4.Individual Voir Dire — Juror 33
92 linesCOURT CLERK: Number 33.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 33.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: I'll ask you to speak into the microphone. Just adjust it as you will. Make yourself comfortable.
JUROR: Comfortable, okay.
THE COURT: When you filled out the questionnaires, as part of my instructions, I instructed everyone to refrain from any discussion of the matter and to avoid any discussion of it in the media or else-wise. Have you been able to follow that instruction?
JUROR: Yeah, mostly. I mean, what about spouse or -- yeah. I'm not watching the media or --
THE COURT: Have you talked to your spouse about it?
JUROR: Well, it's kind of hard. It's everywhere.
THE COURT: Have you talked about the substance of the case or just the fact of your service?
JUROR: Just the fact of my service.
THE COURT: I told you you could do that.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Obviously, he needs to know where you're going and --
JUROR: Yes, he does.
THE COURT: Speaking of your spouse, according to your questionnaire, he works for the Massachusetts State Police.
JUROR: Yes, he does.
THE COURT: Can you tell us how long he's done that and what his experience has been in the state police?
JUROR: He's been in for 33 years, and he's a trooper. He's done many things with the state police.
THE COURT: Say, for the last five years or so, what have his assignments --
JUROR: He's at Logan Airport and South Boston area. He has the Seaport area. So he patrols there. He does Hanscom Field. They have somebody there 24 hours a day.
THE COURT: He's in a marked vehicle patrolling, is that it?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah. They don't have their own cruisers at home now. Yes, he patrols the airport, patrols over here at Seaport, does Hanscom Field.
THE COURT: Okay. Has he -- is this what you might call general police work? Has he had any special assignment, any special task force or anything like that?
JUROR: He was, for quite a few years at Logan, lost and found and -- you know, lost and found. He did that. He's done everything. He's done the motorcycles. He's done, you know, quite a few things. He did the horses for a while. But mainly he's been, you know --
THE COURT: I guess what I was getting at, has he had any special subject matter, for example, being on the Drug Task Force, being on an Anti-Terrorism Task Force?
JUROR: No, he hasn't done those. He's done the lost and found a contraband at the airport for about maybe four or five years, until last year. He's a trooper. Patrols the airport, patrols over here at the Seaport because that's part of their area, the lower Seaport area.
THE COURT: Do you think your husband's work as a state trooper would have an effect on your ability to be an impartial juror in a criminal prosecution?
JUROR: Well, I think it might, yes.
THE COURT: Tell us how you think it might affect you.
JUROR: There was a police officer that was, you know, killed through this. I think -- yes. I don't think I can be impartial. It's kind of hard to ask somebody, I think, that -- when their husband is in that field of work and somebody, you know --
THE COURT: This isn't exactly related, but you have a nephew who's a corrections officer as well?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us a little about that, where he works and so.
JUROR: At Concord Prison.
THE COURT: How long has he done that?
JUROR: Probably about five or seven years, since he graduated college in -- you know, I think it's at least five years he's been over there or more.
THE COURT: Can you give us some idea how close you are to this nephew? Do you see him regularly? Do you see him weekly?
JUROR: No, not weekly.
THE COURT: Major holidays?
JUROR: Yeah, major holidays. He's our godson. My husband --
THE COURT: He's your godson?
JUROR: Yeah. My husband, he sees him. We don't see him every holiday, family gatherings.
THE COURT: Would his employment have any affect on your service as a juror?
JUROR: I haven't real -- I don't talk -- I don't discuss his job with him that much because, like I say, I don't see him that much.
THE COURT: I think you also told us you have a brother who's an attorney.
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: What kind of law does he practice, do you know?
JUROR: Real estate law. He's not -- he doesn't do much criminal, no, no, more real estate.
THE COURT: You had a prior jury service in which you served as the foreperson of the jury.
JUROR: Yes. It was a civil trial up in Lawrence.
THE COURT: How long --
JUROR: Civil -- probably five or six -- six or seven years ago. I don't remember the exact dates. It's hard to remember when, you know.
THE COURT: In the questionnaire, you said the civil trial was interesting.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And the criminal trial would be different. What did you mean by that?
JUROR: Because it's a whole different set of circumstances. Let's put it that way. This was a man suing his landlord that fell down the stairs at the house. So it's a lot different than a criminal trial. I mean, I don't know really how to explain. I think you can tell. There's nobody --
THE COURT: Would you be nervous about serving on a criminal trial?
JUROR: Yes, I think I would, yes.
THE COURT: Why?
JUROR: Well, just because of everything that goes on. You know, my husband is a trooper. You hear things. You see things. You talk about things.
THE COURT: We asked you -- everybody in the questionnaire a number of questions touching on what we might call international kinds of issues, attitudes towards Islam, the War on Terror and so on and so forth. Since you filled out the questionnaire --
MR. WEINREB: Could we have a moment, your Honor?
THE COURT: Okay. Could you excuse us for just a minute?
JUROR: All right. Thank you. Me? Me?
(The prospective juror left the courtroom.)
MS. CLARKE: I think the parties have agreed we have sufficient --
THE COURT: Could we excuse the reporters for just a minute?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, on the issues of when the reporters --
MR. DOREAU: Audio is off.
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I was just going to say that. When the reporters leave, whether we keep the audio on or not, we would prefer to keep it off because the microphones are more sensitive than reporters.
THE COURT: I can't hear you.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Apparently not. Whenever they leave, it's just the audio is off.
THE COURT: Yes. And it's off now. I have eye contact with the producer there.
MS. CLARKE: I think the parties agree. If you want us to just simply say the parties have agreed that we have sufficient information from the question, then --
THE COURT: I think it's okay to do it even more opaquely, if I can. That's fine. So we'll just tell her that, after conferring, we don't need to have any further questions or -- is that all right? So she can go along.
MR. WEINREB: Yeah.
THE COURT: I want to -- I looked at the -- as long as
[REDACTED]
MS. CLARKE: While we've taken that moment, could we ask that the Court, on -- the proceedings this morning were on the sidebar, and we didn't see any reason for that to be non-public. There was no privacy interest discussed, no juror discussed, no --
THE COURT: Well, I think we strayed -- the reason we put it that way, because I wanted to talk about things like the questioning to the jurors. And we have done that at sidebar. We did get into some other areas that arguably could have been public but --
MS. CLARKE: We just thought it should be as much as it can be.
THE COURT: Fine.
MR. WEINREB: We have -- as long as we're on the subject, we had one other request, which is simply that, when the Court is in recess, that the audio be cut.
THE COURT: Yes. Is that --
COURT CLERK: It's being done.
THE COURT: That should be done.
MR. WEINREB: There was a proposal that it not be, and we just object to that. It was a proposal from the press that it not be.
THE COURT: No, because there are private conversations going on, some of which are privileged, obviously, so I think it's best to protect against being broadcast.
MR. WEINREB: We don't mind the reporters being in the room because we can whisper, but these microphones can pick up the quietest whisper.
THE COURT: That's fair.
I think we can invite the press back in.