Day 4 - January 15, 2015

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. explained that jurors would decide guilt first and consider death or life imprisonment without possibility of release only after a capital conviction. He distinguished the proof requirements for aggravating and mitigating factors, described the unanimity requirements for death, and emphasized that a death sentence is never mandatory. He also renewed restrictions on case discussions, research, and media exposure and explained privacy measures for sensitive juror answers. Individual questioning addressed publicity, impartiality, capital punishment, and service hardship. Juror No. 4 said he could not imagine evidence changing his existing views. Juror No. 6 discussed his wife's treatment of bombing victims. Juror No. 14 acknowledged continuing to hear case coverage and said he could not set aside his opinions favoring guilt and execution. Other prospective jurors expressed opposition to execution, sometimes categorically and sometimes while remaining willing to consider both sentences. Financial losses, interrupted client care, family responsibilities, and health concerns also arose. Counsel repeatedly disputed the scope of follow-up questioning. The defense sought fuller inquiry into publicity's effects, the presumption of innocence, and willingness to consider life imprisonment in this case. Prosecutors sought direct questions about willingness to impose death and consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors. The judge relied on the questionnaire, favored follow-up where answers were ambiguous, and rejected case-specific sentencing questions as stakeout questions. He also declined an acquittal hypothetical as speculative. Resolving agreed exclusions and contested challenges, the court excused Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, 23, and 27. The reasons included the combined victim and Marathon-sponsor connections of No. 6, No. 10's substantially impairing conditions for imposing death, and No. 27's professional orientation toward criminal defense. The court denied the defense challenge to No. 32, finding his answers satisfactory and credible. The judge explained that excusal notices were being withheld because excused jurors could speak to the press. Discussion of a pool reporter remained unresolved.