5.Individual Voir Dire — Jurors 35, 37, 38 and 40
390 lines. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 35.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 35, sit here, please.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: I reminded everybody again today, but the last time when you filled out the questionnaire, I asked people to avoid discussion of the case or to avoid as well as you could any exposure to media stories and things like that. Have you been able to abide by that?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: You did fill out the questionnaire before. It's in front of you if you have need to refer to it, and I'm going to be asking you some questions about particular answers on the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Could you tell us a little bit about the nature of your work employment?
JUROR: Sure. I work for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources. In that regard, my role is looking at wholesale and retail electricity prices, wholesale markets, wholesale operations, factors that may impact gas and electricity prices, power plant operations, and the reliability of electric grid.
THE COURT: How long have you been in the field?
JUROR: Since 1987.
THE COURT: Okay. In the questionnaire, we asked a number of questions that could be generally characterized as international affairs, attitudes towards Islam or Muslims, attitudes toward the War on Terror and so on and so forth. Since the filling out of the questionnaire, there have been some incidents in Europe involving terrorist activity. Would any of those -- have you paid attention to any of those?
JUROR: Just on, you know, high level, what was reported, high level.
THE COURT: You mean, by high level, you mean at sort of a general level?
JUROR: Yeah, just there was a situation in Paris.
THE COURT: Have you read a lot about it, a little about it?
JUROR: No, I haven't read any.
THE COURT: My question was going to be: Does it change any answers you gave in the questionnaire about those matters, or does it bring up any other concern you would have that could be pertinent to this case?
JUROR: No. As you instructed us, to look at all the evidence that's presented in front of you, so that's what my task would be in this regard.
THE COURT: You did say in the questionnaire that you thought that the -- this was Question 62, if you wanted to look at it. It's on Page 17. -- that you thought the war -- we asked whether you believe the War on Terror was overblown or exaggerated, and you said yes. Could you amplify on that?
JUROR: Sure. My thought process in answering that question was in regard to the media coverage of all the events globally and domestically.
THE COURT: What specifically were you thinking about that?
JUROR: Just the situation over in -- where you hear about, you know, our -- in Afghanistan and Iraq and all over the world, those particular areas that they're covering throughout the world, the media, so --
THE COURT: I've forgotten the word you used exactly. You think the media coverage has been overdone or something like that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In what sense? Too much coverage or --
JUROR: Yeah. It's continuous coverage, if you flick a channel on at some time, that it's there. So --
THE COURT: I guess, when you say "too much," it's kind of a value judgment. You think it's more coverage than the events call for? Is that a proper interpretation of what you're saying?
JUROR: I guess the duration of the -- the duration of the coverage.
THE COURT: In proportion to the importance of it or -- I'm trying to get what you think is overdone.
JUROR: Here's a story, cover it, and then there seems to be, in my opinion, a lot of -- they get into so much. We talked to this person, talked to that expert or this expert. Just really dive in deep, deep, deep.
THE COURT: Are you thinking -- sounds like you may be thinking of TV shows. Is that -- are you talking about news reports or things like where there's panel discussions?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: I don't know if you watch, on Sunday, Meet the Press and things like that.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Are those the kinds of things you're talking about?
JUROR: I don't watch Meet the Press. Just in some -- they have this panel, this expert, this expert on federal government, former CIA, whatever.
THE COURT: Just to come back to the general question about the war on terror being overblown, your thoughts about that are concerning media coverage of it rather than the activity of the government? Or do you think the government's actions, so-called war on terror, are exaggerated or overblown?
JUROR: I can only go by what's presented in the media. So if the media is covering that, that's what I would be watching. So I don't know what is the criteria, that I'm just watching TV, the media coverage, so --
THE COURT: Do you have any strong feelings, one way or the other, about how the government is handling those matters?
JUROR: I have a feeling that the government needs to obviously protect the citizenship of the United States and its citizens.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, okay.
In Question 74, we asked you how you felt when you received your summons for this case. You said you would be honored to be eligible to serve. Is this a case that, because of its subject matter particularly, intrigues you or --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Would that be an answer you would give for any case?
JUROR: It would be for any case.
THE COURT: If you'd look at Page 20, Question 77, we asked some questions about whether you had any opinion based on what you'd read about this case, whether you had formed any opinions from any source, including the media. I just want to go back to Question 73 for a minute, the previous page. You noted that you had read a lot or watched TV a lot about the case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So, now, going back to 77, we asked, Do you have an opinion about whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, whether he should get the death penalty or not and so and on forth. You said "unsure" for each of those. Can you amplify on that?
JUROR: I was really taking -- my interpretation was taking your words and saying, Should I be drawing a conclusion without all the evidence presented? That's what my thought process was to answer to that question. I don't know if I took it out of context or not.
THE COURT: No. I think you may have been right. I guess what you're saying is you were preparing your mind for the condition it should be in if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: Right. That's --
THE COURT: You understand that a defendant has the benefit of a presumption of innocence and the government has to overcome that by proof, and you would be able to follow those principles --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- if you were a juror in the case?
JUROR: Correct, yeah. That's the way I was reading it.
THE COURT: Okay. We're going to get to the questions of potential penalty in a minute. But you noted on Question 82, on 21, that you had attended a OneFund event.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: What was the event? What was your participation in it and so on?
JUROR: It was just -- it was a fund-raiser held at the state room in Boston. I don't know the exact date.
THE COURT: Was it soon after the events or a couple months later or when was it?
JUROR: Yeah. I think it was -- I don't know the exact date. It could have been maybe three to six months perhaps afterwards. I don't know the exact date.
THE COURT: How did you come to go to that, do you remember?
JUROR: It was just through Boston.com or something came up. Somebody mentioned it or some -- so I thought it would be a worth wild --
THE COURT: This was an event that the interested public could attend?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
THE COURT: You saw that and you --
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Did it include a contribution?
JUROR: Yes, yes, it did.
THE COURT: A donation?
JUROR: Yes, yup.
THE COURT: Do you remember how much you donated?
JUROR: I think it was 75 or 50, 50 or 75, somewhere around there.
THE COURT: Have you had -- since that event, had you had -- participated in any other fund-raising or expressions of support --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- or sympathy or anything like that?
JUROR: No. I only -- I have contributed to a specific fund called the Rett -- International Rett Syndrome Fund, which my daughter has Rett Syndrome.
THE COURT: Completely unrelated?
JUROR: Yeah, no.
THE COURT: Now, we also asked a number of questions about your views about the possibility of a sentence of death versus the possibility of a sentence of life imprisonment. So we start at Page 23, Paragraph 88 -- Question 88. We ask, if you had any general views, what are you they, and you said no. Can you --
JUROR: Well, again, I was -- when you said to take -- literally, I took your words to say don't make any decisions until all the evidence is presented, so that's -- my thought process was going through that.
THE COURT: So that's about this case.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Apart from this case, do you have any general views about the death penalty, its appropriateness or not?
JUROR: Well, I would say that if it's considered cruel or unusual punishment, but I don't know what the criteria -- I don't know enough about what the criteria is that -- I don't know if that answers your question.
THE COURT: Okay. Do you mean that in some cases you think that might be true, or do you think that --
JUROR: I guess --
THE COURT: -- it will always be true? I'm not sure I'm following.
JUROR: I don't know what is considered, like, cruel and unusual punishment. I'd have to learn more about what is the criteria for that.
THE COURT: Are you using that phrase in a way that you think you understand it as a legal proposition as opposed to a factual proposition? In other words, do you think, in fact, the death penalty is cruel or, in fact, it is unusual kind of thing, or you know that phrase because it's in the Eighth Amendment and you think you want to understand the legal concept? I guess I'm trying to understand whether you're talking about it as a legal concept or as a human understanding of events.
JUROR: Yes, yes, human.
THE COURT: Okay.
The next couple of questions, we tried to gauge what you thought about the death penalty on 89. Go back to the previous page.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: We asked you to circle on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being strongly opposed, 10 being strongly in favor. You selected No. 5, which kind of puts you right in the middle. Then in the next question we tried to scale it again in a different way, this time by words rather than numbers. You said, "I am not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it or I could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment, whichever I thought was called for by the facts and the law in the case." Do those answers fairly represent your views about the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And in this case, would you be open to the possibility of, on the one hand, the death penalty if you thought the facts called for it and, on the other hand, open to life imprisonment --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- if you thought the facts called for that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you're not committed -- I'm hearing you -- you're not committed either way until you've heard all the evidence?
JUROR: Yes, correct.
THE COURT: In Question 95, we asked if you could conscientiously vote for the death penalty if you thought that was the right punishment, and you said you weren't sure. The next question, you said that, if you thought life imprisonment was the right one, could you conscientiously vote for that, you said yes. There's a slight difference between "I'm not sure" and "yes." Could you tell us why you answered those questions the way you did?
JUROR: Again, I was taking what you had instructed us, to look at all the evidence, so how could I make any decision on that particular sentence area until I knew more about what is the criteria for that?
THE COURT: Do you intend by that answer to indicate in any way that you would not be prepared to vote for the penalty of death in any circumstance? Or do you intend to convey that you will consider the circumstances before making up your mind about that?
JUROR: I have committed myself to make a decision based on what you had said was all the evidence in the case. So I --
THE COURT: And just to be sure, if that evidence persuaded you that a sentence of death was an appropriate punishment, would you be able to vote for that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And the same is true for life imprisonment without release?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Any brief follow-up?
MR. BRUCK: Could we confer just a moment?
(Discussion held off the record.)
MR. BRUCK: No, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you, [REDACTED].
COURT CLERK: Number 37.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 37.
THE COURT: As I reminded everybody again this morning, I've asked jurors to avoid any discussion of the case, sort of exposure to media or other sources of information about the case. Have you been able to abide by that instruction?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So we have the questionnaire. You have yours in front of you if you want to refer to. There may be sometimes when I'll ask you to do that. I'm going to follow up on some of the questions.
I want to ask you first about the matter you raised in Question 9, which is concerning your eye. Is that something you would rather not discuss in public?
JUROR: No. I'm fine with it.
THE COURT: How serious of difficulty do you think it will be?
JUROR: Well, as you can see today, this is one of the more mild episodes. I do have a few photos to show you when it's in its full-blown. When it is, it's pretty debilitating, unfortunately.
THE COURT: In what sense debilitating? Does it impair your vision?
JUROR: Yes. May I show you --
In addition to impairing my vision, it -- I end up with almost like a migraine-type headache. It essentially -- it will take a day or --
THE COURT: It's pronounced.
JUROR: It is. It's completely swollen shut. It's an autoimmune disease. It's an inflammatory disease. I have a tumor behind my eye. So my immune system is periodically sending stuff through it. I'm taking chemotherapy drugs for it, but it's not quite under control.
THE COURT: Is it unpredictable?
JUROR: It is. I was here yesterday. Everyone could tell you there was nothing. Today I woke up it's swollen. There is no rhyme or reason. We have yet to figure out what the cause is. Today is not such a problem, but when I have one of those, which happens periodically, I can't drive. I can't see. I have a very, very bad headache that makes it very difficult for me to focus on anything. It's, unfortunately, just very distracting.
THE COURT: Okay. I think that's enough. Thank you.
JUROR: Sure.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 38.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 38.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: I had asked people last time you were here when you filled out the questionnaire to avoid any discussion of the case or exposure to media accounts of the case or talking about it or anything like that. Have you been able to do that?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: For the record, you have to answer affirmatively.
JUROR: Yes, yes.
THE COURT: You're concerned about the burdensomeness of service in light of your employment. Can you tell us a little bit about that?
JUROR: Basically, what I do is I go to customers, people that call -- it can be a company or an individual -- and fix computers, phones. So, basically, it's not for a company. It's for myself. I have a group of companies that I do that for.
THE COURT: You're sort of -- they're regular clients of yours, put it that way?
JUROR: Some of them are.
THE COURT: You make arrangements with them or they keep calling?
JUROR: Yes, some are. Some I go back monthly, and then other times, it will be people will recommend me to someone else, and I'll go and service their computers.
THE COURT: The nature of your service is you have to go there?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: It's not something you can do online or over the line?
JUROR: Sometimes I can do it remotely, usually for the customers that I already have. But sometimes I don't have those customers every month, so --
THE COURT: How do you get customers?
JUROR: Referral.
THE COURT: So, say, for the last week or so, what's your activity been in the last week or so?
JUROR: About 50 percent of the time, I'm out of my house. And then the rest of that time, I'm logging in and working on research or stuff to get other jobs, you know -- say, you hire me to set up new computer systems or you want cameras, I'll go research that, bring that back to you, and you purchase it and I set it up.
THE COURT: I noticed, just sort of background information, that your father worked for the Department of Defense.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Can you tell us what he did?
JUROR: He started off as, like, computer analyst. Then he was in communication. He did base closures and something with the tracking station. I'm not exactly sure.
THE COURT: Was he a civilian employee of the Department?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: What were his professional training and skills? Was he an accountant? Was he a software person?
JUROR: Yeah, software and communications. I know that he dealt with telecommunications and software, but I don't really know all the details.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us about your own use of social media, business or personal.
JUROR: Facebook.
THE COURT: How frequently and whether you post or view or both or what?
JUROR: Both. That's kind of part of the work I do, too. I work with small companies to get them on Facebook and to advertise and to help them with Google. So I'm on there a lot. I'm on Facebook. I kind of think it's a waste of time, so I'm not on there a lot but a couple times a week.
THE COURT: Have you posted anything about this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: In Question -- again, it may help to refer to Question 50 on Page 15. Asked about what cases you might have followed, criminal cases. You said this case and the trials related to his, I take it meaning the defendant's friends, at UMass Dartmouth.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Tell us to what level or degree of interest you followed those cases, how thoroughly you followed it and so on and so forth.
JUROR: Well, the case is pretty much everywhere if you're online, if you're on Facebook, it's on the news. So I've followed it that way. And then, since I live near UMass Dartmouth, I would see it in the paper or, again, online. I've just read some of the articles. It's not like I'm looking for information, but I've, you know, you see it often, so --
THE COURT: With respect to the cases of the friends from UMass Dartmouth, just because it was --
JUROR: I've just read about it in the paper, so -- no, I haven't particularly followed what's happened to the -- to them, but I have read about it.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked a series of questions about topics which could be grouped as sort of international issues, attitudes towards Muslims, Islam, immigrants, what -- actions involving the war on terror and so on and so forth, attitudes towards that. You've answered it. But since you did fill out the questionnaire, there have been some incidents in Europe and otherwise, things that could be classified as terrorism. Have you paid attention and, if so, how closely to any of that reporting?
JUROR: I've heard about it, but I actually haven't really followed it. I've been trying to stay away from the news.
THE COURT: I appreciate that. Well done.
So what you do know, would it affect any of the answers you gave previously?
JUROR: No, I don't think so. I mean, I don't really know a lot about it. I just know that there were some bombs that went off in France, but --
THE COURT: Would incidents like that -- I mean, who knows -- and in the course of the case, maybe something else will happen. Would incidents like that, that are not directly pertinent to this case, would they have any influence on you as a juror in this, do you think, if you came to learn about them?
JUROR: I don't think so, no.
THE COURT: In Question 74 on Page 19, we asked sort of for your reaction to realizing that you had been summonsed and, I guess, realizing that it might have been for this case.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: First two things you said you felt was stress and anger.
JUROR: Yeah. It's definitely stressful and I just -- the whole -- I guess maybe my answer is not being picked for -- it's about the case. I mean, this is --
THE COURT: Uh-huh. So can you -- when you said stress and anger, you --
JUROR: So, I mean, you see so much on TV and you -- I don't know. I just -- that's --
THE COURT: Do you -- as recently as the time you received the summons, do you still experience anger about the events in the case?
JUROR: Yeah, I think so.
THE COURT: Question 80 on Page 20, we asked if you or a family member or close friend actually witnessed the events, and you said a friend responded as a first responder at the finish line.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: He's a Boston officer. And a cousin was at the Marathon medical tent.
JUROR: Yup. My cousin was running the tent for, like, the cool-down.
THE COURT: That was where, in Copley Square?
JUROR: Yup, yup. He was there during that. And then a friend of mine was one of the first officers there at the finish line. I think he was actually at the finish line when it all happened.
THE COURT: Have you talked to him about his experience there, that is, well before this case?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Or thereafter, too, but I meant around the time.
JUROR: A little bit. More of it was he was on the cover of Time Magazine, so it was talking about that.
THE COURT: I guess what I'm wondering about is have you -- has he been --
JUROR: I haven't talked --
THE COURT: -- a significant source of information about the events to you as opposed to, for example, the media?
JUROR: No, not to me.
THE COURT: Now, I'm not clear on which person we're talking about actually.
JUROR: My friend that's the police officer.
THE COURT: The police officer, okay. That's what I thought.
And the cousin, was he involved in responding in any way after the event?
JUROR: I think he was just there and coordinating everything that was going on and kind of made a triage area. But I haven't really -- we didn't really talk about it.
THE COURT: Further up the page, in Question 77, we asked whether, based on what you'd seen or read in the media or otherwise from other sources, including people like we've just been talking about, whether you had formed an opinion about whether the defendant's guilty or not and about what punishment he should get. You indicated that you had formed an opinion that he's guilty and, similarly, that you had formed an opinion that he should get the death penalty.
As I think I instructed the last time, and I referred to it again today a bit, a defendant is presumed to be innocent of charges made against him in a criminal case unless and until the government proves otherwise by proof at the trial.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Would you be able -- notwithstanding that you have some impressions and some opinions about this matter from other sources, would you be able to apply those principles faithfully and require that the government overcome the presumption of innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial? Would you be able to do that?
JUROR: I think that I could. These answers are from everything that I've seen. So, you know, they'll present a case, and we all get to decide, I guess, one way or the other. I mean, I guess you'd try to keep an open mind. Just everything that's been on the news is -- I don't know. I just --
THE COURT: Let me -- this is all hypothetical. It's hard to know what you would do in some future event, obviously. But if you were to hear things that were different from what you'd already heard in some way or additional in some significant way, for example, would you be open to revising your previously formed opinion?
JUROR: Yes, uh-huh.
THE COURT: Would that be true not only for the determination of whether he's proved guilty or not? Would that apply as well to any opinion that you might have about the appropriateness of the death penalty?
JUROR: I think it depends on -- I don't know. I guess you would have to go through the case, I guess. I don't know. What I -- maybe I would revise how I feel after hearing and what the penalty should be.
THE COURT: Page 23, we asked a series of, questions beginning with Question 88, about trying to get to what your views were about the death penalty in general. And in 88, we said, Do you have any general views? And you said that you had none. But in 89, we asked you to do it on a scale, 1 to 10, and you indicated "9."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Specifically, the question was whether the death penalty should be imposed whenever a defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder. And you circled "9" on that. It seems a little bit different from 88, but they were asking slightly different things. Let me just complete it as you're thinking about it. I can see you're thinking about it.
To add, the next page, Question 90, was another sort of scaling question, which asks, in words, what represented your view. And you circled "F: I am strongly in favor of the death penalty, and I would have a difficult time voting for life imprisonment without the possibility of release regardless of the facts."
So refreshing your recollection with those answers, can you give us a summary of how you would approach the question on the premise that you have a defendant who has been convicted of an intentional murder?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: On that premise, then, considering -- after you've heard from both sides aggravating factors, mitigating factors and so on, what do you think your mental condition would be? Would you be inclined automatically to vote for the death penalty? Would you be inclined automatically the other way? Would you be able to evaluate the aggravating and mitigating factors seriously and perhaps -- perhaps in the end --
JUROR: If he was proven guilty of murder, how would I --
THE COURT: Right.
JUROR: -- would I process that?
THE COURT: In other words, would it be your opinion or your point of view that a person who is guilty of an intentional murder -- take that as a premise -- such a person must always be sentenced to death or such a person may be sentenced to death in appropriate circumstances and may not be and be given life imprisonment in certain circumstances?
JUROR: Yeah. Well, I don't know. I have a hard time with that, I guess. I think, if he's proven guilty of an intentional murder, then -- but I guess there's always facts. So, I mean, maybe I'm not understanding the question.
THE COURT: We can't ask you to say what you would do because you don't have the facts. It's really a question of whether you're committed sort of perhaps as a philosophical matter -- some people might have that view or maybe some other reason that you think you know things about the case that would lead you to do it, something about it so that you would -- really the question is: Can you be confident yourself that you could consider both mitigation and aggravation, balancing, and make a decision as appropriate in the facts that you have, or do you have some predisposition one way or the other that you think would overtake that and control?
JUROR: No. I think I could weigh that and -- I don't have any predisposition, but I read this as if, for example, if he's -- that doesn't help me.
THE COURT: You know what the case is about. It's about bombings in which three people died and in which a police officer was shot. So you have that general sense of it, right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: If somebody is convicted of doing that intentionally, would you have -- what would your approach be? Would you think that under the circumstances it should necessarily be the death penalty, or would you be able to give consideration based on the evidence that you hear to either the death penalty or life imprisonment? That's really what I'm getting at.
JUROR: No. I think it should be the death penalty.
THE COURT: Under those circumstances?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And so are you unable to consider in that -- on those circumstances, the possibility of mitigating circumstances that could reduce the appropriate punishment?
JUROR: No. I could consider other if --
THE COURT: You would have to hear what it was?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Well, I don't want to misunderstand your position, but I'm trying to gauge the strength of the predisposition. Predisposition, as a human matter, can be understandable, and it's hard to predict what you would do when there's additional information. I'm just trying to guess whether it would be a dominant predisposition or whether you could be open conscientiously to consider the possibility of a different sentence than death. Only you can tell us.
JUROR: I mean, I think I can be open to that, but I've seen so much that -- and when you go through this, I feel like you're -- you know, like -- this No. 90 says, you know, if he's proven guilty, how would you -- how would you respond or react or what would you think? So that's why I answered these the way I did. You know, it says if he was -- if this person is proven guilty of murder, what would your -- I don't know if that --
THE COURT: Let me -- the question was asked in a number of different ways because it's a complex question, and we want to be sure we come at it in different ways. If you look at Questions 95 and 96, in each of those we asked, if you found him guilty and you decided that, first, the death penalty was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote for the death penalty, and you said yes. In the next question, we asked the same thing but about life imprisonment, and you said yes as well. At the time you filled out the questionnaire, was that your view, that you could consider either and conscientiously choose either?
JUROR: Yes, I could. I see what you're saying. Is it one or the other? Is that what's confusing? I feel like if -- so I wouldn't be set on one, I guess, one decision or outcome. Is that what the confusion is?
THE COURT: Okay. I think we've explored it. I just -- lastly, I wanted to go back a little bit. In the questionnaire, in Question 81, which is on Page 21, you commented that you and many of your friends sheltered in place on that Friday, and you said you're not sure of any long-term effects. What did you have in mind when you said that? What kind of long-term effects were you thinking of?
JUROR: So what was the question? If --
THE COURT: We're talking about how you personally might have been affected about things. That's what Question 81 was about. You commented that you -- you said "many friends."
JUROR: Yes, but I don't think they have any long-term effects.
THE COURT: It wasn't you, I guess. It was your friends.
JUROR: They just experienced it, and I don't think there was any long-term effects.
THE COURT: You weren't affected by it personally?
JUROR: No. I stayed out of the city.
THE COURT: You weren't in the city?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Yes, your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Who wants to go first?
MR. WEINREB: I will. [REDACTED].
THE COURT: Just identify yourself for the juror.
MR. WEINREB: I'm sorry. You said that --
THE COURT: This is Mr. Weinreb, one of the prosecutors. I just -- he should know who's asking the question.
MR. WEINREB: I'm sorry. I'm Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I'd just like to ask you a few follow-up questions so I understand all your answers.
You explained the ways in which it would be a hardship for you to serve because of the impact it would have on your job. One of the things -- I understand that, of course. That made sense. But one of the things that was not entirely clear to me is the degree to which it would be a financial hardship. I notice that you're married, and your husband seems to have a job and work. Would that mitigate the financial hardship at all? Would that make it --
JUROR: I mean, it does. Things are tight now, so it's -- it's still tough.
MR. WEINREB: So I'm sure you're aware, as everybody is, that serving on a jury is a sacrifice. I guess one of the things that we need to determine is how much of a sacrifice it would be. Is it just taking a hit in your income, or is it going to be a catastrophe for you?
JUROR: It takes both of us to be able to pay the mortgage and the health and the bills, so it would be a pretty big hit. If I'm -- I don't know how much I would be able to work. There may be some remote stuff at night that I could do, but I'm expecting it to be, if I was on the jury, to be pretty tough.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Excuse me one second.
One last thing on the questions about your ability to consider mitigating factors. So you seem to be struggling with the question of, if the defendant were convicted of the capital offense and various things were proved that suggested that it was a particularly bad offense, whether you would be able to consider factors going the other way. But nobody mentioned what any of those might be, so you're left to just imagine for yourself what they might be. And so I just want to confirm with you that if you -- that at a sentencing phase, if this case has a sentencing phase, and you hear evidence about why this case might be an appropriate one for the death penalty, but you also hear evidence going the other way, evidence that would tend to mitigate the crime, evidence about the nature of the crime, and about the defendant's character or background, that would suggest to you that maybe there are special circumstances here that might point the other way. Would you be able to give meaningful consideration to those other circumstances and consider whether they made it inappropriate to impose the death penalty in this case?
JUROR: Yes, I think -- yes.
MR. WEINREB: That's all. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Bruck.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon by one minute. I'm David Bruck. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's attorneys, and I just have a few things I'd like to follow up on.
They tell me I can't be heard. Sorry.
Just a couple of things. First, about your economic situation, your job, it's -- I know it's hard to predict, but this is the only chance you get to predict. It will be too late if you're on the jury and this becomes a source of real stress and distraction for you that you are not able to pay the bills. Is that something that could happen and, if it did, could it be a real interference with your ability to focus on a case of this seriousness?
JUROR: I guess -- I don't know. It could be, yeah. I feel like you have to come up -- you have to figure things out. I don't know what I would do. You know, I haven't been in this situation before, but -- I work a lot so it's --
MR. BRUCK: As you sit here now, is that a concern for you? Are you worried about it?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
MR. BRUCK: You said that you were -- you still have feelings of anger.
JUROR: Just the whole course of events kind of -- it's kind of needless. It's like the stuff that happened yesterday with the people blocking themselves on the road. Just, you know, I don't get what any of this accomplishes. I'm not talking about coming to court and all this but the events.
MR. BRUCK: I want to be sure, but when you filled out the questionnaire, you felt that Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty of these events. That is your opinion now?
JUROR: Yeah, just from everything that I've seen on the news and, you know -- whatever that's worth. There's, you know --
MR. BRUCK: Right.
JUROR: I haven't heard anything else, so --
MR. BRUCK: When you describe feelings of anger, who are you -- please understand that there's nothing wrong with having paid attention to what's going on.
JUROR: It's just a feeling. I mean, I don't -- I guess it's towards the whole situation. I don't necessarily know if it's towards a particular person, but -- the whole events and what you hear on TV. I don't know if you can believe everything you hear.
MR. BRUCK: You told the judge and you told Mr. Weinreb that you could hear other evidence that would change your mind. I guess my question is: Would it take evidence from the defense to change your mind from how you feel now?
JUROR: I think it would.
MR. BRUCK: So we would have to prove to you that he is not guilty in order for you to feel that he is not guilty?
JUROR: Yes, I think so.
MR. BRUCK: And we would have to prove to you -- don't let me put words in your mouth, but I'm trying to hear what you're telling us. We would have to prove to you that he does not deserve the death penalty in order for you to not give him the death penalty.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think this is a little too leading, both of those questions.
MR. BRUCK: I guess I can turn it around.
MR. WEINREB: You're misrepresenting --
THE COURT: I think it's ground we've been over. I understand the reason for the questions, but I think we've gone --
Let me just come back -- since the family income now has been put into issue, can you just tell us what your spouse does?
JUROR: He's an optometrist.
THE COURT: It gives that he has an M.B.A. Is that just incidental?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: That doesn't affect his -- is he self-employed?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In a -- what? A vision store or something like that?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah. Again, he works for himself. That's how the -- yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, can I follow up on that because I don't think that was a fair way to end the questioning?
THE COURT: Okay. I don't want to -- I don't want this to just be swatted back and forth across the net.
MR. WEINREB: I understand. Sir, I just want to make sure we're clear on this question of the presumption of innocence. So if you are -- you will be instructed that the defendant is entitled to a presumption of innocence, that you need to presume that he's innocent and that he will remain innocent unless and until the government proves him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Can you follow that instruction?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: That's all.
THE COURT: I think that's enough. Thank you. Leave the questionnaire there, if you would.
COURT CLERK: Number 40.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 40.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 40, right here, please.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out before. We're going to refer to it from time to time as I follow up on some of the answers you've given in it.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: When you were here last filling out the questionnaire, I had instructed everybody to avoid any discussion of the case and any exposure to media accounts of this trial or anything else. Have you been able to abide by that?
JUROR: I have. I've turned down the radio, turned it off, left the room. I haven't looked at any articles.
THE COURT: I appreciate that.
As I say, I'm going to follow up on some of the information just to get perhaps a little amplification of it. One of the interesting things is that you spent five years in Nepal. Can you tell us about that?
JUROR: Yeah. I was a Peace Corps volunteer there. I served there for about two and a half years. I got to do sort of a full-circle experience. I got to go back and train incoming Peace Corps volunteers. I went to graduate school. I had to do a practicum. I happen to speak Nepali. I got a practicum back in Nepal coordinating a women's literacy program.
THE COURT: So it wasn't a consecutive five years? It's five years in total?
JUROR: Kind of, yeah. Two and a half years, break for three months, couple months there, grad school, two more years. And then I actually ended up in Boston because I worked with -- the company I worked for, the nonprofit I worked for, is based here in Boston, and so I would travel on and off to several countries, actually.
THE COURT: When was the time in Nepal generally? What decade?
JUROR: Yeah. Early '90s, Peace Corps; 1996, work, to 2005.
THE COURT: Tell us about your work and the organization that you work for.
JUROR: I run a nonprofit. It's called Boston Partners in Education. We support kids in the Boston Public Schools, Grades K through 12. The way that we do that is by getting people from the community to actually go into school. They tutor, mentor kids. They commit one hour a week mostly in reading, writing, and math. Any teacher in Boston can request -- nominate their students and request volunteer help. So if you know of anyone that wants to volunteer, I'm always looking.
THE COURT: How long have you been doing that?
JUROR: This is my tenth year.
THE COURT: And you're married, and your wife is an attorney?
JUROR: Yeah. She's a hearing officer at the Department of Public Utilities for a different state.
THE COURT: Hearing regulatory matters?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Rating setting, things like that?
JUROR: Yeah. She works mostly on storm cases, and cyber security is big right now.
THE COURT: We asked about social media, and you said you contribute to a blog, I think, but that it's a particularly targeted blog.
JUROR: Yeah. It's for my work. So I write a couple of posts. I help to edit all of our posts. I -- it's really about service and kids and supporting teachers in the Boston Public Schools.
THE COURT: Do you use social media for personal use?
JUROR: I do. I have a Twitter account. I'm more into Twitter than Facebook. I'm kind of a stalker on Facebook. I don't really do anything on Facebook. I get tagged on things there. But with Twitter, I have a work -- I have my own Boston Partners Ed Twitter account which I share information about education, public education, what's going on in Boston with education, stories, our blogs, that kind of stuff. Then I have another Twitter account, personal account, Sports Gal One, big Red Sox fan. You know, I post things about sports, LGBTQ stuff, things that interest me personally.
THE COURT: Have you done any posting about this case or the circumstances?
JUROR: I have not done any posting about this case.
THE COURT: Or the underlying circumstances?
JUROR: I have not.
THE COURT: Events?
JUROR: No, no. I was at the Westin Hotel on Marathon Monday and maybe said something. I can't recall.
THE COURT: You have had some experience as a juror in a state civil case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: It was two jury services ago. So I had one last summer, so it was the one before that, so probably four years ago, five years ago.
THE COURT: And you had one last summer?
JUROR: I got called to jury duty, but there were no cases. I mean, I just spent --
THE COURT: You reported but you were discharged?
JUROR: I reported but was dismissed.
THE COURT: We asked some series of questions in the questionnaire about what might generally be called international affairs, some questions about attitudes towards Islam and Muslims, for example, attitudes towards the -- what's called the war on terror and so on and so forth. Since the filling out of the questionnaire, there have been some events in Europe involving what could fairly be described as terrorism.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Have you followed those reports?
JUROR: I have followed those.
THE COURT: How closely? Casually? Could you quantify it a little bit?
JUROR: I'm not out protesting. I think that those kinds of things are something to be concerned about, when you can't go to work or can't go to a public place and you have to be worried about -- not that I worry about that stuff, but that something could happen.
THE COURT: Would you take just a minute to look at, I guess, Page 17. Just scan the series of questions there. And the question at the end is: Would any of those answers change as a result of anything recent since the questionnaire was filled out?
JUROR: No, none of those things would change.
THE COURT: Question 72 on Page 19, we asked about whether you'd ever called a talk show, written a letter to the editor, et cetera, posted websites. Your answer is, yes, in regards to education, mentoring and volunteerism. That sounds like what you've already told us about. Your blog, is that what you're talking about, or is this something in addition to that?
JUROR: No. I mean, a couple of letters I've written to the Globe. I think one was published in the Herald a few years ago, mostly around community service, education issues. I can't remember exactly. One was about mentoring.
THE COURT: Sort of adjunct to your professional life?
JUROR: Yeah. I want my voice to be heard, yeah.
THE COURT: Questions 74 and 75, we asked about what happened when you learned you might be called in for this case. 74, you said you were surprised, a little disbelief since I felt personally affected. Can you tell us what you meant by that?
JUROR: Well, I live in Dorchester. You know, I know the Richard family personally, but -- you know, I did, like, a clean-up day and I usually met Martin. You know, I -- it was just, you know, walking by a memorial for him, all that stuff. So I just was a -- I was sort of surprised and the fact that I -- my organization has runners in the Marathon, so I was down there. I had to look for my runners, their families. I had given passes to the finish line.
MR. WEINREB: Can we pause for a minute?
JUROR: It was a long couple days.
THE COURT: Yes. There's a request for consultation with the lawyers. If you'd excuse us for a minute.
JUROR: Okay.
(The juror left the courtroom.)
THE COURT: We can proceed to another.
MR. BRUCK: We can.
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
THE COURT: Could you excuse us?
MS. CLARKE: I don't think he's going to say anything --
THE COURT: Somebody else might.
MR. WEINREB: Let's excuse them and figure it out.
MS. CLARKE: Somebody else might.
MR. BRUCK: Are we ready? I think the parties can agree that that juror should be excused. I just wanted the record to reflect, which it otherwise would not, that the juror was crying during the last minute or two of the --
THE COURT: Fair enough.
MS. CLARKE: That was okay, right?
THE COURT: That was okay.
MR. WEINREB: Actually, in future, perhaps we could just say on the record, We can move on, and it will be understood that that's --
MS. CLARKE: I suggested that awhile ago.
MR. WEINREB: That that's an agreed strike?
THE COURT: I like this way better.
MR. WEINREB: Where we actually send the reporters out of the room?
THE COURT: If we're going to have a discussion. No, I meant, the interruption.
MR. WEINREB: I just meant that instead of sending them out of the room so that we can say this is an agreed strike, we can just follow the Court's lead. If the Court can ask, Can we proceed to the next juror, and we all assent, that would be a way of --
THE COURT: The only reason we did -- I didn't know what was coming with the comment. That's the only reason.
MR. WEINREB: So that will be --
THE COURT: They didn't have to be excused for the reason that the juror is finished with us. Yes, we'll --
MR. BRUCK: I'll try not to be an unguided missile.
THE COURT: If somebody can get them back in.