9.Individual Voir Dire — Background, Hardship, Law Enforcement, and Death Qualification
335 lines(In open court:)
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about what you work as.
JUROR: I'm an engineer.
THE COURT: What do you do?
JUROR: Write software. I test software. Most of my career has been testing software, but they've allowed me to write software. I managed a test group for a while and then I changed to a developer.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us about your use of social media.
JUROR: I have LinkedIn, but I try never to use it. I'd use it for a while. I don't use anything else really.
THE COURT: Your sister-in-law is a paralegal someplace?
JUROR: Yeah, I just don't have any details on it.
THE COURT: You don't know where?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Is she somebody you see on a regular basis?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But you don't know what kind of office she works in?
JUROR: Sometimes I get fuzzy on details. I don't know exactly. I know she's a paralegal, and I know she's bounced in jobs just like most people do, so it's hard to keep track of your own.
THE COURT: Okay. I think you said in the past you applied to the FBI?
JUROR: Yeah, I was in college. I remember doing that. It was -- I think it was the FBI. I remember it on the wall. Back then you -- jobs were listed on the wall and you put your name in for it. I didn't get it.
THE COURT: Any spillover to this case from that --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- either way?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And if you want to turn to it, on page 17, a couple of questions about world affairs, in a sense. In 60 we asked whether you think the U.S. government acts unfairly towards Muslims in this country or other parts of the world, and you checked yes. And then the next question is do you think the war on terror unfairly targets Muslims. Are you -- can you amplify those views?
JUROR: Yes. I do not believe in this country that Muslims are treated unfairly. In other parts of the world, I don't know. I'm not -- I can only go by what I see.
THE COURT: Do you remember why you checked "yes"?
JUROR: No, I don't. It's stressful, these things. I don't remember. Maybe it was because, "If yes, please explain"? I don't know. And then you asked about 61 and 62. Is that correct?
THE COURT: Yeah. They're similar questions in a slightly different...
JUROR: My issue with war on terror, it's based on what I see in the news, who's in -- what -- the POWs I saw on TV are Muslims. So if that's your war on terror, that's why I said that. In fact, I just think the term "terror" -- I don't know. They're just criminals, that's all.
THE COURT: Okay. Page 20, Question No. 77, we asked in this question whether you had already formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should, if so, be punished with the death penalty or not, and you said you had an opinion about whether he was guilty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You're unsure of the penalty.
JUROR: That's what changed over the period of time that you gave us to think about it.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I just believe it's completely wrong to kill another man.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's take the first question. In a criminal trial the government is required to prove a defendant guilty of what he's charged with beyond a reasonable doubt. Does the fact that you have an opinion mean that you would not hold the government to that burden of proof, or are you simply saying you're tending towards that view but you could evaluate the evidence and apply the appropriate standard?
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, the problem is, I'm so -- I've seen so much on it, right? I mean, it was all over TV. How can you not be slanted toward certain --
THE COURT: The question is: If you're sitting as a juror and the process requires holding the government to its proof and requiring it to be proved in the trial, not by word of mouth or media or something like that, would you be able to assess the evidence and basically vote for a verdict of guilty only if you were convinced of the guilt by the evidence in the trial beyond a reasonable doubt? Would you be able to do that?
JUROR: It seems like a tall order. Yeah, it would have to -- the evidence would have to be so overwhelming, that's the problem. But I could, you know...
THE COURT: In other words, do you have any tendency to, in effect, shift the burden to the defendant to show why he wasn't guilty or would you make the government prove that he was?
JUROR: So following the rules, innocent till proven guilty. I could follow the rules if that's what you're asking.
THE COURT: Yes, that's what I'm asking.
JUROR: Yeah, I could follow the rules.
THE COURT: Now, with respect to the penalty, we asked a few pages later in Question 88 your general views about the death penalty, and you wrote, "Most cases should never go to the death penalty." And then in the next question we asked you to sort of rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, your level of opposition or approval of the death penalty.
And by the way, looking through the questionnaire, if you want to take a minute to look at it to refresh your recollection, that's fine with me. I don't want to put you at any disadvantage if you think you want to refresh your recollection about something you'd you written.
Anyway, those two answers suggest you're in general opposition to the death penalty.
JUROR: I'm opposed to it.
THE COURT: The next question, on page 24, we asked for you to circle which was the thing that was -- the statement that was closest to your beliefs. And the one you said -- again, you're opposed to the death penalty but could vote to impose it if you believed that the facts and the law in a particular case called for it.
JUROR: Yeah, that's why I -- because you gave us so much time to think about it. And that's another thing that may have changed. I may become more -- I wrote that I wasn't religious. I gave it a "none." And I am religious. Really, this thing -- this whole process made me more religious. I just can't agree with the death penalty.
THE COURT: So you can't think of any circumstance in the evidence that would lead you to think that the death penalty was a more appropriate punishment for a crime than life imprisonment?
JUROR: No, I think life imprisonment is awful. And I just think -- I just think killing another man is wrong. And I feel like I'd be the one that -- one of the members that would be doing it. I just can't kill another person.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
(Pause.)
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: Since you were last here have you followed my instructions not to discuss the case with anybody --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- or expose yourself to any media accounts or anything?
JUROR: Just one. When they were talking about some jurors were let go or something like that, I heard.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell me about your job.
JUROR: My job?
THE COURT: What do you do?
JUROR: I work in a manufacturing plant. I work in the office. So I take the calls and I take the orders, process the orders, follow up on the orders, talk to the customers, bill -- did the billing and various --
THE COURT: About how big a company is it?
JUROR: There's about 15 -- 15 people.
THE COURT: Employees?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You had indicated in Question 10 that you thought you would not be paid if you served on the jury. Have you talked with your employer about that since?
JUROR: I don't have to. I know the answer to that.
THE COURT: What is it?
JUROR: No. It's a definite no.
THE COURT: Your husband served as a member of the Lowell police force?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And I think you said it was from 1970 to 1982? You can look --
JUROR: Yeah, it was about approximately 12 years or so.
THE COURT: It's page 12.
JUROR: Approximately, yeah.
THE COURT: What has he done since then?
JUROR: Well, he left because he was injured, so he went back to school and became a teacher. And he ended up leaving there because there was a lot of conflict with the police as far as him making money after he had already been injured.
THE COURT: Because of his disability payments?
JUROR: Yes. Yeah.
THE COURT: So is he working now?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And you have a son who is a part-time police officer?
JUROR: Yeah. Yup.
THE COURT: Where?
JUROR: Hampton, New Hampshire.
THE COURT: Okay. What is part time?
JUROR: He works there in the summers. He's a vice principal all year, and then in the summer he works at the police department. He's been doing that for about 12 -- well, what, 14 years?
THE COURT: As a result of your having a husband and a son who were employed as police officers, would you have any partiality or tendency to favor police evidence or non-police evidence in a case like this?
JUROR: Probably.
THE COURT: You think you would?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: I think you told us you worked in a legal services office a while ago?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: What was that for?
JUROR: That was my first job out of high school. Legal Services of the Merrimack Valley.
THE COURT: For people who couldn't afford lawyers, is that what it was?
JUROR: Yeah, it was a federal government job.
THE COURT: Okay. And you did that for only about five years?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: Your Honor, I think we have a consensus.
MR. WEINREB: We have enough.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: Thanks.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Are we on? Yeah? Stay on. We'll have to figure this out. Maybe you can signal Jane and she can signal me.
COURT STAFF: They did; I just didn't know what they wanted.
THE COURT: Tap me on the shoulder. Right shoulder, keep going; left shoulder, stop.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Hi.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: You're Number 21?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you followed my instruction from last time to avoid any discussion of the merits of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And avoid exposure to media stories about it?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you a little bit about employment.
By the way, your questionnaire is right there if you want to look at it and refresh your memory as to what it asked you about and what you answered.
Let me just talk a little bit about employment. First, your wife is a teacher?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Where does she teach?
JUROR: She teaches preschool in Millis.
THE COURT: Millis?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How long has she done that?
JUROR: She's been a full-time teacher there for about 18 years, 16 years.
THE COURT: Okay. And how about yourself?
JUROR: I'm a software engineer for a medical care company.
THE COURT: How long have you done that?
JUROR: I've been a software engineer for 20 years, 25 years. I've been at this particular company for two years.
THE COURT: Okay. Is service on this case a problem for your employment?
JUROR: No. It might be a financial, you know, burden, but I would expect to have my job when I got back.
THE COURT: It's a big-enough company that it could absorb the --
JUROR: Yeah, I think they could live without me.
THE COURT: I didn't mean it that way.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Social media: Do you use it?
JUROR: I use LinkedIn.
THE COURT: That's the only thing? No Facebook, no Twitter?
JUROR: I have accounts, but I don't use them.
THE COURT: You had a couple of relatives who worked in probation offices?
JUROR: Yes, I had an aunt that worked at the Barnstable District Court. She worked in Quincy as well. But she's retired now. And my sister-in-law is an assistant probation officer in Falmouth.
THE COURT: Okay. Do either of those circumstances have any effect on your fair-mindedness as a juror?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We asked some questions about affiliations you might have. You said you're a contributing member of the ACLU?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: American Civil Liberties Union?
JUROR: That's correct. My membership is expired. It was an automatic withdrawal every month. My credit card number changed, so I haven't renewed it yet. I'm too busy.
THE COURT: You told them now.
JUROR: Yeah.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: So we asked a question on the questionnaire that was about whether you had formed opinions about, first of all, whether the defendant was guilty or not or whether he should be punished by the death penalty or not. That's Question 77 if you want to take a look at it.
And to each of those possibilities, the four possibilities, you said you're unsure.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Could you maybe just amplify that a little bit?
JUROR: Well, I mean, I saw what everybody saw on the media, but I do know that media jumps to conclusions and we don't always have all of the facts. There was the -- the Olympic bombing in Atlanta where everybody rushed to judgment on this fellow and it turns out he wasn't involved, and there was the case of the anthrax person that was -- everybody suspected him. He was an employee of the government. And it turns out he wasn't involved. So I don't know all the facts that -- as they exist. I know what I see in the media, but I'm skeptical at times.
THE COURT: Okay. As to guilt or not, the government always has the burden to prove guilt by the evidence at trial, it's never presumed, and the defendant doesn't have any burden to prove he's not guilty. Are you comfortable accepting and applying those principles?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: If you turn to page 23, we ask a series of questions about your attitude or beliefs about the death penalty both in general and at the end in particular. And as to Question 88, you said in general you do not support the death penalty.
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked you in the next question to put it on a scale of 1 to 10, your level of opposition. And from -- with 1 being strongly opposed, you said you were at about a 3. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The next question, we again asked you to select which of a number of possibilities might reflect your view most closely, and you said you were opposed, as the previous question sort of indicated, but you could vote to impose it if you believe that the facts and the law in the particular case called for it.
So let me just ask it a different way. If you -- having -- assuming, of course, the defendant would be convicted because you'd never get to the question if he weren't, you would -- notwithstanding your general opposition, if there were circumstances in the case that were shown to you to be reliable and you accept it as relevant and important, that you would not rule out as a matter of course the death penalty?
JUROR: That is correct.
THE COURT: You could, under some circumstances, decide to impose it?
JUROR: As long as it followed the law. And that's the way...
THE COURT: And if you would just look at Questions 95 and 96. In turn they asked would you be prepared if you thought it was the right thing to do to conscientiously vote either for the death penalty, in 95, or for life imprisonment in 96, and you said yes to both of those possibilities?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
(Pause.)
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Hello.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: So that's your questionnaire for your reference if you find it convenient.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: I just want to follow up on some of the answers that you've given in the questionnaire. You're a psychotherapist?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You've written in the answer to Question 10 rather extensively about the impact this would have. And I guess my question -- I understand what you've put there -- are there any arrangements or accommodations that reasonably could be made that would mitigate that difficulty, both for you and for the people you counsel?
JUROR: Well, no. In fact, I brought you a letter from my supervisor which sort of indicates pretty much what I said here. It really doesn't feel like so much of a hardship for me but it's more for my clientele. I just feel like it's kind of a lengthy period not only for my clientele, but for Boston University since they would not be able to replace my services, so...
THE COURT: We'll keep that. Is that all right?
JUROR: Yeah, please. It would be something like 20 clinical hours a week which would be lost as far as I could tell, so...
THE COURT: When do you usually see clients? In other words, one thought that occurred to me as I was reading it is would it be possible to do something in the evenings?
JUROR: No. I mean, our hours are -- well, we do -- sometimes I work until 6:30 -- 6:30, I guess. So, yeah, it would be possible to see a few, but generally we only do that once a week. So -- and most of the students don't come in at night, to be honest with you. So I could do a few of them, but it really wouldn't -- I don't think it would make a big difference.
THE COURT: Okay. That was really what I was interested in, so thank you.
JUROR: Okay. Is that it?
(The juror is excused.)
(Pause.)
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Hi.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: Make yourself comfortable. I'm going to follow up on some of the questionnaire questions.
JUROR: Glasses.
THE COURT: Fair enough.
So you have the questionnaire?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: When you were here before for the large part when you filled out the questionnaire, I instructed people to avoid any discussion of the case thereafter.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Have you been able to abide by that instruction?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And to avoid any contact with media stories about the case?
JUROR: If I pass through the living room, I mean, maybe 45 seconds, you know.
THE COURT: But you've made an effort --
JUROR: I don't sit down and watch anything.
THE COURT: You're concerned about health coverage if you serve on the case?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yeah, my manager took me aside yesterday. And I'm an hourly-paid person who works 32 hours at my position, which lets me have benefits. They told me that my job would cover my benefits should I be on a jury but I would have to pay that back. So I'm not getting paid.
THE COURT: Pay what back, pay the insurance premiums?
JUROR: Correct. Back to the company for fronting me. And I was like, well, for me doing my civic duty I owe thousands of dollars back when I'm done? That doesn't make sense. But that's what she told me. And she did check on it. So that would be a hardship for my family definitely.
THE COURT: Do you know the details of your coverage; that is, who the --
JUROR: I have Blue Cross Blue Shield, and it is for health insurance, for dental and eye. And I have two children that have lifelong problems that they get tested for and medication for every six months.
THE COURT: But it is employer-provided healthcare; it's not through Mass. Health or anything like that?
JUROR: No, employer-provided that I sign up for and pay for through my pay.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you use social media at all? Social media: Facebook, Twitter, anything like that?
JUROR: I do not, no. As little as possible. Just my phone.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you have -- what kind of phone do you have?
JUROR: I have a Samsung phone. That's what I can tell you. If I break down, I can use it. I do text. I like texting to my sister.
THE COURT: Okay. Your daughter's boyfriend is a Marine and he has served in Afghanistan?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Is he still there?
JUROR: He is. He just came home on a leave for two weeks for Christmas, and he doesn't have to go back to Afghanistan. We were real happy, real pleased. We're real proud of him.
THE COURT: Does his service there and your appreciation of it have any possible impact on your point of view if you were a juror in a case like this?
JUROR: No. No, I don't think it would.
THE COURT: Can we cut the audio for a minute.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Just a sort of maybe related question, 46, which is on page 15, you said you have some negative views about law enforcement officers who have attitudes of superiority. Is that a reference to this?
JUROR: Oh, no. That's in general. I work at a public place where people --
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Excuse me.
We can go back on audio since this is unrelated to the other questions.
(In open court:)
JUROR: I think that was a generalization. You can tell by body language and attitude from a lot of people that just come into a place that they frequent how they speak, and because they wear a uniform they -- some people, I'm just saying, that I come across on a daily basis at my job can have an attitude.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Not all. Absolutely not. My daughter's boyfriend's father -- stepfather is a policeman and highly respected, and we think much of him.
THE COURT: So in this case obviously there will be testimony and so on from police officers of various categories and so on. Am I hearing you correctly that you don't have sort of a predisposition to --
JUROR: Oh, no, no, to anybody in a uniform or a police officer?
THE COURT: Yeah, law enforcement.
JUROR: No. No.
THE COURT: Okay. This is a little bit out of order, but let me jump to Question 74. You said that your son was upset because of what you called a SWAT team --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- at the university and probably related to this general course of events that may be involved here.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Does that incident give you any concern about how you might feel about the defendant having, you know, sort of indirectly causing the SWAT team to --
JUROR: No, it just said when I got the jury summons how did I feel when I received it, I was like, Oh, my gosh, this is an incident that my son had -- not an opportunity, but he was in a position where he had to witness, you know, some tragic things on campus that affected him. That was my only comment.
THE COURT: And my question is: Does that affect you, that he had that experience?
JUROR: No. No.
THE COURT: And just to confirm, I think you also told us that your son actually refereed a soccer team that the defendant may have played on?
JUROR: Correct. He didn't coach it; he ref'd it. My son is very active in soccer.
THE COURT: Did I say "coach"? I meant ref'd.
So do you know of any relationship or contact between your son and the defendant?
JUROR: No, I think I wrote in there that he does not know the defendant personally at all.
THE COURT: Okay. Whether you wrote it or not, that's what you understand the case to be?
JUROR: Correct. Absolutely.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at page 20, Question 77. This asks a number of questions, sub-questions, about whether you formed an opinion about whether the defendant is guilty and, if so, what penalty might be imposed. You indicated in responding on the questionnaire that you had formed an opinion that he was guilty but you were unsure about the penalty to be imposed.
Let me ask you this: In a criminal trial the burden is always on the government to prove the defendant guilty by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove he's not guilty. If somebody has a -- as you say you may have -- a pre-trial opinion --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- would you still be able to insist by your verdict that the government by the evidence prove him guilty or would you have some tendency to shift in your mind the burden to the defendant to prove that he wasn't guilty as you may have thought he was? In other words, would you be able to follow the instructions on the law as to how to analyze the evidence and resolve the issue presented, or would your preconceived idea dominate and prevent you from doing that? That's really the question I have.
JUROR: I see what you're saying. Yes, I do think that what happened he is guilty of, so... But would I look at what is placed or put in front of me or, you know, for my ears only? Would I be able to listen to that? Yes. But to what extent of guilt?
THE COURT: I'm going to come to the penalty in a minute, okay?
JUROR: Okay. That's --
THE COURT: The guilt -- there are a number of separate offenses charged, and you'll be instructed as to what the government must prove to establish that each of those charged offenses was committed. And if you have doubt whether that proof was there, then you'd be instructed you should find the defendant not guilty of that charge.
So right now I'm just only talking about the government's responsibility to prove guilt at trial and whether you would evaluate the evidence to see whether the government had done that, and if you thought they had not, whether you'd be able to return a verdict of not guilty because you thought the government had failed in its proof? What do you think you would be able to do under those circumstances?
JUROR: Can I answer I'm not sure, I would have to hear the evidence? That's my answer.
THE COURT: And that's because you don't know what the evidence is?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And until you do know what it is, you won't be able to say what you would think about it?
JUROR: Right, and how I would feel.
THE COURT: Now, let's turn to the penalty. You said you were unsure about -- this is in Question 77 -- whether he should receive the death penalty or whether he should not. You checked the box "unsure," C and D to that question, right?
JUROR: Right. I'm unsure about that. But can I answer -- I, myself, personally would never, ever be able to say I think anybody -- I'm against the death penalty.
THE COURT: So --
JUROR: So.
THE COURT: So let me move along in the questionnaire a little bit to get to some of those issues. On page 23, Question 88.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Do you see your answer there?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The next question we asked your general attitude toward the death penalty on a scale from strongly opposed at 1 to strongly favor at 10, and you selected 5. Was that accurate?
JUROR: I did that --
THE COURT: Let me actually -- because I think it involves the same considerations. On the next page --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- if you look at Question 90, there was other -- again, other options, and you selected D, "I am not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it or I could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, whichever was" --
JUROR: Right. I would rather do the life imprisonment.
THE COURT: Right. But I guess I'm getting at the form seems to indicate one thing and you seem to be saying something different today. So I just wanted to kind of find out where it is.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Which --
JUROR: I'm against the death penalty.
THE COURT: So the answers you gave on the questionnaire in 89 and 90, for example, you say do not properly reflect your view. Is that correct?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Do you know why you indicated that?
JUROR: Well, maybe I misread the question, didn't know quite how to answer it. And I know maybe I should have at that time put "unsure of how to answer it," but I did what I did then.
THE COURT: So is it your point of view that you would never vote to impose the death penalty, or is it your point of view that it would take a lot to get you to impose the death penalty or that you'd have to be shown something particularly serious in order to vote for the death penalty?
JUROR: How I look at --
THE COURT: One of those voices are --
JUROR: How I look at the question is I could not say, Yes, I think he should be put to death, give him a lethal injection. But should someone kill my child? That might be a different story for me emotionally at that time. I might -- if someone was really, really guilty.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you this, then: If you knew more about the crime than simply that there was -- someone was convicted of murder, for example, intentional murder, if you knew just that fact, what would your attitude be without knowing more?
JUROR: It would have to be as personal as my child. Anybody else, I can't -- I can't pass on the death penalty. I couldn't do it.
THE COURT: Okay. How about somebody else's child?
JUROR: I wouldn't want to do it.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Okay.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: Do you want to hold her for a minute?
MR. BRUCK: Yeah. I think we should probably say for the record that we think that more follow-up from that last question was required. When a juror says "I wouldn't want to do it," that actually comes from Witherspoon. I realize this juror has a lot of trouble with the death penalty but so do a lot of jurors who cannot be disqualified under Witherspoon.
We would like the Court to follow up -- or to have followed up with that juror to say, Well, understanding that you wouldn't want to do it, could you do it if the facts were bad enough and if the defendant deserved it and if the crime was horrible enough? That's the Witherspoon question.
MR. MELLIN: Actually, your Honor, I disagree. This juror is clearly substantially impaired. What -- the clarification that the Court was driving at was, was she just prevented in addition to being substantially impaired? Under either of those standards we would move that she be struck for cause.
THE COURT: I don't think there's any need for further questioning on her.
(The juror enters the courtroom.)
COURT CLERK: 26.
THE COURT: Hi.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: We're going to be following up on some of the answers you gave in the questionnaire that you filled out when you were here before.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: So it's there if you want to look at it.
One of the things I asked jurors -- or instructed them when we were here before was to avoid any contact with media stories about the case and to avoid any discussion of it with anybody. Have you been able to abide by those instructions?
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Tell me about your job.
JUROR: My job?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: I'm an auto damage appraiser. So, like, I crash cars for a body shop [sic]. People come in looking to get estimates, I give them estimates on the car. Very, very busy, very long hours.
THE COURT: You expressed at the end of the questionnaire some concern about whether you'd lose your job if you served on the case. Is that a real concern?
JUROR: Not that I'd lose my job, but I'd lose my income, and I have a house that I'm behind on some payments on.
THE COURT: So is your income dependent on, for example, the number of estimates you do or something like that? Tell me how that would --
JUROR: Well, I mean, if I'm on trial for a few months, I wouldn't be at work.
THE COURT: You wouldn't be paid by your employer?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: How are you paid? Are you on salary or --
JUROR: Commission.
THE COURT: Commission.
JUROR: That's my biggest concern.
THE COURT: Tell me about -- whether and how much you use social media.
JUROR: I have a Facebook account that I check, but I never really post much. We're talking about maybe look at it once a week. But I certainly don't blog, I don't -- I don't spend a lot of time online. I'm very, very busy at work for the most part.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
JUROR: That's it?
THE COURT: That's it.
JUROR: Do I take this, leave it?
THE COURT: Leave it.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: There are a couple here who might, on the papers, satisfy you in the same way. This one might be one.
MR. MELLIN: I believe 31 is another one.
THE COURT: And 31 is the other one. 31 I think we talked about yesterday.
MR. MELLIN: We did.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I thought we agreed on that one.
MS. CLARKE: I think we would like to hear [REDACTED]. Yeah, the student I think we agreed on, which would be Number 31.
THE COURT: Could you cut the audio for a moment?