7.Individual Voir Dire — Further Juror Examination (Part 3)
410 linesTHE COURT: Okay. Next juror, Juror No. 70.
COURT CLERK: 70. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hello.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instruction to avoid any discussion of the case or any exposure to the media reports?
JUROR: I heard one thing. I turned off the radio quickly.
THE COURT: All right.
JUROR: Some people did say some things to me but nothing like other -- nothing major, so...
THE COURT: Okay. You avoided any discussion with people --
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I would tell people, "No, I can't really talk about that."
THE COURT: Fair enough. That's what we ask you to do.
You're at home with your children right now?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you -- you've thought about it and you don't think your family situation presents a hardship that would --
JUROR: Well, I do, but, you know -- but I know everyone thinks that. Do you know what I mean? I think everyone thinks that being out of our life for that length of time is difficult. But I -- but my husband is available and would be able to do some things. I think it would be difficult for them but not an undue hardship, I guess.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
You -- we asked some questions about social media, and you say you use Facebook. And what you said was you read it daily and you post every few weeks. Is that accurate?
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah.
THE COURT: And what kinds of things do you put up?
JUROR: I would say -- I don't know, mostly personal things. Sometimes links to articles that interest me, so various stuff. It's hard to say.
THE COURT: Nothing about --
JUROR: I did post something about this saying I was called to jury duty on the day that this was starting. But it wasn't expressing an opinion about it, just saying, "Uh-oh, it looks like I'm having to do this."
THE COURT: When was that, in the November --
JUROR: The week leading up to -- December.
THE COURT: December?
Have you posted anything since then?
JUROR: No. But -- and then I do participate, I'd say, some political kind of things, commenting on, you know, blogs, I guess, but...
THE COURT: On Facebook or directly on the blogs?
JUROR: Well, that's related. It seems to be -- see, if someone posts an article and then you comment on that article, it will have your Facebook profile having commented on that article. Does that make sense? So, for instance, Talking Points Memo --
THE COURT: So somebody posts an article that has a comment stream after it?
JUROR: Yes. So I'd --
THE COURT: You would be in the comment stream?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And it would have your Facebook --
JUROR: It would have my Facebook profile.
THE COURT: How common is that for you?
JUROR: Somewhat -- a few times -- it's hard to give specifics. I mean, it's not a daily thing, but I guess I am a little opinionated.
THE COURT: Are there particular topics that you focus on?
JUROR: Well, that was one of the things -- the recent things were like the Ferguson kind of -- in the media, that stuff. And also when Ebola, when they quarantined somebody for that, I definitely -- I remember engaging in a couple on that. So it's various things. I couldn't give you a summary of, like, for the year, everything I've said.
THE COURT: You have a -- both an undergraduate and a graduate degree in psychology?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And have you worked in that field?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Before you had the family?
JUROR: Yes, before I had children.
THE COURT: Can you tell us a little bit about that and what you did and where?
JUROR: The job I had previous to having kids was a school psychologist. I worked at Manchester Middle-High School. So it's a 7-through-12 school. And the primary responsibility is doing testing, evaluations for cognitive and psychological profiles. And like I say, I worked with from 12-year-olds to 18-year-olds at that time. That was for about five years. So it was right after I graduated from my master's program.
THE COURT: So --
JUROR: Should I go previous to that also?
THE COURT: No. Give us the years when that was.
JUROR: Oh --
THE COURT: Roughly. Just give us --
JUROR: -- I think '97 or '98 is when I started, and my son was born in 2001, and so that was --
THE COURT: So since then you've been home?
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah, a long time.
Should I -- any previous jobs?
THE COURT: No, that's fine.
JUROR: Because one was vaguely psychology related, I guess.
THE COURT: If you want.
JUROR: I don't know. I worked for Child Protective Services in the past, previous to graduate school.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: For two years in upstate New York.
THE COURT: In the questionnaire we had asked some questions about attitudes towards broader issues in the world, like attitudes towards Islam or Muslims, attitudes towards the war on terror, for example, so-called and so on. Do you remember those questions?
JUROR: Yeah, somewhat.
THE COURT: Since you filled out the questionnaire and you gave us those answers, there have been some events in Europe and Paris, for example, that have occurred. Have you followed those matters?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: How closely, not closely? How would you say?
JUROR: Well, I've certainly read articles about them and remained aware. Not, like -- not continuous moment-by-moment what was going on, but just a general -- I was keeping track of, I guess, I mean.
THE COURT: Would anything you saw about that or those incidents have changed any of the answers you gave about the attitudes towards --
JUROR: I don't believe so, no.
THE COURT: -- Islam or Muslims, for example?
JUROR: No, because they're separate things, I think, you know, to me.
THE COURT: If you'd look at page 20.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Question 77 we asked some questions about whether you had an opinion -- had formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty and, if so, what the penalty might be.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you see that? It's a four-part -- actually, a five-part question if you take the paragraph below it.
So you said that you had formed an opinion about his being guilty of the offenses.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And that's based on things you saw and heard, read about in the media, for example?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: What we ask jurors in any criminal trial to do is at the outset -- this is -- I may have said it. Let me just start the question again.
In any criminal trial we ask jurors to follow the law, which is that when somebody's accused of a crime, the person is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, of the crime unless and until the government proves that he's guilty by evidence at the trial --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does the fact that you have formed an opinion on the basis of reports you've seen and heard preclude you from being in that condition that you could presume that he's innocent unless the government proves his guilt by the evidence at trial?
JUROR: I think it's hard, you know, because if you have a belief in your head or if you already have heard so much about something that you're like -- that you believe something to be true, it's hard to set that aside. How do I put it? So, you know, I would try to. I don't know that I can say that that wouldn't influence my thinking at all, you know? Because it's hard to say that, like, "Oh, I can put all this information out of my head," you know, and just pretend I don't know it. I don't know if the brain works that way.
THE COURT: Right. In part perhaps it's a question of focus; in other words, what you focus on is what has been produced during the course of the trial and you test that evidence to see how convincing it is.
Do you think you'd be able to do that?
JUROR: I can say that I certainly would try to do that.
THE COURT: So that was the first two parts of the question. The second two parts were: Do you think he should receive the death penalty, and you said no, and then the next one was that he should not, and you said yes. So the same sort of thought about that. I mean, you have that thought at this point?
JUROR: See, that one's even harder because it's not based on something that I've heard in the media; it's based on my personal beliefs about the death penalty. And so that's a harder thing to imagine setting aside because it's not just from what has the media told me; it's what have my lifelong beliefs been.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's turn to page 23.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And we ask at the beginning of 88 a series of questions to get your views about the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The first one was sort of a -- in Question 88 was a general question about what your views are, and you wrote that you're opposed.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The next question we asked you to tell us the strength of your conviction on that matter.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And you selected 1 on the scale of -- 1 being strongly opposed.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And then the next page, instead of using numbers, we tried to get you to express it in a proposition that you would agree with or disagree with, and you selected the first two and said it's somewhere between those two?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Perhaps now could you just tell us in your own words what your feelings about the death penalty are in a case where someone has been -- the premise is, of course, you don't get to the penalty unless someone has been convicted of an intentional murder. So on that premise that the person has been convicted of an intentional murder --
JUROR: Okay. Well, my feelings are that I'm opposed to the death penalty even in that case because I think the government shouldn't impose the ultimate penalty. You know, let me put this -- you know, I don't believe in an eye-for-an-eye justice because I think it puts us on an equal playing field, and I don't believe that when someone -- you know, if someone commits this heinous crime, I don't think you do the same thing back. I think we need to stay -- I don't know. I believe in life imprisonment and not in the death penalty.
THE COURT: Could you envision that there could be circumstances about a crime, details of the crime, that would lead you to think it was so serious or so shocking that your ordinary position against the death penalty would be overridden and you could vote to impose the death penalty?
JUROR: I don't -- no, because my ordinary position would be that there really is no case that it would be the right thing, if you know what I -- like it isn't a matter of how bad is the crime that's been committed whether somebody should die; it's only if it's in stopping a crime that -- do you know what I mean? Self-defense.
If somebody -- if something's going to stop another crime from occurring, then I can imagine it. But if it's like life in prison or death penalty, then there is in my mind no reason to choose the death penalty, in my belief system. I guess that's what we're saying, right?
THE COURT: So if you were a juror in this case, it wouldn't matter what the circumstances were, you would not be able to vote for the death penalty? Is that --
JUROR: That's my belief in terms of, you know, where I stand on the death penalty, yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: I guess is the way to put it.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MS. CONRAD: Yes. Good morning. No, good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of the lawyers representing Mr. Tsarnaev.
If you could just turn to page 24 of your questionnaire, please.
JUROR: Yeah, I am there.
MS. CONRAD: And you circled on Question 90 both A and B, and you wrote "somewhere between these two."
JUROR: Yeah.
MS. CONRAD: Could you tell us a little bit more about that?
JUROR: About why? I guess -- honestly, I guess I have a hard time with giving absolute responses sometimes. I think in terms of -- so I think I was caught between them quite a bit. Do you know what I -- like how do I say this? That in terms of what my beliefs actually are, then I would say A. Do you know what I mean? And then if we get into a case of can I imagine? Well, okay, there's 99 percent of the chance you could never vote for this. Is there anything possible -- you know, and I feel, like, well, it's hard to say there's nothing in the world that could influence me to change over that last -- and I guess that's why. It was, how do I say this, equivocation?
MS. CONRAD: So if -- I understand your beliefs and how you explain them, but if you were selected to be on this jury and you were instructed -- if the jury found the defendant guilty and then you were instructed on the penalty phase on considering aggravating and mitigating factors, would you be able to consider those in deciding whether or not to impose the death penalty?
JUROR: See, I think that's very hard because it's kind of asking me to go against a core belief system, you know? So I don't --
MS. CONRAD: I'm not asking you to go against a core --
JUROR: No, but it would be, wouldn't it? I mean, if I were sitting there and having to make that decision at the end, it would be asking me to go -- be able to, you know, set aside a core belief and examine it from a different perspective of then what I believe. I don't know if I'm being clear there.
MS. CONRAD: I understand. Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Just leave the questionnaire there. That's fine. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror 71, have a seat, please.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out before when you were here.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: We're going to follow up with some questions about it. Since you filled it out, have you been able to follow my instructions about avoiding any discussion of the case with anyone, or any exposure --
JUROR: Pretty much. I mean, the people I work with know -- I told them I can't really say anything.
THE COURT: Right. And the same thing for media reports. If you see a story, you turn away from it?
JUROR: The news in the morning don't really talk too much about it, just the process of jury selection. But it's only on for a couple of minutes.
THE COURT: You're concerned -- tell us what you do for a living.
JUROR: I work in a warehouse, a foreign company, warehouse worker shipping and receiving in Wilmington.
THE COURT: So you're doing the shipping and receiving?
JUROR: Yeah, shipping and receiving. It's a two-person department.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. How long have you been doing that?
JUROR: Five years.
THE COURT: Question 10 on page 5 you said you had some concern about the loss of income from that?
JUROR: Yeah, I mean, the employee handbook, the company only pays for a certain amount of jury duty time. I've already put on three days of state duty. And also, they have a pension plan, which I have to work 1,000 hours this year to fully vest in it. So I kind of want to get those hours as fast as possible without delay or interruption.
THE COURT: Let's take the last point first. Is this something that you're newly eligible for or do you have to fulfill 1,000 hours every year?
JUROR: I have to fulfill 1,000 hours to be 100 percent, fully vested for my 12 -- 14 -- I'm sorry -- after 12 I have to put in 1,000 hours, which is 25 weeks.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor...
(Pause.)
THE COURT: Are you paid on an hourly basis?
JUROR: Yes. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Okay. Satisfied?
MR. WEINREB: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
JUROR: Okay.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 73, have a seat here, please.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were here before.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: You may refer to it. Since you filled it out, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case or the process and avoid any media accounts that may bear on --
JUROR: To the best of my abilities, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I work at Polcari's in Saugus, Massachusetts.
THE COURT: In Massachusetts?
JUROR: Yeah. I'm a busboy.
THE COURT: How long have you done that?
JUROR: Coming up on two years now.
THE COURT: Okay. You graduated from community college?
JUROR: Not yet. I'm --
THE COURT: You're in the process?
JUROR: I'm a full-time student right now.
THE COURT: Oh, you are?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So you work in addition to your being a student?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you in school now?
JUROR: I am, yeah. Today was actually the first day. I missed today.
THE COURT: And you say it is full time. What does that entail?
JUROR: Four classes, which is --
THE COURT: How many times a week?
JUROR: I go Monday through Thursday.
THE COURT: Okay. It would be a burden to be here, then, instead of in school?
JUROR: It would be. I didn't put that in my questionnaire.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. That's all.
JUROR: No problem.
All right.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 74, have a seat over here, please.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: We're going to just follow up on some of the questions you answered in your questionnaire, and that's it right there, so you may refer to it from time to time.
JUROR: All right. Thank you.
THE COURT: Since you were here to fill that out, have you been able to abide by my instructions not to talk about the case or the jury selection process or --
JUROR: Yes, sir. As much as possible.
THE COURT: Right. I mean, in general terms to tell people you were coming and so on and so forth, but not the details of the case or anything like that.
JUROR: Correct. Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And is the same true for avoiding any media reports about the case?
JUROR: As much as possible, yes.
THE COURT: Right. I know they sometimes hit you without you --
JUROR: Yeah, you know.
THE COURT: But when that happens, do you turn from them?
JUROR: I change the channel, yes, sir.
THE COURT: That's what we ask you to do.
Just sort of background questions, we had asked whether you had ever lived in another country, and you said Scotland for six months?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Was that a student matter?
JUROR: Yeah, I studied abroad.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: My junior year of college, so 2006.
THE COURT: Okay. You have two brothers who are both in the Marines?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And one actually went to the Naval Academy?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And I guess one served both in Afghanistan and Iraq?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do their -- would their service as Marines have any effect on your impartiality or fair-mindedness in a case like this?
JUROR: I don't think so.
THE COURT: Was the brother who was in Afghanistan and Iraq -- was he engaged in combat?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is he still -- is anybody still there? No?
JUROR: No, neither -- neither are deployed at this time.
THE COURT: So again -- I actually was looking forward so I didn't hear your answer to the question whether it would affect you.
JUROR: I don't think so, no.
THE COURT: Have you talked to them about their experiences, particularly the one who was in combat?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Were they both in combat or just --
JUROR: Just my older brother, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: As much as he would talk about it.
THE COURT: Uh-huh. Does the fact that he won't talk about it affect you?
JUROR: No. I don't -- I think he just -- he's pretty private.
THE COURT: I see you went to UMass Dartmouth?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You'll probably hear something about UMass Dartmouth in the course of the case. You probably already know that.
JUROR: Yes, yeah.
THE COURT: Would that have any effect on your impartiality or fair-mindedness?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: To the extent you've seen any names about people involved with UMass Dartmouth, have you recognized them as people you know?
JUROR: They interviewed one of my professors -- one of my history professors after --
THE COURT: Who's "they"?
JUROR: The media.
THE COURT: The media --
JUROR: I'm sorry. I saw one of --
THE COURT: -- as opposed to government investigators?
JUROR: No. No, no, at least that I know of. One of my history professors was on the news after the -- they figured out -- it was on the news.
THE COURT: This was around the time events were unfolding?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Close to the time of the --
JUROR: Yes, sir. Yeah.
THE COURT: And you saw that or you just know it happened?
JUROR: I saw it.
THE COURT: Okay. Any continuing impact of that on your ability to be a fair juror?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: What did the history professor have to say?
JUROR: He was -- he was -- he taught a class on Chechnya, and I think that it had some relation to the defendant. And so they were interviewing him about that.
THE COURT: You may recall in the questionnaire we asked some questions about general attitudes towards things, including Islam and Muslims, the war on terror --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- and so on and so forth, and you answered those.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Since you filled out the questionnaire, there have been other incidents that could be called terrorism incidents in Paris and perhaps other places. Have you followed those -- news reports about those things?
JUROR: Some, yes.
THE COURT: Give us an idea of "some."
JUROR: I watch the nightly news, so I saw those reports.
THE COURT: Okay. Would they cause you to change any of the answers you gave previously?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: If you want to look at them, they're on page 17 and 18.
JUROR: Page 17? It was a while ago.
(Pause.)
JUROR: No, I don't think my answers would change.
THE COURT: Would the reports have any other -- apart from the answers, would they affect you in any way that would affect your service as an impartial juror?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: If you'd look at page 20, in Question 77 we asked whether -- on the basis of things you'd seen in the media, whether you formed an opinion about whether the defendant was guilty and, if so, what punishment might be imposed.
To the question about whether he was guilty, you said "unsure," and then to the question -- sort of paired question, whether he was not guilty, you said "no." Those might be inconsistent in some way. I mean, one was more absolute than the other.
Can you just tell us what you think your mental condition is about that -- or impression you have based on media reports? I mean --
JUROR: I mean, you're supposed to assume somebody's innocent until proven guilty, right? So I think that's where maybe my "unsure" answer came from. And then -- yeah, they do contradict each other, don't they, my two answers?
THE COURT: I'm not sure they contradict, but they're a little inconsistent.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Let me just ask you the question that you raised. In any criminal case, the defendant who is accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent of it unless and until the government proves he's guilty. The government must prove that by evidence produced at trial, not what might be in the ether, and they must prove it to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Would you have any difficulty in applying those principles, the presumption of innocence and proof by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, if you were a juror in this case? Would you have any difficulty in faithfully applying those?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: With respect to the second part of the question, about the penalty, you said you were unsure about whether he should or should not receive the death penalty if convicted, right?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: C and D.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And what was the reason you checked those boxes?
JUROR: I mean, I think you'd need to see all the evidence and all the proof before you can say that about -- you know, make that decision. That's a big decision to make.
THE COURT: On the next page, you said your friends and boyfriend all live in Watertown and sheltered in place, but you were out of town and didn't, but you would have had to if you were there?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does the fact that they went through that experience and that you might have, and sort of, I guess, have some empathy for them for having done it -- would that be something that would interfere with your impartiality in a case like this? In other words, would you take this in some way personally that would affect your ability to be a fair juror?
JUROR: No, I wouldn't take it personally. It was scary for them, but I don't take it personally.
THE COURT: And do you -- in the next question, you participated in an anniversary race?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And the anniversary is of the marathon itself. Is that the anniversary you're talking about?
JUROR: I think this one was actually of the events -- no, it was before the marathon, so it was just --
THE COURT: So it was approximate, is that what --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: It was for the week-long events? Is that what --
JUROR: Yeah, that kind of thing.
THE COURT: And you own a Boston Strong T-shirt?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Did you acquire that yourself? Did somebody give it to you?
JUROR: Another teacher at the school that I work at bought it for me.
THE COURT: When?
JUROR: Probably the week after the bombing. We had a Boston Strong Day at school.
THE COURT: If you'd turn to page 23, beginning with Question 88, we asked -- asked a series of questions about your attitudes -- attitude or attitudes toward the death penalty. 88 is a general question, and you said it's necessary but should be used only when a crime truly warrants it.
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And then the next question, we asked you to give us a sense of how strongly you had that view or favored the death penalty, and you circled 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being strongly favor.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is that a good estimate of the strength of your belief on this?
JUROR: Yes, I think if they've done something that warrants the death penalty, then that's something that they deserve.
THE COURT: If you could look at the next page, rather than a numerical scale, we asked you to tell us in a formulation of words what came closest to your view, and you selected E, which is that you're in favor of the death penalty but could vote for a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release if you believed that sentence was called for by the facts and the law in the case. Is that your view?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So would you -- based on the full presentation, aggravating, mitigating, all that, would you be in a condition where you could be persuaded to vote in favor of the death penalty but also could be persuaded to vote in favor of life imprisonment? In other words, do you have any -- let me just ask that question.
JUROR: I mean, I think if the evidence warranted the death penalty, then I could vote for that. But if it didn't, life in prison -- yeah, I could be persuaded either way.
THE COURT: So you could consciously evaluate either possibility --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- based on the evidence you heard?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: If I may?
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MR. BRUCK: Ma'am, I'm David Bruck. I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's attorneys, and I've got a few things to ask you, if I may.
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you. I want to ask you about the T-shirt.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: Why did the teacher buy you a Boston Strong T-shirt?
JUROR: She's the leader of the team that I'm on. We work on teams in the school. And so she bought everybody on our team -- so the five teachers, she bought us all Boston Strong T-shirts so we could participate in the Boston Strong Day.
MR. BRUCK: On the Boston Strong Day?
JUROR: The spirit day that our school had for Boston Strong.
MR. BRUCK: Can you tell me a little bit more about that.
JUROR: The spirit day?
MR. BRUCK: Yeah.
JUROR: We have spirit days throughout the school year. Last Friday was Patriots Day-AFC Championship Day, so you got to wear your Patriots sweatshirt instead of your teacher clothes. So we had a Boston Strong one after the bombing.
MR. BRUCK: And how long after?
JUROR: We were on April vacation when it happened, so I think it was the week after.
MR. BRUCK: And how often have you worn the shirt since then?
JUROR: It's one of my gym shirts, so probably on a biweekly basis, maybe.
MR. BRUCK: I can never remember. "Biweekly" means twice a week or every two weeks?
JUROR: Every two weeks. I think that's what it means.
MR. BRUCK: Your guess is better than mine.
And you also ran in the Watertown Strong race.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: And at that time you lived in Watertown?
JUROR: I lived in Newton, right on, like, the Newton/Watertown line kind of, but I -- I would say I used to live in Watertown. I would say I did more things in Watertown than in Newton.
MR. BRUCK: Now, maybe this is a silly question, but what does "Boston Strong" and "Watertown Strong" mean, if you could explain it to someone that didn't know anything that's been going on?
JUROR: I think it was just sort of the spirit of resilience that the city felt after the bombings. I mean, I really honestly think the Watertown Strong was a little silly, but the Boston Strong, you know, sort of all of us coming together as a city. And that was sort of the feeling -- that's how I would explain it, at least. I don't know if I'm being very articulate.
MR. BRUCK: No, you're being very articulate. Thanks.
Do you think -- and there's no right answer to this. I just want to know what you think. Do you think that being part of this trial is some of the -- also part of the community coming together or expressing resilience?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That's a leading question.
THE COURT: No, go ahead. You can answer that.
JUROR: Okay. Maybe? I'm not -- yes?
MR. BRUCK: Is it to you?
JUROR: Of the community coming together? No. I mean, I view this as a sad thing, like we shouldn't have to be doing this.
MR. BRUCK: What do you mean?
JUROR: I think bad things shouldn't happen. We shouldn't -- I don't know. Yeah. That's not a good answer.
MR. BRUCK: No, it's fine. Whatever -- as the judge told you, whatever you really feel is a good answer --
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: -- so...
Do you listen to Kiss 108?
JUROR: I do.
MR. BRUCK: Is there a lot of talk about this case on that?
JUROR: Not -- I mean, like I said, I try to change the channel if they bring it up.
MR. BRUCK: But I mean before you -- I mean in the year and a half --
JUROR: Oh, so before I got a jury summons?
MR. BRUCK: Yeah.
JUROR: Not any more than -- not that it, like, stood out to me really.
MR. BRUCK: Now, there might be evidence -- there probably will be evidence that the government presents in this case that the bombings were committed for reasons having to do against our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: And you've said you have two brothers who are Marines officers and one brother has fought in both places.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: Now, as you know, once you're on the jury if that begins to affect you in a personal way, it's too late, or it could be, so now's the only time we can ask you: Do you think the fact that your brother served in combat in both of those theaters could affect the way you look at this case in a way might affect your jury service?
JUROR: I really don't think so.
MR. BRUCK: How sure are you?
JUROR: I feel like when -- when you asked me the question I felt pretty sure about it. When you asked me the question now, I'm not so sure about it.
(Laughter.)
JUROR: I mean, I'm proud of the service that my brother did, and I'm proud of, you know, the military, but it's -- you know, it's just something that he had to do. It's not something that he necessarily felt strong about what he was doing over there.
MR. BRUCK: Well, I guess what I'm coming down to. You listed an awful lot of ways in which your life has intersected with this story.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: You went to Dartmouth. You talked to us about your professor.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think this is argument.
MR. BRUCK: Well, just to remember all the -- Watertown and what you told us about your brothers, if you put all that together --
MR. WEINREB: This is -- objection, your Honor.
MR. BRUCK: -- how sure are you?
THE COURT: Yeah, sustained. Never mind.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: I guess my last question is: Just thinking over everything you've told us, are you confident that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case or do you have some doubt?
JUROR: I'm confident.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: You're welcome.
THE COURT: Thank you.
JUROR: No problem. Thank you.
THE COURT: Number 74.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: I think we'll break here for lunch. We've only got about five more to go, so...
MR. WEINREB: Can we hold for a second? Can we actually hold that juror for one second?
THE COURT: Okay. Would you just keep her here for a minute.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, there was a -- I'm sorry.
THE COURT: I don't know.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: It -- I don't think it has to be sidebar. There was an individual that she was talking about who was a history professor at UMass Dartmouth. We didn't ask for the name. On the government's witness list there is a professor from UMass Dartmouth who, based on my understanding, teaches a course about Chechnya. It's unclear whether that witness will be called for sure, but it's on the list.
It may be prudent just to inquire --
THE COURT: Okay. Does someone have the list? I don't have it handy. I think I have it in my other papers.
MS. CLARKE: Or just ask her the name of the professor.
MR. WEINREB: Yeah, we would recognize it.
THE COURT: Oh, you'll recognize it? Okay.
(The juror is re-called.)
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 74.
COURT CLERK: Have a seat.
THE COURT: This will be quick.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You told us you saw an interview with a history professor from UMass Dartmouth.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What was his name?
JUROR: Brian Williams.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
JUROR: You're welcome. That's it?
COURT CLERK: That's it.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: Since we made pretty good progress and we have about five left, instead of just taking a half-hour for lunch, take 45 minutes, shoot for quarter to two, roughly. Is that reasonable?
(There is a recess in the proceedings at 12:56 p.m.)
(The Court entered the room at 1:47 p.m.)
THE COURT: We're going to take a juror out of order, No. 79. He is the landlord in a landlord/tenant relationship, and his tenant is having trouble, and he wants to go help. We'll take him out of order to get him out. That's my understanding. I haven't talked to him. That's what I was told.
COURT CLERK: 79.
(SIDEBAR CONFERENCE AS FOLLOWS:
[REDACTED]
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: 79.