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Those two things are a little bit consistent. Remember I told you there are no right or wrong answers. We just want to know what your condition of mind is. Would you tend to vote for it automatically on conviction of a capital crime, the example being intentional murder; or after convicting somebody of a capital crime, such as intentional murder, would you wait to hear and decide, on the basis of your balancing of the pros and cons, the aggravating and the mitigating? Again, there's no right or wrong answer. We just want to know which you think would be your disposition if you were a juror in the case.
JUROR: Right, okay. Well, I mean, I'm all for the death penalty, but, like I said -- I think I said it before. But based on the facts, I feel life imprisonment is just as bad as the death penalty, you know. Obviously, there will be other information in the case that will bring out which way you would want to sway, you know, keeping him in jail or putting him to death.
THE COURT: So what's your bottom line?
JUROR: So -- well, I could go either way. It's just basically you've got to listen to all the facts, I guess. It's kind -- I can't say whether I'm going to do it all the time or whether I'm not going to do it all the time. You have to hear all the evidence in order to say one way or the other.
MS. CONRAD: I'd like to ask two questions not on that subject if I may. I think we've covered that subject pretty thoroughly. Actually, one of those is somewhat related.
But on Question 93, if I could, on Page 25, you said you didn't have an opinion about life -- whether life without possibility of release is more or less severe than the death penalty. Today I heard you say something a little different. So I'm wondering if maybe you've given it some additional thought.
JUROR: Given it additional thought.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me about that?
JUROR: When you're sitting out there in the jury room, you have to think about what's going on.
MS. CONRAD: Sure.
JUROR: Then earlier in the thing talking about the death penalty and stuff like that. At the time I wasn't really sure which way even though I stated I'm all for the death penalty if it warrants it. But, you know, and then -- because none of us are really tied to the legal system, so we don't know how all of this works.
MS. CONRAD: Of course.
JUROR: As you sit in there or you're talking with other people and how things go with the legal system, you kind of have to think about which way you would want to go and what you'd want to do if you were sitting in that box, you know, so -- I didn't have an opinion, and I'm -- you really could go either way. It's all -- like you saw, it's going to come down to the information you presented.
MS. CONRAD: Sure. I'm just wondering, as to that question, now that you've had more time to think about it, whether you would answer it differently today.
JUROR: Probably.
MS. CONRAD: And what would your answer be?
JUROR: On this answer?
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
JUROR: I would base it on just -- I'm going to stick with the -- I'm just going to go with whatever evidence is presented --
MS. CONRAD: Okay.
JUROR: -- to sway which way I'm going to go, either way.
MS. CONRAD: I may have misunderstood, but is this something -- these questions about the death penalty that, since you filled out this form, you've discussed with other people?
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. Seems like we're just fishing.
THE COURT: No. Go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: No. It's basically my own personal --
MS. CONRAD: Sure.
JUROR: Just thinking about it in general.
MS. CONRAD: But you mentioned sitting in the jury room. Was that sort of an internal dialogue?
JUROR: This was when the judge was up there talking about, if you had to basically vote for the death penalty, then you have to think about that, then talk about the evidence and stuff like that. You basically have to -- you're thinking about it and you're, like, one minute I'm saying -- you get hostile, and you're all for the death penalty. And then you come here and you sit in front of all the legal teams and the judge, and you have to think, okay, maybe I -- I got off on the wrong track. I should really hear all the evidence before I, you know, just shout out, yeah, I want the death penalty.
MS. CONRAD: Have you spoken -- this is a slightly different subject, a very different subject. Have you spoken to your sisters-in-law about what they experienced on the day of the Marathon?
JUROR: No.
MS. CONRAD: You said it's a close-knit family.
JUROR: My wife and them. They're together all the time. I'm always working.
MS. CONRAD: I got the impression. Do you have any sense of their feelings about the events?
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor. This has been already gone over.
THE COURT: I think we've had enough.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: I think that's enough. Thank you very much, sir.
Okay. We'll take a lunch break, I think, until 2:30.
(Luncheon recess taken at 1:27 p.m.)
(After the recess:)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:33 p.m.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 646.
THE COURT: I think I'm going to go right to Question 85, if that's okay.
MR. WEINREB: That's a good idea.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 646.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would. Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: And make sure you keep your voice up and speak into the mic.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon, Judge.
THE COURT: Since you were here last, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance or merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And avoiding media accounts of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire that you filled out when you were last here, and we're going to follow up on some of the information. Actually, I'd like to go right to page 22, if you would.
So actually, let me just go back for a minute. You are a construction superintendent for Aggregate?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Okay. And you've done that for a long time, 20 years or so?
JUROR: With Aggregate, 20 years; with Middlesex an additional 22 -- I've been in construction for 45 years.
THE COURT: Okay. So now let's go to Question 85. You know a fellow named Bob Joyce who is Jeff Bauman's uncle?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: You know that Jeff Bauman is a victim of the bombings?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: So tell us about your relationship with Bob Joyce.
JUROR: Bob Joyce actually worked for me when I had my own paving crew with Middlesex probably about 25, 30 years ago. He was a laborer. And that's when I first met him. And -- but he only worked for a short period of time. He left and he started his own business. And he does have his own business right now. It's called Allied Paving. And Allied Paving does some paving for Aggregate, which means I have to associate myself with him.
THE COURT: Give us a sense of the strength of the association. How frequently, how --
JUROR: Oh, maybe -- well, I deal mostly -- a lot with his superintendents, but I do acquaint myself with Bob Joyce himself probably maybe once every three weeks, possibly?
THE COURT: Okay. Do you know Jeff Bauman himself?
JUROR: No, I do not. My son -- my youngest son played Little League ball with him in Cambridge -- in Chelmsford probably about 15 years ago. But I personally do not know Jeff.
THE COURT: Knowing that Bob Joyce's nephew is a victim in these events, would that give you any concern about your impartiality as a juror in the case?
JUROR: Honestly, no.
THE COURT: Can you expand on that a little?
JUROR: I mean, I know Bob Joyce as a -- basically as a work associate. He's -- I mean, that's as far as our relationship goes.
THE COURT: You don't socialize with him?
JUROR: No, I do not. No.
THE COURT: All right. Let me ask you to go to page 20.
JUROR: Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. It didn't look right, did it?
THE COURT: No, it didn't.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked in that question whether based on things you'd seen or read in the media or from other sources you'd formed various opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not or should receive the death penalty or not, and to each of those subparts to the question you answered "unsure."
Do you see that?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Can you tell us why you chose that answer?
JUROR: Because I am unsure. I believe -- I'm a true believer that in any case like this you'd better be damned sure one way or the other. And just up until January, when I was told to come in here, all I knew of the case is what was on TV, what was in the papers. And even the papers, I didn't really -- the job position I have in the company, I don't even read -- hardly ever read a newspaper because I'm up and out of the house by four-thirty, five o'clock in the morning, and sometimes I don't get home until seven. I have very little time to read the newspaper.
So honestly, it would be what you see on TV or what you hear from word of mouth of what happened. And of course, for the first month or two after the -- what did happen, it was all over the place anyway. So I wrote down "unsure." And guilty is -- I'm unsure. I guess I could say yes, I could say no, but I'm unsure.
THE COURT: Okay. So I'm sure you know these principles but let me just set them out for you. You know that in our criminal justice system, a person who is accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty, or innocent, of that crime --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- unless the government proves that the person is guilty based on the evidence presented at trial and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.
You understand those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: It's not surprising that people have some information and, therefore, some ideas about what happened in the case from the news reporting.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: What we would ask jurors in this case is whether they could put aside any preexisting ideas that you might have about the case one way or the other and judge the issues presented based only on the evidence presented in the course of the trial.
Do you think you'd be able to do that?
JUROR: That's tough. That's tough. To be totally honest, it would be tough to --
THE COURT: Could you expand on that?
JUROR: I would imagine because the -- there's nobody else that's ever been talked about that could have done this. And it's not as if it's still up in the air whether or not -- you know, maybe somebody else possibly could have done this and that -- so it's very difficult for me to say that he could be innocent.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I honestly think so, yeah.
(Counsel confer off the record.)
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
THE COURT: Yeah? All right. Thank you very much, sir.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
MR. BRUCK: Before the next juror comes in, I just wanted to bring this to the Court's attention. I don't think we have to go off.
This is a Facebook feed that includes two messages from the juror's son on April 19th that are on this juror's Facebook page. The pages speak for themselves also. It's the second one in the middle of the page and then the last one.
MR. WEINREB: Do you have copies for us?
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry, I don't.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: So when you say the second one --
MR. BRUCK: No, it's the second from the top -- from the top of that group.
THE COURT: Oh, I see. I see.
MR. BRUCK: About "A mind = blown."
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: And then at the bottom of the same series, another reference to "kicking his" blank.
THE COURT: The first one -- the second one has a time of day on it; the first one doesn't.
MR. BRUCK: Maybe I should just --
THE COURT: I mean, it's the same day but I couldn't tell which came before which.
MR. BRUCK: They both have times of day. One says --
THE COURT: One was in the morning.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry. It's at the top. Right, one of them has -- the second one does not have a time of day. "That bombing SOB went to my high school. Mind = blown" from the juror's son. And then the last one is 9:20 a.m. "I know, Cam. I saw your street on the news. Tell your mom to kick his..."
THE COURT: Right. So I couldn't -- since the first one didn't have a timestamp --
MR. BRUCK: It did not have a timestamp.
THE COURT: -- is there a way you can tell from the sequencing?
MS. CONRAD: Yes. So the first one would be the actual post by the person whose Facebook it is, and then what follows are the comments that come afterwards in chronological order. So the first one -- it runs in chronological order.
THE COURT: So that the first one would have to be before the comments?
MS. CONRAD: Exactly.
MR. BRUCK: Just before 9:19 a.m. on the 19th, which is after the --
MS. CONRAD: I think it's got the date on it, the first one.
MR. BRUCK: Yes, it does.
MS. CONRAD: It's got the date. But those are all comments on --
THE COURT: That's after the overnight but before the arrest?
MR. BRUCK: Exactly.
MS. CONRAD: Right.
MR. BRUCK: The juror indicates he's active on Facebook, and I just thought --
MS. CONRAD: And he's also friends with his son.
MR. BRUCK: And he's friends with his son.
THE COURT: I'll let you ask about it. You're probably more adept at it than I am.
Oh, did you want to see it?
MR. WEINREB: Yes.
THE COURT: Sorry.
(Pause.)
THE COURT: Are we all set?
MS. CLARKE: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 649.
COURT CLERK: Juror 649.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat. Make sure you keep your voice up and speak into the mic, okay, so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here last, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance or merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also as much as you could possibly do, avoid the media? There's a lot of it, but have you been able to turn away from it if you've seen it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So we have the questionnaire you filled out. We're going to follow up on some of the information you gave us there.
And I want to turn to page 10 first where you describe your employment --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- and talk a little bit about that.
Tell us what you do.
JUROR: Okay. All right. Well, I work at an after-school program with kids. I'm a counselor. And I do, like, dodgeball with them, hockey, crafts.
THE COURT: What age are the kids?
JUROR: The kids range from around six years old to ten.
THE COURT: Okay. So they're grade school?
JUROR: Grade school, yes.
THE COURT: In the public schools?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So what are your hours?
JUROR: Three to six.
And then I, after that -- actually, I clean a room after that. A preschool room. And that goes to about seven o'clock or so.
THE COURT: Okay. If we -- if you were on this jury, we would ask you to be here between nine and four on Monday through Thursday, and off on Fridays, and of course the weekend. Is that going to be a problem for you given your employment?
JUROR: No, I don't think so.
THE COURT: Why not, since there's an overlap? In other words --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- you said three to six and we've got nine to four.
JUROR: But my boss is a really good boss, and I'm also friends with her and stuff, and she's really lenient about it, so...
THE COURT: Would you plan to go there after finishing up here or would you just be excused for the first four days of the week and go on Fridays?
JUROR: I could do either/or. I could go there and get a couple of hours in and then definitely clean the room and --
THE COURT: You would still do the cleaning later on?
JUROR: At six o'clock, yes.
THE COURT: And it wouldn't have a substantial impact on your earning ability?
JUROR: It might have a little impact but I think it will be all right, yeah.
THE COURT: We ask people about their social media use, Facebook.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You say you use it one to two hours a day?
JUROR: Not really. I mainly play games on it. You know, I don't really --
THE COURT: Do you exchange posts with family members and things like that?
JUROR: No, not really. I pretty much pay my bills and stuff online and stuff like that with it, and that's pretty much it.
THE COURT: Are you aware that other family members use it?
JUROR: Use --
THE COURT: Members of your family, do they use it?
JUROR: Yes, they do.
THE COURT: But you don't?
JUROR: Not that much, no.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20, Question 77 near the top.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Do you see that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's a question where we asked based on things you'd seen or heard in the news media or maybe from other sources, had you formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and there were four subparts to that. You answered yes to Part A, that you had formed an opinion that he was guilty.
Do you see that?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. And then down below after the four subparts, the question goes on to say if you'd answered yes to any of these questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment solely on the evidence that would be presented to you in court, and you checked "able."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you explain that?
JUROR: Well, from what I saw at the time in the media, it seemed like from all the evidence that he was guilty. But if I go to the trial and I hear all the -- you know, all the evidence here, I could change my mind either way, I mean, depending on what I hear at court.
THE COURT: Given the amount of publicity in this case, the events received, it's not surprising people have impressions about what happened.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: What we would ask any juror to do would be to put aside those impressions and focus entirely and only on the evidence produced in the course of the trial and make any decision required based on that evidence and not on preconceived ideas from other sources.
Do you think you'd be able to do that?
JUROR: I think I would be able to do that, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. You understand that in our criminal justice system a defendant who is accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty, or innocent of the crime --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- unless the government proves otherwise by proving him guilty at trial by the evidence, and proving that beyond a reasonable doubt.
You recognize those principles?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Do you think you would have any difficulty adhering to those principles if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: No. No, I don't think I would have difficulty.
THE COURT: In particular, the government's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that a defendant never has any burden to prove he's not guilty; the burden is always with the government to prove that he is guilty, right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So the question is never which side has convinced me about this, but has the government convinced me by its evidence that this person is guilty of what we've charged him with.
If the answer to that is "yes," the jury thinks, yes, the government has persuaded them beyond a reasonable doubt about that, then the government is entitled to your verdict of guilty. But if you're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the charges that are made, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted of those charges.
Would you be able to find this defendant not guilty if you thought the government had failed in its burden of proof on any of the particular charges?
JUROR: I think I would be able to, yes.
THE COURT: On the next page, Questions 81 and 82, we asked whether you were affected by the bombings or other events, including that Friday when people had to stay in because of the hunt that was going on, and then the next question is about your support activities, "Boston Strong" merchandise and so on and so forth. We asked whether you or anybody in your family fell into either of those circumstances, and you said, "I don't know."
Let me ask, just, is that -- the "I don't know," I assume, is about other people?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You do know about yourself, I presume?
JUROR: Yes, I do know about myself.
THE COURT: What's the answer about yourself?
JUROR: About myself? I was in the house with my two children.
THE COURT: On that Friday, you mean?
JUROR: Yes, when the -- yeah. And, you know, we watched it on TV and everything. But as -- affected as someone in my family was hurt or -- physically hurt or anything, they were not, no.
THE COURT: And your children, you say, are in their 20s?
JUROR: Yes. Yes, 25 and 23.
THE COURT: Now?
JUROR: Now.
THE COURT: A couple of years ago they were a couple of years younger?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
If you'd go to page 23. Beginning with Question 88, we asked a series of questions to learn about jurors' views about the death penalty. Question 88 asked if you had any general views about the death penalty, what are they, and you put "not applicable."
Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: I think I'd have a hard time with the death penalty. I'd have to be really convinced that it would be worthy of it. But I never -- you know, I never really gave it much thought.
THE COURT: But are you saying that as a general proposition, that in any case in which the death penalty might be at issue, you might have a problem with it? Is that what you're saying?
JUROR: I'm saying --
THE COURT: Or are you talking about this case?
JUROR: No, with any I'd have a hard time thinking about -- you know, taking somebody's life, you know, part of that.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question we asked you to circle a number that indicates where you might be on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 -- one side is strongly opposed so that you would never vote for the death penalty and a 10 on the other hand was so strongly in favor that you would vote to impose it whenever a person was convicted of murder.
You put yourself in the middle, at 5.
JUROR: Right. I would have to, I mean, hear all the evidence about it, I think, to make a decision on it. I mean, I'd have a time about it [sic]. But if the evidence proves it, I would -- I mean, I could vote for it, yes.
THE COURT: All right. Let's go to the next page, and Question 90. In this question, rather than trying to put you on a numerical scale, we asked you to look at a number of different propositions and see if there was one you thought represented your views accurately. Take a minute to read through all of them right now and then we'll ask you about the one you selected.
(Pause.)
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: So you selected D.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In reviewing that again now, do you think that's still the best choice for you?
JUROR: Yes. Like I said, I mean, if the evidence proves it, then I could.
THE COURT: So D is -- it says you're not for or against it. You kind of indicated here that you tend to be against it, I guess. Is that fair or not?
JUROR: I don't know.
THE COURT: No? You still think D is --
JUROR: I still think so. I mean --
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: -- like I said, I would have a hard time with it, but I would -- if it merits it, I would.
THE COURT: Okay. You heard me this morning explain the so-called penalty phase. That of course presumes that the jury has already concluded that the defendant's guilty of a crime for which the death penalty is possible, right? So you start with the proposition you're dealing with a person who's been convicted and then you decide what's the right penalty.
And you've heard the evidence that tends to show it's a serious enough crime that it should be punished by the death penalty or it's a crime that can be adequately punished by life in prison instead of the death penalty, right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And the jury will weigh all that, and each individual juror would make his or her own judgment about that balance and how it tilts, right?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you telling us that you would be prepared -- based on how you evaluated all of that evidence, you would be open to either possibility and committing yourself to either possibility at the end of your deliberations?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Not going into it committed one way or the other?
JUROR: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at the bottom of page 25, Question 95. We asked if you found the defendant guilty and decided that the death penalty was the appropriate punishment for him, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you picked "not sure," between yes and no.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you amplify on that at all?
JUROR: I think I go back to depending on what the evidence was against him, how strong it is against him if I do vote for it or not.
THE COURT: All right. So again, are you saying that you'd make that decision based on what you've heard and you wouldn't have a preconceived idea? Is that what you're telling me?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you.
Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors.
I just wanted to ask you a few follow-up questions.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: You said a couple of times that you think you would have a hard time with the death penalty. Could you just explain what you mean by that?
JUROR: Well, like I said, I mean, it's -- you're taking someone's life, so I would really have to think about it, I mean, really hard and hear the evidence against him.
MR. WEINREB: And is that because you just want to be sure you're doing the right thing or because you have some moral reservation about whether the death penalty's ever appropriate for anybody?
JUROR: Probably a little of both, I would think.
MR. WEINREB: Have you spent a lot of time thinking about the death penalty before you got your juror summons in this case?
JUROR: No.
MR. WEINREB: Since you got it, have you thought about it?
JUROR: A little bit, yeah.
MR. WEINREB: And can -- well, what's your thinking been?
JUROR: That it's -- it would be a big decision to make if it came down to it, to, you know -- you know, take someone's life.
MR. WEINREB: Do you have any moral or philosophical or -- views about the death penalty?
JUROR: Like I said, I never really thought about it before, you know, I was picked to be on the jury -- I mean, to be here.
MR. WEINREB: So can you imagine -- not this case, but can you imagine being on a capital case and hearing evidence that would convince you that the death penalty's an appropriate sentence for somebody?
JUROR: If the evidence is there? I don't...
MR. WEINREB: Well, let me put it another way. So the law never requires anybody to impose the death penalty. It's not like you'll be given a checklist of things and if you check them all off, then that means that person deserves the death penalty. That's always going to be a decision for you to make, each juror individually.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: You will hear evidence from both sides, evidence that may lead you to think it's the right sentence and evidence that may lead you to think it's not the right sentence. The question is: Would you go into that process with an open mind and can you imagine situations where you could hear evidence that would convince you that it's appropriate or do you think that you'd -- that could never really happen?
JUROR: I could probably hear evidence that would make me think it would be appropriate. I think so.
MR. WEINREB: And if you got to that point, if you heard evidence that convinced you that a particular case was the right one for the death penalty, could you then take the next step and actually vote to put someone to death?
JUROR: It would be really hard.
MR. WEINREB: What do you think?
JUROR: I'm not sure.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Nobody's been in that situation before typically, so it's hard to know. This is our one chance to get a sense from you.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Can you give us a better sense or...
JUROR: I don't know. No, I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
MR. WEINREB: Are you having more thoughts about it or --
JUROR: Yeah, now, here.
MR. WEINREB: Could you share your thoughts so that we have some sense of what's going on inside your head when you're thinking about this?
JUROR: I'm just thinking, like I stated before, it's just that, you know, it's someone's life you're taking, you know. So a lot of thought would have to go into it and there would have to be a lot of evidence to prove that, that it's worth it.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. I hear that. And if the evidence, though -- if you heard a lot of evidence and it did prove it, could you take the next step to actually do it, to actually vote to send someone to death?
JUROR: I don't know that I can now. I don't know.
MR. WEINREB: Are your thoughts or feelings changing about it even as you're talking about it right now?
JUROR: It is, yes.
MR. WEINREB: And what are you thinking and feeling?
JUROR: I'm just thinking the same thing. You know, it's someone's life.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: Hi. My name is David Bruck.
JUROR: Hi, David.
MR. BRUCK: Hi. I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers, and I've got a few more questions for you, if that's okay. The good news is that I think I'm the last person to ask you anything.
JUROR: That will be good.
(Laughter.)
MR. BRUCK: I thought that might be good news.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell me if either of your children went to -- knew anything about either of the Tsarnaev brothers from school or --
JUROR: No. My son -- my son went to school at the same time but didn't know him.
MR. BRUCK: Didn't know either one of them?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: And the school that you -- the after-school program that you're a counselor in, what part of Cambridge is that in?
JUROR: North Cambridge.
MR. BRUCK: North Cambridge?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: I just want to try to clear up what we've been talking about concerning the death penalty. I understand this is something that weighs heavily on you, like it does on a lot of people. I think the question we're all trying to get at is you told the judge that it would take a lot of evidence, but that if the evidence was there you think the death penalty could be appropriate in some cases?
JUROR: I think it could be appropriate in some cases, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Right. Depending on the facts?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And would you be able to listen to the facts as a juror if the defendant was already found guilty of -- beyond a reasonable doubt of these capital crimes or in any case, not -- let's not talk about this case. If you were on a jury in any case that involved the death penalty, could involve the death penalty, and guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- are you with me?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: That's the first stage of the trial.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And then there's a second stage which is devoted to should the death penalty be imposed or should life imprisonment without release be imposed. Only two choices, right?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And the judge told you about that.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Could you listen to the evidence from both sides with an open mind at that stage of the trial?
JUROR: Yes, I could.
MR. BRUCK: And decide, based on the evidence, whether this was one of the cases where life imprisonment was appropriate --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: -- or whether the death penalty was appropriate?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And you -- the law never says that a juror is supposed to vote for the death penalty unless they think it's appropriate, unless the juror himself or herself looks at it that way.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: So let's suppose that -- again, not this case but a really terrible set of facts, all the evidence was proven to your satisfaction.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: The case -- that you concluded that the death penalty was the right way to go. I know you've never been in this situation, very few people have, but I think what we're getting at is if you decided it was the right thing to do, would you be able to follow through and say so in court -- or not in court, but in the jury room in deciding on a verdict?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: That was a yes?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And I understand you wouldn't want to.
JUROR: No, I wouldn't want to. No.
MR. BRUCK: But if you decided it was the right thing to do, you could?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Thanks so much.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Just leave that there.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 650.
COURT CLERK: Juror 650.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat. Be sure you keep your voice up and speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: How are you?
THE COURT: Thanks for your patience.
Since you were last here, have you been able to avoid talking about the substance or the merits of the case with anyone?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Answer good and loud so everyone --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And also avoid, as much as you could, any media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about your current employment.
JUROR: I work at Tufts Medical Center in Chinatown in Boston.
THE COURT: And what do you do?
JUROR: I'm a supervisor for patient financial services.
THE COURT: What does that involve?
JUROR: I supervise eight people, and I deal with insurance companies and getting the claims out the door to the insurance companies.
THE COURT: Who are covering the individual patients, is that it?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Now, we asked in the questionnaire -- you have the questionnaire there. As I say, we're following up on some of the answers you gave us there.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: If you'd look at page 5, Question 10, we outlined the schedule we planned to follow in the case.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Monday through Thursday, nine to four, and then Friday off so the jurors could have the day to themselves to do other things, and that that would probably -- on that schedule we would probably be going for three or four months perhaps.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You indicated in Question 10 that that would not be a significant hardship for you.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: But I want to swing over to page, I think it's 19, Question 75 at the bottom.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: We asked -- this was after you got your summons and were concerned about things, this is what kind of things did you say to others or others say to you, I guess, about your possible service, and you said, "Worried/financial hardship."
JUROR: That was from my mother.
THE COURT: She was worried.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: She's a good mother.
JUROR: Yeah.
No, but my work, actually, told me that I would be paid for the time.
THE COURT: I just wanted to make sure we understood your situation.
So we asked everybody about social media use, and you've said you use Instagram every day?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is that generally social?
JUROR: Pictures and stuff.
THE COURT: Personal family kinds of things and so on?
JUROR: Yeah, friends and family.
THE COURT: You don't use it in your business at all?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Do you use it to make comments about public affairs or anything like that?
JUROR: Jokingly sometimes, yes.
THE COURT: To the same group of people or --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So let me ask you to turn to page 20, and Question 77. This question we asked based on thing you'd seen or heard in the media or from other sources, whether you'd formed various opinions about whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty or not. And you answered "yes" as to A, that you thought -- you had an opinion that he was guilty, and as to D you answered "yes" that he should not receive the death penalty, okay?
We then asked in the next paragraph of that question, If you answered yes to any of the questions, would you be able or unable to set aside your opinion and base your decision on guilt or punishment solely on the evidence presented to you in court, and you checked "able."
Would you tell us about that?
JUROR: Well, basically from what I've seen or what I've heard of, I think he's guilty. I don't feel like I could put someone to death unless I really know the facts, so that's where my answer of "able" would be, once everything's presented to me that I don't know about.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about the first opinion, whether he's guilty or not. It's not surprising given the amount of coverage the events got that people have impressions about what happened and who's involved and so on and so forth. You understand that in our criminal justice system a person who is accused of a crime is presumed not to be guilty, to be innocent, unless and until the government proves the person guilty by the evidence at trial and proves that beyond a reasonable doubt.
You're familiar with those principles?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We would ask any juror in this case notwithstanding any prior opinions they might have to pay attention to the evidence in the case and to make their decision based only on that evidence and not on, say, news reports they'd seen earlier.
Do you think you'd have any difficulty in doing that?
JUROR: I don't think I would.
THE COURT: You don't think you would have difficulty? That was a bad question on my part.
JUROR: Yeah, I don't think I would have any difficulty in forming my own opinions on what's presented to me.
THE COURT: In the trial?
JUROR: In the trial.
THE COURT: Excluding things you might have thought beforehand?
JUROR: Right. Because I know with news media coverage and stuff like that, it's not always 100 percent. You don't know the whole story, so...
THE COURT: Right. As we've said, the government has the burden of proof in a criminal case, and it's always the government's burden, and the defendant doesn't have a burden or responsibility to show he's not guilty. It's up to the government to prove to the jury that he is, right?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: So you never shift the burden to the defendant to prove himself not guilty.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Okay?
As to any of the particular counts in the indictment, the government would be required to produce evidence that convinced each juror beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of that offense. If the jurors agreed that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to a particular offense, then the government would be entitled to their verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if the jurors were not convinced as to a particular count that the government had convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant would be entitled to be acquitted of that count.
Would you, under those circumstances, be able to find him not guilty of that particular offense?
JUROR: As long it was presented to me and I agreed with it, then yes.
THE COURT: In Question 78 you noted that family and friends know that you feel he's guilty?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Does that alter what you've just told us in any way about your --
JUROR: No, a lot of it has to do with -- not only just family, but even where I work. We were kind of a high-level area where we were seeing a lot of people come in.
THE COURT: I was going to say, were people brought -- victims were brought there. Were you involved in that at all?
JUROR: No, but I saw a lot.
THE COURT: Were you at work on April 15th?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So tell us what you saw.
JUROR: Well, just the news started coming in, and then they had set up in the emergency department and everything. And I saw people -- you know, just a lot of people covered in blood and stuff like that.
THE COURT: Where is your office or quarters relative to the emergency room?
JUROR: It's right in Chinatown.
THE COURT: No, but relative to the emergency room.
JUROR: It's right outside.
THE COURT: In other words, your space and the emergency --
JUROR: The office building is right outside the atrium, which is right where the emergency room is.
THE COURT: So what floor are you on?
JUROR: I'm on the second floor.
THE COURT: Okay. So you were able to see people coming in?
JUROR: Well, we went out and into the main area, and that's where we saw people coming in. And they had the SWAT teams running around.
THE COURT: So you left the office to go down to see, what was going on?
JUROR: Well, we were leaving, so that was part of it. So as we were on our way out, we had the SWAT teams coming around. They had people coming in and out and all kind of craziness was going on.
THE COURT: How long did you stay?
JUROR: Probably about half an hour.
THE COURT: I'm just guessing, is this like a seven-to-three shift and you were leaving around three?
JUROR: I work eight to four-thirty.
THE COURT: Okay. So it was around four-thirty-ish? Four, four-thirty?
JUROR: I want to say we left a little early that day, so about four.
THE COURT: Okay. Having sort of been an eyewitness to those events, do you think that would have any effect on your impartiality as a juror in the case?
JUROR: I don't believe it would.
THE COURT: Why not?
JUROR: Like I said, there's a lot of things I know I don't know about this case. So in trying to form a general opinion on the whole thing, I only see what I saw and can make a statement that point. But until I hear other things, I think I'm a pretty fair person and can make my own judgment.
THE COURT: All right. On page 23, beginning at Question 88, we asked a series of questions to gauge what jurors might think about the death penalty. 88 asks in general if you have views about them, what are they, and you said "none."
Can you explain that a little?
JUROR: I've never really actually, I guess, thought about the death penalty unless it's -- to me the death penalty is something that if you're 100 percent sure that somebody has done something wrong, then that would be it. So I'm kind of -- it's got to be 100 percent or nothing.
THE COURT: Well --
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think the parties --
THE COURT: Okay. All right. I think they've heard enough. Thank you. That's it.
JUROR: All right. Thank you.
(The juror exits the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Quarter of? Is that all right?
MR. BRUCK: Thank you.
(The Court exits the courtroom and there is a recess in the proceedings at 3:21 p.m.)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 3:49 p.m.)