Skip to content
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev— Case Archive
2015 Federal Trialtrial-daytrial-dayjury_selectionjury_instructionsvoir_diresidebarDay 6 - January 20, 2015Capital-trial instructions and individual voir dire addressed publicity, impartiality, punishment views and hardship. The court set limits on questioning, provisionally qualified Juror 60, excused Jurors 65, 70 and 76, and denied several challenges.
← Day 52015 Federal TrialDay 7 →

Day 6 - January 20, 2015

Capital Instructions, Individual Voir Dire, and Juror Challenges

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr.
9Proceedings
9Pages
0Witnesses
1,806Lines
7Sidebars
Day 6 of 67

Capital-trial instructions and individual voir dire addressed publicity, impartiality, punishment views and hardship. The court set limits on questioning, provisionally qualified Juror 60, excused Jurors 65, 70 and 76, and denied several challenges.

Full day summary

The court excused Juror 38 for combined trial-length hardship and emotions too close to the case. It denied the government's challenge to Juror 54 despite concerns about candor, leaving the government to use a peremptory challenge if it chose. Judge O'Toole then instructed the venire about a possible sentencing phase before the same jury, the treatment of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the unanimity required for death. He emphasized that a death sentence was never mandatory. Individual questioning explored publicity, existing opinions about guilt and punishment, personal connections, and financial or scheduling hardships. Juror 59 said her attitudes toward Muslims would interfere with impartiality and that she already favored guilt and death. Juror 60 initially doubted she could presume innocence, then said she thought she could when the question was framed around trial duties. Juror 65 likewise expressed strong existing views but later said she thought she could decide after hearing the evidence. Other jurors described strong preferences for or against capital punishment. The court directed counsel to distinguish media-based impressions from jurors' legal responsibilities. It allowed an expansive understanding of questionnaire follow-up while cautioning against leading questions. The defense separately objected to describing the presumption of innocence as applying only "at the outset," arguing that it remained throughout trial. During the closing review of challenges, Juror 60 was qualified for now, subject to renewed defense argument after transcript review. Juror 65 was excused because counsel had stopped questioning in anticipation of an agreed strike and identified unfinished follow-up. Defense challenges to Jurors 69, 74 and 75 were denied. The government said it did not currently intend to call Juror 74's former professor and offered not to call him if she served. Juror 70 was excused on an unopposed capital-punishment challenge; Juror 76 was struck for cause over concerns about emotional control in a possible penalty phase.

1. Rulings on Challenges to Jurors 38 and 54

The court excuses Juror 38 and denies the prosecution’s challenge to Juror 54 over his death-penalty reservations.

→
jury selection
Rulings on Challenges to Jurors 38 and 54
20 lines

The court excused Juror 38 for hardship and emotional proximity to the case, but denied the government's challenge to Juror 54 over his death-penalty views.

Highlights

Rulings on Challenges to Jurors 38 and 54rulingAfter competing arguments about Juror 54's death-penalty views, the court denied the government's challenge. The judge expressed concerns about candor but considered the record too close a call and left the government to use a peremptory challenge if it chose.

2. Preliminary Instructions to the Venire on the Capital Trial

Judge O'Toole outlined capital sentencing rules and instructed prospective jurors about public questioning, sensitive answers, and restrictions before individual questioning.

→
Jury Instruction
Preliminary Instructions to the Venire on the Capital Trial
6 lines

Judge O'Toole explained conditional capital sentencing, proof standards, juror responsibilities and safeguards for individual questioning.

Highlights

Preliminary Instructions to the Venire on the Capital Trialjury eventThe court explains the conditional capital-sentencing phase, differing proof standards, individual consideration of mitigation, and unanimity required for a death sentence.Preliminary Instructions to the Venire on the Capital Trial“You should understand that a jury is never required to find that a sentence of death is justified.”— George A. O'Toole Jr.The court emphasizes that death is not a mandatory sentencing choice.

3. Individual Voir Dire — Medical Inquiry and Juror Examination (Part 1)

Individual voir dire addressed four prospective jurors' hardships, views of guilt, impartiality and attitudes toward capital punishment. No express juror-disposition rulings appear in the supplied record.

→
Voir Dire
Individual Voir Dire
271 lines

Four prospective jurors were questioned about hardship, media influence and capital punishment; religious bias and difficulty presuming innocence emerged.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Sidebar Conference BeginsA sidebar conference is noted, but its subject is unspecified.

Highlights

Individual Voir Direjury eventJuror 59 acknowledged that her attitudes toward Muslims would interfere with impartiality and said she already believed the defendant was guilty and should receive the death penalty.

4. Ruling on Presumption-of-Innocence Questions in Voir Dire

The court addressed ambiguity in presumption-of-innocence questions and allowed voir dire questioning to continue.

→
Procedural
Ruling on Presumption-of-Innocence Questions in Voir Dire
5 lines

The court agreed that voir dire questions should distinguish media-based impressions from a juror's duty to presume innocence.

Highlights

Ruling on Presumption-of-Innocence Questions in Voir DirerulingAfter the government objected to ambiguous presumption-of-innocence questions and the defense distinguished that presumption from the burden of proof, the court agreed that questioning should distinguish media-based impressions from jurors' legal duties.

5. Individual Voir Dire — Questionnaire Follow-Up and Juror Examination (Part 2)

Individual voir dire continued on Day 6, covering hardship, impartiality and sentencing views. The court also limited certain questions to prospective jurors.

→
Voir Dire
Individual Voir Dire - Continued
561 lines

Prospective jurors were questioned about hardship, religious bias, existing opinions and capital punishment; the court also ruled on contested defense follow-up questions.

4 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Audio and Record Status ClarificationThe sidebar exchange addressed the distinction between resuming audio and returning to the record.
  2. Resuming Sound After SidebarA sidebar conference is noted without a stated substantive topic.
  3. Juror’s Lawyer FiancéThe judge asked about a juror’s lawyer fiancé and sought his name because counsel might recognize him.
  4. Housekeeping Discussion of 21Weinreb raised 21 as a housekeeping matter, and the judge said he had been skipping it and did not consider it particularly relevant.

6. Scope of Voir Dire on Pretrial Publicity

The court directed that voir dire generally follow up on questionnaire answers, while allowing broad follow-up about publicity and cautioning against leading questions.

→
Procedural
Scope of Voir Dire on Pretrial Publicity
6 lines

The court allowed a flexible scope for publicity-related follow-up during voir dire and cautioned counsel against leading questions.

Highlights

Scope of Voir Dire on Pretrial PublicityrulingThe court said voir dire should generally follow up on the questionnaire, but allowed an expansive understanding of follow-up. It also cautioned against leading questions that supply jurors' answers.

7. Individual Voir Dire — Further Juror Examination (Part 3)

The court questioned four prospective jurors about impartiality, death-penalty views and hardship. Juror 74 faced additional questions about personal connections and a possible witness-list connection; after lunch, the court announced that Juror 79 would be taken out of order.

→
Voir Dire
Individual Voir Dire - Continued
410 lines

Four prospective jurors addressed capital punishment, publicity and hardship. The court limited argumentative questioning and recalled Juror 74 to identify a former professor.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding
  1. Sidebar Followed by Number 79A sidebar is noted, followed by Miriam Conrad’s thanks and the clerk calling number 79.

8. Individual Voir Dire — Final Juror Examination (Part 4)

Jurors 79, 75 and 76 were questioned about publicity, financial hardship and capital punishment. No final juror rulings were announced before a scheduling-related recess.

→
Voir Dire
Individual Voir Dire - Continued
366 lines

Three prospective jurors addressed publicity, financial hardship and death-penalty views; the court limited defense questioning without announcing final juror decisions.

9. Juror Challenges and Qualification Rulings

The court ruled on juror challenges near the end of Day 6, denying several defense challenges and excusing other jurors. Juror 60 remained qualified for now, with renewed defense argument permitted after transcript review.

→
sidebar
Juror Challenges and Qualification Rulings
161 lines

Counsel and the court reviewed juror challenges involving hardship, case-related connections, impartiality, death penalty views, and questioning stopped in reliance on agreed strikes.

Highlights

Juror Challenges and Qualification RulingsrulingThe court placed Juror 60 in the qualified category for now, while allowing the defense to develop a renewed argument after reviewing her transcript.Juror Challenges and Qualification Rulings“I also would note -- this is a more general point, but maybe it's appropriate to raise it now -- your Honor is framing the presumption of innocence as at the outset a defendant is presumed innocent when, in fact, the law is that the presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial. And so we would object to the framing of "at the outset."”— Miriam ConradDefense counsel expressly objected to the court's phrasing of the presumption of innocence.Juror Challenges and Qualification RulingsrulingAfter initially favoring qualification, the court excused Juror 65 because counsel had stopped questioning in anticipation of an agreed strike and identified additional questions they would otherwise have asked.Juror Challenges and Qualification RulingsrulingThe court rejected the defense challenge to Juror 74 after arguments about her community, university and family connections. The government said it did not currently intend to call Professor Williams and offered not to call him if she served.Juror Challenges and Qualification RulingsrulingThe court struck Juror 76 for cause, agreeing that he appeared to be struggling with his emotions and might have greater difficulty maintaining control in a possible second phase.
← Day 52015 Federal TrialDay 7 →