5.Individual Voir Dire — Questionnaire Follow-Up and Juror Examination (Part 2)
561 linesCOURT CLERK: Number 61.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 61.
COURT CLERK: Sir, come up here, please.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Have you been able to abide by my instructions when you were last here to avoid any discussion of the case or any exposure to the media reports about it?
JUROR: As best I can, yes.
THE COURT: You have your questionnaire in front of you, and I may refer to it as I follow up on some of the answers you gave. I want to first address something you wrote in answer to Question 10, which is on Page 5 of the questionnaire.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You said you're due to go to work outside the country shortly.
JUROR: Starting January 28th.
THE COURT: Tell us about that.
JUROR: Starting January 28th, I will be out of state. Starting February 5th, I will be out of the country.
THE COURT: For how long?
JUROR: Second week of April.
THE COURT: And this is for Levi Strauss?
JUROR: Excuse me?
THE COURT: Your employer, you say, is Levi Strauss & Company?
JUROR: No. The current employment that I will be outside of the country with is All Time Low Touring, Inc. I'm a touring musician.
THE COURT: What's your role with that? One of the musicians?
JUROR: Play guitar and sing.
THE COURT: This is a concert tour for your group? Is that the idea?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Judge, this next juror should be heard off the record.
THE COURT: Now?
MS. CONRAD: Well.
THE COURT: Hold off, and we'll -- it's not off the record but it is sidebar, so we'll cut the audio.
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
[REDACTED]
COURT CLERK: We'll go back on the record.
THE COURT: Not back on the record. We're back on audio.
COURT CLERK: You know what I mean.
THE COURT: No. It's different. We've got to be careful about that. Audio.
. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
COURT CLERK: This is Juror No. 62.
COURT CLERK: Number 62, have a seat, please.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since the day you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case or any exposure to media reports about it?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Tell us what you do.
JUROR: Postal worker.
THE COURT: In a --
JUROR: Clerk.
THE COURT: In a --
JUROR: In an area office, yes, station.
THE COURT: You have, I guess, a son and a brother who are both involved in the correctional --
JUROR: My brother is; my son was. While he was going to school, he did it during the summertime.
THE COURT: Tell me about your brother. How long has he been a correction officer?
JUROR: Probably, I'm going to say about 15 years. He works up in Woburn.
THE COURT: In what -- is this a county facility -- or is this a court officer?
JUROR: Court officer.
THE COURT: Not a correction officer?
JUROR: Not a correction officer, no.
THE COURT: I see. Let me cut the sound for a minute.
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
[REDACTED]
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks. We can go back on the sound.
. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
THE COURT: Would you look at Page 15. We asked about prior jury experience, and you said you had a case back in 1979, I guess.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Then you said -- the next answer is what I'm interested in. You could not serve, I guess, in that case; is that what you meant? You had a hard time being impartial.
JUROR: No. I did serve in that case. I was talking about this case.
THE COURT: Oh, in this case?
JUROR: Yes. I misunderstood the question.
THE COURT: Maybe you didn't. Do you think, because of your -- something in your prior jury experience leads you to think that you would have trouble being impartial?
JUROR: No. I'm thinking it's just my knowledge of the case right now and how I feel in my beliefs.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll talk about that again in a minute.
We asked some questions about Islam and Muslims as well as people from other countries, including Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Chechnya, and so on. Maybe you could just review your answers. This is a series of questions beginning on Page 17 and going over to 18.
JUROR: You want me to start with --
THE COURT: Just review it because I just want to ask you generally about --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: The questions I'm principally interested in are 59 and 65.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Any of your attitudes about people that you've expressed there, do you think they would have an impact on your ability to be an impartial juror in this case?
JUROR: I would have to say yes, your Honor, to be, you know, completely honest with you. I mean, I just feel, you know, they seem to be to me -- not knowing any of them individually or anything like that, but they just feel like they're quite mixed up in their beliefs or the way they act in America.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about -- on Page 20, Question 80, you said your wife was at the Pru at the time of the events?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And she participated in helping some of the victims?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Has she talked with you about that extensively?
JUROR: Yeah. Of course, when it happened that day and everything, I mean, I had to drive over to the Stockyard Restaurant and pick her up because basically the city became locked down. She couldn't get her car or anything. And the T was locked down. We talked, you know -- I don't want to say extensively, but we talked about the whole situation and everything, you know.
THE COURT: I assume that that may have been an emotional experience for her?
JUROR: Oh, definitely was, yes.
THE COURT: Did she convey that to you?
JUROR: Yes. It was quite upsetting to her to see all those people and the whole chaos and everything that happened about the situation, you know.
THE COURT: Would that affect your ability to be a fair, impartial juror in this case, the way she feels about it?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You don't think so?
JUROR: No, I don't think so.
THE COURT: Let me ask you, on Page 23, Question 88, we asked about your general views of the death penalty. You said you believe in it.
JUROR: Strongly.
THE COURT: Strongly. Then we asked you to put that on a scale of 1 to 10, and you put 10, very strong, right? The next page we asked you to select a formulation that came closest to your view, and you selected F, which was you're strongly in favor, which is consistent with what you said on the other question, and would have a difficult time of voting for life imprisonment without the possibility of release regardless of the facts.
We want to understand whether that is a -- your view of the death penalty is so strong that you would find it very difficult, as you say, to vote otherwise no matter what the facts were. The question is: Would you be open to revising that opinion you have of yourself if the facts of the case suggested to you that in this case a death penalty was not appropriate, that the better penalty was life imprisonment without parole -- without release?
JUROR: Life without parole.
THE COURT: Would you be able, if you heard facts that suggested that, to be able to follow that and conclude that life imprisonment was a satisfactory penalty in this case as opposed to the death penalty, or are your views about the death penalty so strong that virtually no set of facts could be proved that would lead you to think of a sentence other than the death penalty?
JUROR: That's a mouthful.
THE COURT: Could you meaningfully consider, conscientiously, after -- assuming appropriate facts, obviously, that you could come to the conclusion that, in this specific circumstance life imprisonment was an adequate punishment and the death penalty was unnecessary, or are your views about the death penalty so strong that you think you would in the end --
JUROR: I think my views right now in this case, your Honor, is the death penalty is in order.
THE COURT: And I guess my question is: Is that so firm an opinion that you could not move off it? That might be the case. Or is it possible, if you heard evidence that led you that way, you could think, No, despite what I generally think, this is not a case for it? Could you think that?
JUROR: I don't think I could sway my judgment. It would take an awful, awful lot in this case.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: We have no questions.
THE COURT: No questions. Thank you. Just leave that there. Thanks.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 63.
COURT CLERK: Number 63, have a seat, please.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions not to discuss the case with other people or to get exposed to media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out. And I'll have some questions about some of the answers you gave. Tell me about -- if you'd look at Page 5, your answer to Question 10.
JUROR: Yeah. So my husband was a fisherman, and he was laid off about a year and a half ago due to regulations. So I've had to start working to pick up where we lack. And we're already two months behind in our mortgage, so we really wouldn't be able to sustain if I wasn't working.
THE COURT: And what is it that you do?
JUROR: I'm a bookkeeper. So I'm not a salaried -- I'm not salaried. I work, like, consulting.
THE COURT: Is this in addition -- I'm just reading what's in 26.
JUROR: What page?
THE COURT: They seem to be all kind of at the same time.
JUROR: Yes. Those are some of my clients.
THE COURT: So those are accounts that you have?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is it basically that you're self-employed?
JUROR: Pretty much, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Enough? Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: This is Juror No. 64.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 64.
THE COURT: Morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were last here when you filled out your questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Or avoid any media reports and so on?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Good. I'm going to follow up on some of the answers you gave in your -- when you filled out the questionnaire. Your husband is a teacher?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where does he teach?
JUROR: The middle school at Marshfield.
THE COURT: And he's done that for how long?
JUROR: About 13 or 14 years. It was, like, a change-of-life thing.
THE COURT: You yourself are a lab manager?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What does that involve generally?
JUROR: I oversee a lab in a hospital. So there's about 50 or 60 people, from phlebotomists to the different departments that serve for all kinds of specimens in the hospital.
THE COURT: Is your work principally management as opposed to clinical, you yourself?
JUROR: I do both.
THE COURT: You do both. How about your use of Facebook, how do you use it and how often?
JUROR: I set it up when my daughter was in college so I could see her friends but she's graduated. So it's there, but I don't even know my password.
THE COURT: We asked some questions about feelings about things we might call international events and so on and so forth, feelings toward Islam and Muslims, towards our -- the government of the United States and so on and so forth. You answered those all. Have any of those -- mostly you said that you had no strong feelings about those matters. There's been a lot of news lately about events in Europe. Has that had any effect on your views about any of those matters?
JUROR: Not really.
THE COURT: Have you been following that closely?
JUROR: No. My mom had emergency surgery, so I've kind of been involved with her care.
THE COURT: So distracted from --
JUROR: So between work and her.
THE COURT: Okay. I'd like you to look at Page 20.
JUROR: Uh-huh, yes.
THE COURT: Question 77.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: We asked whether you formed any opinions based on news media and so on about whether the defendant is guilty or not and what punishment he should get if he is. As to the question whether he's guilty or not, you said, no, you hadn't formed any opinion. As to the penalty part of the question, you said you're unsure.
JUROR: I just don't understand. I heard a little bit better today, mitigating, aggravating. But honest and truly, law isn't my specialty.
THE COURT: Okay. So in any criminal case, including this one --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- a defendant who's charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent of that crime --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by evidence at the trial that is convincing enough so that the jurors have no reasonable doubt about the judgment that he's guilty. Okay?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you were a juror in this case, would you be able to apply those principles faithfully, that is, start out presuming that he is not guilty of what he is charged with unless the government proves otherwise by the evidence?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I think you had served as a juror before, did you?
JUROR: Last year.
THE COURT: Was that a criminal case? I forgot to look.
JUROR: In Hingham. It was driving under the influence.
THE COURT: You were a standby, so you didn't participate in the --
JUROR: No, sir.
THE COURT: You're confident that you could fulfill that duty faithfully?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Now would you turn to Page 23?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You're asked a series of questions about your attitude about the death penalty generally. The first one was a general question. What are your general views? And you said, "None at this time. It depends on the case."
Is that an accurate representation of your view?
JUROR: Yeah. It just depends on what I learn from this whole process.
THE COURT: Then we asked you to put it on a scale from strongly opposed to strongly favor, and you circled 6, which is somewhere in the middle. Is that --
JUROR: You know, I don't know. I imagine this is going to be an educational process from all sides, and at that point, I'm sure I'll make an educated decision. It's a tough decision to make, but it's one that I will do.
THE COURT: Look at the next question.
JUROR: Yes, sir. Next page?
THE COURT: Next page, 90. Instead of putting it on a numerical scale, we asked you to select the statement that was closest to your view and you selected D, which was that you are not for or against. You could vote either way depending on how you assess the facts in light of the --
JUROR: If I had to do it, I would, but I would need some serious information. That's nothing I would take lightly.
THE COURT: But you're -- correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm understanding you to say is that you would be prepared to listen to the evidence and make a judgment on that. And in the end, you would be prepared, on the one hand, to impose a death penalty if that was what you felt was right?
JUROR: If I felt -- absolutely.
THE COURT: On the other hand, to vote for a life imprisonment if you thought that was an adequate punishment?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: No.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. BRUCK: Just a couple things. Ma'am, you mentioned --
THE COURT: This is Mr. Bruck.
MR. BRUCK: I'm sorry. I'm David Bruck. I'm one of the lawyers for Mr. Tsarnaev.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: You mentioned your daughter works or worked in a law office.
JUROR: When she graduated from college, she thought she was going to go to law school. And she did administrative, like, paperwork, I guess.
MR. BRUCK: What sort of a law firm, if you remember?
JUROR: It was housing, like, people that needed, like, evictions and things like that, stuff like that.
MR. BRUCK: She never worked for a prosecutor or a defense attorney?
JUROR: No, no.
MR. BRUCK: Ma'am, how do you feel about being on this jury?
JUROR: A little nervous.
MR. BRUCK: Are you hoping you will be excused or hoping you will be selected?
MR. WEINREB: I object to that. That's not a follow-up question.
THE COURT: Go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: I feel that I'm going to go through the process honestly and whatever happens, happens.
MR. BRUCK: I guess all I'm asking, if it was up to you, how you would feel. Which would you prefer to do?
MR. WEINREB: I object. That's irrelevant.
THE COURT: Go ahead. Answer it if you're able to.
JUROR: I don't know. I -- I don't know.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. As far as knowing what case we're here for --
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. BRUCK: -- you know something about the Boston Marathon bombing.
MR. WEINREB: Objection again. That's --
JUROR: It happened.
MR. BRUCK: My question is: Do you lean one way or the other as far as the death penalty for this case if you found Mr. Tsarnaev guilty beyond a reasonable doubt right now?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 65.
COURT CLERK: Number 65, step this way, please. Have a seat right here.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions then to avoid any discussion of the case and any exposure to media?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So we have given you the questionnaire you filled out. I'm going to follow up on some of the things you've said in the course of it. I'd like you to look first at Page 5.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Question 9, you have some concern about winter driving.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Perfectly rational concern. You come some distance. There is bus service, but what do you know about it?
JUROR: I've taken it both times. Both times that I've been here, I've taken the bus.
THE COURT: Has that worked out?
JUROR: It's worked out, yeah.
THE COURT: And the schedule works?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, let's look at the next question. You're concerned about the impact of your serving on finances, I guess?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about that.
JUROR: Well, I'm single. I don't have a roommate. Don't have a husband. I don't have another income that I can depend on. I haven't had this conversation with my bosses yet, so I'm just a little bit worried about how I'm going to pay my bills.
THE COURT: You don't know whether they'll continue to pay you?
JUROR: I don't know.
THE COURT: Are you paid on a salary basis?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Rather than an hourly wage?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Commission at all?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: How big is the work force where you are?
JUROR: Well, we're a small company. There's probably under 30 of us. It's a lumber company. So with the office, the yard, the store. I work in the showroom, so there's probably about -- I'm just going to count real quick. There's possibly about ten of us in the showroom.
THE COURT: Doing basically the same work or --
JUROR: Well, some of the same work. I don't know how descriptive you want me to be, but, I mean, there's -- for instance, there -- I work for a lumber company, so there's a Windows program that we use that four of us can use. Three of the guys that can use it are road salesmen. I'm the only one that stays on the inside. You know, not a big deal, but, I mean, the schedule can be adjusted so that someone is always covering in the showroom to be able to do that if I'm not around.
THE COURT: So in terms of social media, you use Facebook a little bit but not much?
JUROR: Not much. I have an account, but I'm not on it all that much.
THE COURT: You did use it when you were involved in a town issue a little bit to express opinions about that?
JUROR: No, no. Actually, I got an account when I became unemployed because I thought it would help with networking, and I just didn't like using it so I didn't stay using it. But I do go on it from time to time because my company has a website, and sometimes they post, you know, job photos. So I'll go on that from time to time for that.
THE COURT: But you don't use it to express opinions about things or read other people's opinions?
JUROR: You know what? I did once. I apologize. I did once when that whole town issue started just to let people know that there was going to be a vote happening but after that, nothing. Just -- I'm sorry. If I can add, there were a couple of blogs that I did respond on but it wasn't Facebook. It was a couple of people that were involved, had their own blogs, so I did respond on those blogs.
THE COURT: That was about the town issue?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Your sister works for a law firm?
JUROR: She does. I wrote the first name down wrong. It's Madoff, and I didn't write Madoff because I thought I was thinking of Bernie Madoff. So it's Madoff & Khoury is the law firm.
THE COURT: Is she a lawyer?
JUROR: No. She's a legal secretary.
THE COURT: What's the nature of the practice or the firm, do you know?
JUROR: Real estate, bankruptcy.
THE COURT: Coming back to the controversy, I guess, in the town that you were involved in. There were a couple of sides, I guess. You were on one, and people were on the other. You thought that the police chief in particular was siding with the powers that be and was unfair in some way?
JUROR: Well, he's employed by the town council, so his demeanor towards us was pretty apparent. He's basically a pretty nice guy, but I think because we were in opposition and our opposition was mostly vocal. We weren't all that disruptive except at town council meetings. But his -- I don't know how to describe it. It was just his manner towards us was very disrespectful and very apparent.
I mean, we had -- we were trying to get signatures regarding this issue, and we were standing at the town hall. And we had to stand a certain number of feet back away from the entrance. And when someone else from the opposition was doing that, too, they weren't -- they were a little bit closer, so, you know -- so the other side was allowed to do things that we weren't allowed to do.
THE COURT: We asked if you had any negative experiences like that, and you told us about it. Then we asked whether that was going to affect you in any way if you were a juror in this case, say in an attitude towards law enforcement witnesses or something like that.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You told us that, despite your answer to the other question, you had no hard feelings, is that fair?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: There would be no effect on you here from that unpleasant experience?
JUROR: Oh, that's true. I wouldn't hold -- I'm not resentful about it, yeah.
THE COURT: Let me just ask the parties whether they are interested in a follow-up to Question 52.
JUROR: What page is that?
THE COURT: 60.
MR. WEINREB: No, your Honor.
MS. CLARKE: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: No. I don't -- I agree with that. We asked, on Pages 17 and 18, some general questions about attitudes towards Islam and perhaps the War on Terror and things like that.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You gave us answers to those, except I think you may have skipped one probably unintentionally, No. 62. Do you believe the War on Terror is overblown or exaggerated?
JUROR: No, I do not.
THE COURT: Since you filled out the questionnaire, gave those answers, there's been a lot of press about events in Europe and so on, other terrorism attacks and things. Would that -- have you followed that at all or --
JUROR: Are you talking about in France, what happened in France?
THE COURT: Yeah, France.
JUROR: Just what's on the news. I haven't gone online to look anything up but just what I listened to on the news.
THE COURT: Would that change any of your answers to any of these questions?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Or affect you any other particular way? Would it have any effect on your view of this case?
JUROR: Oh, no, no.
THE COURT: I asked about talk radio. It looks like you listen to a local program. Is that about local affairs?
JUROR: It is, yes.
THE COURT: It doesn't get into international affairs or even national -- would it touch on subjects like the Marathon case?
JUROR: Yeah, it will. He doesn't do that consistently. It's pretty much what's going on daily. When the presidential election was going on, he'll talk about that.
THE COURT: If the case came up, you would be able to --
JUROR: I can turn it off, yeah.
THE COURT: On Page 20, if you'd look at Question 77, we asked whether you formed some opinions about whether the defendant is guilty and, if so, what the punishment might be. And you said yes to the question you'd formed an opinion about whether he's guilty. But as to the penalty, you checked both boxes and said you were unsure.
Let me ask you about the first one. It's not surprising that people have some ideas about what they think happened. The question is: Whenever a person is charged by the government with a crime, the person is, at the outset, presumed to be innocent -- that is, that's sort of the default position -- unless and until the government proves otherwise, proves that he's guilty by proof at trial with the evidence and proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Notwithstanding the impression you have from what you've learned about the case informally, would you be able to conscientiously insist that the government prove its case by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt even if that turned out -- even if it caused you to change your opinion?
JUROR: I think so. I think I understand what you're asking, but, I mean, I'd like to think I'm open-minded. I think I can listen to the evidence, but I know how I feel. You know, I do feel pretty strongly about that. I'm just -- you know, I can listen to it. I don't know that it would change my mind.
THE COURT: Well, I'm not quite asking whether it would change your mind. I'm asking whether you could start with -- sitting as a juror, with the proposition -- the government puts the proposition, the defendant is guilty of this crime. At the outset you say, Prove it. I'm not -- I am now prepared to say, No, unless you prove it. That's what we ask jurors to put the frame of mind. Then listen to the evidence and decide, after you've heard the evidence, whether the government has or has not proved it.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Part of the instructions we give in any criminal case is that, as I say, the defendant has no burden to prove that he's not guilty. It's up to the government to have the burden to prove that he is guilty and to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And the question is: Do you think you could fulfill that obligation as a juror, or, alternately, do you think that your impressions are so strong that it would interfere with your ability to insist on the government's satisfaction of its burden of proof at trial?
JUROR: I think I could listen to it and make a decision after I've listened to the evidence.
THE COURT: Let me ask you about Question 81. This is a couple of family steps, I guess. Your brother-in-law's cousin is married to one of the victims. Do you have a connection with that person?
JUROR: No, no. I've never met them.
THE COURT: Does the fact that your brother-in-law's cousin is married to one of the victims -- would that have an effect on your ability to be a fair-minded, impartial juror?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you -- we asked a series of questions about the death penalty. Let me ask you to turn to Page 23, beginning with Question 88. And this is a general question: How do you feel about it? You said you're generally opposed but could vote for it in this case.
JUROR: I could.
THE COURT: The next question, we asked you to select where, on a scale from 1 to 10, you were in terms of favoring or disfavoring death penalty, and you've selected 7, which is a little bit on the favor side.
And then on the next page, Question 90, we asked you not to pick a number but to pick the statement that came closest to what you thought about it. And you picked C, which is that you're opposed to it but could vote to impose it if you thought the particular facts of the case called for it. Those are all kind of variations on a way of expressing it.
Maybe you could put it in words for us now. What is your attitude toward the death penalty generally and what do you think your attitude would be if you were a juror having to make that decision in this case?
JUROR: Well, I think, more often than not, I am opposed to the death penalty. I think it -- for me it would be -- I would have more difficulty voting for it, but I believe I could do it.
THE COURT: Would you look at the bottom of 25 and top of 26. 95, at the bottom, we asked, if you found him guilty and you decided the death penalty was appropriate, could you conscientiously vote for it, and you said you're not sure.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Then if you look at the next question, we asked sort of the other side of it. If you find him guilty and decided life imprisonment was the appropriate punishment, could you vote for that, you said yes. You're a little more sure about that.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: The question is: Would you be able to consider -- give consideration to both possibilities, and if you found the facts to be supportive of either one of those, you could make that choice, or are your attitudes against the death penalty such that it's unlikely that you would vote for it? I'm just trying to guess where --
JUROR: Yeah. It's not that I'm not likely to vote for it. I just think I would -- I would have difficulty, but I don't think I wouldn't be able to vote for it. I think that, if the facts supported it, that I could do it.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MS. CONRAD: I have some. Good morning, ma'am. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
The judge asked you some questions about your brother-in-law and his cousin. Is that a first cousin?
JUROR: You know what? I don't know.
MS. CONRAD: Do you know if your brother-in-law went to the wedding?
JUROR: He did.
MS. CONRAD: What did he tell you about that, about either the relationship or about the wedding?
JUROR: Well, they didn't really talk about the relationship. It was my sister and my brother-in-law went to the wedding. They talked more about the wedding, how beautiful it was. My sister has spoken to me more about who we're speaking about. And she told me about what has -- what he's going through, how he got harmed and what he has to face. So that's what I know about that.
MS. CONRAD: You say you haven't met that person.
JUROR: I haven't.
MS. CONRAD: Do you think that that's someone you might meet in the future at a family gathering at your sister's home?
JUROR: I could, but I think it's a stretch that I would. Mostly, when we gather, it's closer family. So I can't tell you positively if I would ever meet him or not.
MS. CONRAD: Does your sister know that you received a summons as a juror in this case?
JUROR: She does.
MS. CONRAD: Did she make any comment to you about that?
JUROR: About?
MS. CONRAD: About you possibly serving as a juror in this case.
JUROR: We have talked about it because I didn't know when I first got the summons that it would be for this case. And then, you know, again, because I watch the news quite a bit, I deduced that it might be for this. So we did talk about it a little bit, yes.
MS. CONRAD: What did she say?
JUROR: About?
MS. CONRAD: Your being --
JUROR: Me serving?
MS. CONRAD: Yes.
JUROR: She just kept saying, I'm so sorry, because she knew how difficult it was going to be for me.
MS. CONRAD: In answer to the question about how you felt when you got the summons, you indicated you didn't realize it was for this case. When you realized it was for this case, how did you feel?
JUROR: Devastated.
MS. CONRAD: Can you tell me more about that?
JUROR: Well, it's the distance. I've got this driving anxiety, but, you know, I've been able to work around it, so I can get myself in here if I had to. And then it's just the time frame involved. I work for a really small company. It's just -- I mean, you know, when I complain about this, you know, I just -- I feel horrible about it because I didn't get harmed. You know what I mean? It's just three or four months or five months, however long, out of my life. But it's still -- I'm still feeling kind of miserable about maybe being on the jury, frankly.
MS. CONRAD: We appreciate your candor, and that's all we ask, that you answer the questions as honestly as you possibly can.
Do you think that those concerns about work or about the travel back and forth will make it difficult for you to focus, say, you know, a month, two months, three months into the trial?
JUROR: I'm not sure. I mean, I'm worried about finances. That's the No. 1 thing I'm worried about. I don't think I'm going to lose my job over this, but, you know, I just -- it's going to be difficult because of my boss's reaction to it, too. He's not real happy about it, but we all get it. We all understand the responsibility and the obligation. But it's just -- it's not going to be easy.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor.
MR. WEINREB: I think we have concurred.
THE COURT: I think that's all the questions. Just leave the questionnaire there.
I think we'll take the break now. We'll probably change reporters.
(Recess taken at 11:10 a.m.)
(After the recess:)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 11:37 a.m.)
THE COURT: Okay?
MR. DOREAU: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's proceed with the next juror.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 67, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
COURT CLERK: Talk into the mic so the reporter can hear you, okay?
THE COURT: Have you been able to abide by the instructions I gave when we were last here to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: For the most part.
THE COURT: How much is that?
JUROR: Well, the news comes on, and I ride to work every day with WBZ Traffic on the 3s, so it does pop up occasionally.
THE COURT: Are you able to put it aside?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes.
THE COURT: Let's look at Question 10 on page 5.
JUROR: Question 10?
THE COURT: It's the next page.
You have some concern on how this will impact your employment?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Tell us about that.
JUROR: I'm a licensed administrator of a 170-bed rehabilitation and nursing center. It's not-for-profit, freestanding, no corporate support. I am the only licensed administrator.
THE COURT: What does that mean? What is the significance of a licensed administrator for a nursing home?
JUROR: Well, every facility has to have a licensed administrator.
THE COURT: Onsite or --
JUROR: Onsite, yes. Not from the phone. I mean, I do some things from the phone, but I'm there all the time, five days a week. And I have 24/7 responsibility for the --
THE COURT: Licensing is State of --
JUROR: State of Massachusetts, yes.
THE COURT: And what are the kinds of considerations that go into licensing of an administrator?
JUROR: I provide direction to all the department heads. I'm responsible for following the regulations, federal and state regulations. All the department heads report to me. I don't really have any backup as a freestanding facility. It's not like a corporate, you know, large company.
THE COURT: And it's the only one?
JUROR: It's freestanding, yes, by itself.
THE COURT: Could we go off the audio for a minute?
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
THE COURT: You answered in a couple of questions that your fiancé is a lawyer and has done some criminal defense work?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us his name?
JUROR: Am I supposed to do it?
THE COURT: This is just lawyers. I do it because some of the lawyers may recognize him.
JUROR: Oh, [REDACTED].
THE COURT: Where --
[REDACTED]
JUROR: .
THE COURT: That's all.
COURT CLERK: Back on with the audio.
(In open court:)
THE COURT: Do we need to go further?
MR. WEINREB: I don't believe so.
MS. CLARKE: Not on the lawyer.
THE COURT: No, in general.
MS. CLARKE: Yes. I mean -- would you just -- could you stop from confusing me?
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Yes, Question 10.
MS. CLARKE: Can we ask a follow-up on the hardship issue?
THE COURT: Yes, go ahead.
MS. CLARKE: Hi. My name's Judy Clarke. I'm one of the defense counsel. And I really sort of felt for you as you're explaining the hardship with the facility.
What happens when you're away on vacation?
JUROR: Vacation?
MS. CLARKE: Yes. You don't get those?
JUROR: Well, I don't think in this day and age anybody is really away on vacation when you have your cell phones and your computers with you and you're on the phone. I get calls when I'm on vacation.
MS. CLARKE: Yeah, I kind of feel that way too.
JUROR: Yeah. I was on vacation once when we had a Department of Public Health survey and we had to file a deficiency report, so I had to do that while I was on vacation. I mean, I'm always pretty much on call. There is someone -- a director of nursing who is the next person in line, but she's not a licensed administrator.
MS. CLARKE: So nobody's able to fill in for you and take on those responsibilities?
JUROR: The paperwork, you know, signing off on things, there's people to do that, but not the overall job responsibilities, the big picture.
MS. CLARKE: So I hear it would be a big distraction for you sitting on this jury?
JUROR: It would be very difficult to be away for such a long period of time, four months or more.
MS. CLARKE: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: It would be.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything further?
MS. CLARKE: No.
MR. WEINREB: No.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 69.
Juror 69, have a seat, please.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: It's still morning.
Since you were last here, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case or the selection process or -- and avoid any exposure to media stories in depth or anything about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when we were here. I'm going to follow up on some of the information you put in there, which is to clarify everything and perhaps expand on some of the answers you gave.
You are the director of medical coding --
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes.
THE COURT: C-O-D-I-N-G.
-- for the Mass. General Physicians Organization?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us first what the Mass. General Physicians Organization is.
JUROR: It's an organization of physicians that treat patients at Mass. General Hospital primarily. There are other hospitals that we do billing for, including Newton-Wellesley Hospital.
THE COURT: So is it the organization that sort of handles the economics of patient care? Is that what it is?
JUROR: Well, I work for the billing office, which is a portion of the Mass. General Physicians Organization, or otherwise known as the MGPO. The billing office is just one part of that. It's called the Professional Billing Office of the MGPO.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: So I work for the billing office, but I'm officially an employee of the Mass. General Hospital.
THE COURT: So when one of the physicians in the organization sees a patient, there's some paperwork that gets generated in order to have the visit paid for?
JUROR: Yeah, it's primarily electronic at this point.
THE COURT: I use "paperwork" in the generic sense.
But it's the way that health insurance, Medicare, things like that, pay for the services, tests, clinical service and so on and so forth?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. And the coding is the elaborate regulations to decide how much gets paid for how many -- for what service?
JUROR: The coding is the translation of the medical record into alphanumeric codes which are transmitted to the insurance company. And based and those codes, the insurance company determines whether they're going to pay for the claim or not.
THE COURT: You were previously at the Lahey Clinic?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Were you doing similar things there?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us to what extent you use social media, how frequently and whether it's personal or business-oriented.
JUROR: Most often personal. Facebook: family and friends, mostly to look at pictures of my grandchildren and things like that. Oh, and you asked how often? I'm pretty much on Facebook daily.
THE COURT: How about other media, Twitter, Instagram?
JUROR: I don't use Twitter or Instagram. I think I may have accounts, but since I signed up I don't think I've ever really gone on them. I am also on LinkedIn, which is my professional social media. I don't use it very often, but I have an account on there. I can't think of any others.
THE COURT: Could we cut the audio, please?
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)
[REDACTED]
MR. WEINREB: There's one more, 21.
THE COURT: We haven't been focusing on that. I actually don't think it's particularly relevant.
MR. WEINREB: Just as a housekeeping matter.
THE COURT: I've been skipping it.
MR. WEINREB: That's fine.
(In open court:)
THE COURT: We ask some general questions about attitudes of things that might affect current affairs or international events and so on, attitudes about Islam, Muslims, attitudes about the war on terror, so-called, and various things. You answered those -- you remember some of those questions from the questionnaire?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Since you gave those answers, there have been some incidents in Paris and some other places in Europe that have brought things to the news. Have you followed that news at all?
JUROR: No, I haven't.
THE COURT: You haven't. Do you know what happened?
JUROR: Not really. I've particularly stayed away from any of that.
THE COURT: Even those things?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: My question was going to be would that have affected any of your answers, but I guess if you hadn't heard it --
JUROR: I really don't know what the situation is.
THE COURT: All right.
On page 20 we asked -- in Question 77 we asked whether you had formed any opinions about, you know, sort of the big issues in the case, whether the defendant is guilty and, if so, what might be the penalty, and you indicated no, you had not formed an opinion about those matters.
Could you tell us about that; amplify on that, perhaps?
JUROR: I don't know that I -- I mean, I just don't think -- I haven't really decided. I haven't really formed an opinion myself. I believe that -- I do believe in the justice system, and I believe that it's up to the justice system to make that determination, so -- that's the only thing I can...
THE COURT: Okay. In any criminal case, under the law the defendant who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of that crime unless and until the government proves that he's guilty and proves it by the evidence at trial, convincing the jury that the defendant's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Those principles of the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are fundamental to our system.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Would you have any difficulty in applying those principles in this case if you were a juror?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Was my summary of those responsibilities more or less what you were trying to say?
JUROR: I believe so, yes.
THE COURT: I was getting that impression, that's why -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I want to -- your mind is in suspension until you're at the point of hearing the evidence and deciding. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes, that's fair.
THE COURT: In Question 79 you said you may have posted a Boston Strong picture on Facebook. Can you remember --
JUROR: At the time.
THE COURT: At the time of the events?
JUROR: Yes. I mean, everybody was posting pictures of Boston Strong. And, you know, I'm sure -- I don't know if I could go back and find that on Facebook, but I'm pretty sure I may have posted a picture.
THE COURT: Since then, since the sort of immediate aftermath of events, have you had any postings like that?
JUROR: No, not that I -- not that I can recall at all.
THE COURT: Let me just come back to your employment. Of course Mass. General was the scene of the treatment of a lot of victims.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything that concerns you about your being in the environment of the hospital generally and your role that might have an effect on your service as a juror?
JUROR: Not really. I'm not located in the hospital. I work in the Charlestown Navy Yard. And, you know, as I was thinking about this since I came in originally, if I had access to the medical -- I mean, I do have access to the medical records.
THE COURT: Because you have access to all of them.
JUROR: Because of my job.
Pardon me.
THE COURT: Because you have access to all of them.
JUROR: Yes. But we do, obviously, sign confidentialities and all of that.
But I was thinking of my role there as it relates to what could potentially be here. And I'm a director, I have four operations managers who report to me and then about nine managers who report to them, and under them are team leaders and staff. It's my team leaders and staff who actually do the coding of the services, and so if there were any individuals that were treated by our physicians or the hospital, we could potentially do the coding for those cases. But I don't really have -- I mean, I have access, but I don't really see them. I'm so far removed from the day-to-day actual coding of those cases that I haven't seen anything. You know, in the future I don't know what I would see.
THE COURT: That's fine. And I also was getting at maybe the general atmospherics.
JUROR: Oh.
THE COURT: I mean, the fact that Mass. General was involved in some way and you're connected with the Mass. General, would there be any spillover from things like that?
JUROR: Not that I can think of. I mean, we just do our jobs. We go about our business. And, I mean, there hasn't been anything that I can think of really.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay.
Let me ask you to look at page 23. We asked a series of questions to gauge jurors' thoughts about the death penalty and whether the individual juror would be in a position to vote in favor of or against the death penalty. So on Question 88 we ask for general views, and you said that you didn't really have any general views. The next question, we asked you to put on a scale from 1 to 10 what your views were about it, whether you're opposed or in favor, and you selected 5, which is sort of in the middle.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And then on the next page, Question 90, we asked you to select a statement of a number of statements that were put there that most matched your attitude towards the death penalty, or thoughts about it.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you selected D, saying you are neither for it nor against it but could vote to impose it or could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, whichever you thought was called for by the facts in the case?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do those answers fairly represent your views about the death penalty --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and about your disposition to impose it or not impose it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So to restate it, you could consider the evidence about what the penalty should be and you're open to being convinced that it should be the death penalty and you're open to being convinced that it should not be and should be life imprisonment. Is that fair?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you want to qualify that in any way?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Follow-up?
MR. WEINREB: Not from me.
MR. BRUCK: A couple of things, if I might.
Ma'am, I'm David Bruck. I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's attorneys. And I just have a few things I'd like to follow up on, if I could.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: It would not be a hardship for you to leave your job for four months?
JUROR: Well, as I mentioned before, I have a number of management staff who report to me, so... I mean, it's a long time, you know, but I think Mass. General would support that. And, you know, I think I have enough of a strong team that could manage the staff.
MR. BRUCK: The judge asked you about Mass. General's role in treating wounded. Do you recall anything else out of the ordinary that involved Mass. General in the week of the immediate aftermath of the bombing? I guess I should be clearer. You said you read a moderate amount -- you checked the box -- about this in the news media.
JUROR: At the time, you mean?
MR. BRUCK: At the time, right.
What does that mean? Can you tell us what stands out about what you saw or read about the marathon?
JUROR: I know I was watching the news during that time. As far as what I saw or -- I don't recall reading anything because I don't really read newspapers.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
JUROR: I don't know. Just really what was --
MR. BRUCK: As far as Mass. General.
JUROR: Oh, as far as Mass. General?
MR. BRUCK: I mean, that's just as an example. Do you remember hearing anything --
JUROR: The only thing I remember hearing about Mass. General was that it seemed like -- I remember that either there were people being brought to Mass. General or thought to be brought to Mass. General, but I'm not even sure -- I'm not even sure, like, who that was.
MR. BRUCK: Do you remember that the President of the United States visited Mass. General?
JUROR: I did not remember that.
MR. BRUCK: That was not something that you recall?
JUROR: No. Now that you're saying it, I vaguely, maybe, remember that, but I did not remember it.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And you didn't recognize the names of any doctors from Mass. General on the witness list?
JUROR: No, I did not. We have a lot of doctors there.
MR. BRUCK: I understand.
How did you feel when you found out -- I don't know whether it was when you got your summons or later, but when you found out that you were being summoned for this case, what was your --
JUROR: In general -- I didn't really find out that it was this case until I got here.
MR. BRUCK: Right.
JUROR: I mean, I thought it could potentially be, but I just didn't really know what other cases might be here, and I really didn't know. And my whole thought about coming into this when I got my summons was that, as I mentioned, I do believe in the justice system, and I'm grateful that we have this in our country. And so I looked at it as my duty, and even as a privilege, should I be asked to be a part of this.
MR. BRUCK: My last question is: If it was up to you whether to serve or to be excused, entirely up to you, you could choose on the jury or off, which would you choose?
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I object. There's nothing about that that could lead to a for-cause strike.
THE COURT: Yeah, I agree. You don't have to answer that question.
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, may I ask just a few questions?
THE COURT: I want to be sure -- you did say it was your last question.
MR. BRUCK: Well --
MR. MELLIN: I didn't mean to hold Mr. Bruck to it.
THE COURT: I've learned that that's not always the last word.
MR. BRUCK: Well, if you'll bear with me just a moment, I asked you about Mass. General. From the moderate amount of publicity, do you remember anything about -- hearing about the defendant or about his family?
MR. WEINREB: I object.
THE COURT: Yeah, sustained.
MR. BRUCK: Lastly, you mentioned WBZ. Have you heard -- I understand not since you got your summons, but during the time have you heard very much discussion about this case or about the defendant or what ought to happen on the radio?
THE COURT: I think that was the last juror. Did you mention WBZ?
JUROR: No. I don't know if I did in my paperwork.
MR. BRUCK: I think in the paperwork.
THE COURT: Oh, in the paper? I'm sorry.
MR. BRUCK: In the questionnaire.
JUROR: In the questionnaire. Because I do I listen to WBZ radio sometimes. So you said --
MR. BRUCK: Has there been a lot of talk that you've heard about this case or about this defendant on the radio?
JUROR: And you also asked about the family. I don't recall hearing anything about the family. About the defendant? I mean, I've -- you know, just heard the name, that sort of thing, but I haven't -- in particular I can't think of what I've heard in particular.
MR. BRUCK: That's all I'm asking. Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, if I may?
Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Steve Mellin, one of the prosecutors on the case along with this team right here.
You put yourself right in the middle of the road, kind of, when it comes to the issue of the death penalty in your questionnaire and even your answers here today. Maybe if we could step back, though.
Theoretically I get that you are kind of in the middle of the road. At some point, though, in this case you may come to a point where it's not really a theoretical question; it's really an actual question. Do you believe that you would be able to impose the death penalty if you found that the evidence supported that?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)