4.Individual Voir Dire — Impartiality, Capital Punishment, and Hardship
945 linesCOURT CLERK: Juror 83.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror 83.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat, if you would.
THE COURT: Hello. Since you filled out the questionnaire and we're here, have you been able to abide by my instruction to avoid any discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And any unnecessary avoidable exposure to the media reports?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So that's the questionnaire, and we may ask you to look at a couple of things as we follow up on some of the questions you gave.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: It appears from your questionnaire that you are a student interrupted. Is that --
JUROR: Yeah. I was going to end up taking a break this semester anyways because my financial aid fell through, so...
THE COURT: So what are you doing?
JUROR: Well, I'm not employed right now because I lost my job. I was working seasonally at Best Buy. So right now I'm just at home.
THE COURT: Okay. What course were you pursuing at school?
JUROR: Psychology and a minor in neuroscience.
THE COURT: Neuroscience?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Tell us about your social media use.
JUROR: Well, I mean, Facebook. I use Facebook, but I don't really put anything personal on there, and I definitely try to avoid political things for the most part. Usually I just -- you know, I used to be a personal trainer, so I put like training things or health-related fitness things and, you know, some funny memes every now and then.
I mean, I saw the movie "American Sniper" over the weekend and I did post something like that, but I didn't really get into the politics or anything.
THE COURT: So anything beyond Facebook? Twitter or Instagram or anything like that?
JUROR: No, I'm not a Twitter person. I have Instagram, but I don't use it.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at page 15, I guess, Question No. 50.
JUROR: Yes?
THE COURT: That asks what court cases you may have followed with interest and what interested you about them.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: And you talk about the Michael Brown case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's the Ferguson, Missouri, incident?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What was it about that that interested you?
JUROR: It was more just the people's reaction to the case, the outcome of the grand jury choosing not to indict the officer who was charged with the shooting. I mean, there were mixed emotions. Some people said that was the right decision, and some people said that they were somewhat disappointed with how the case was handled.
Personally, I didn't -- it didn't really affect me too much because I don't like to dabble in those things, but, you know, there's just such a volume of people that, you know, post things on Facebook, it's kind of hard to avoid that at times. And I just thought there was a lot of charged emotion that kind of factored into people's view on the case, and that takes away from the legitimacy of, like, their views, actually, like, because they're speaking emotionally as opposed to logically.
So I thought due process was followed in that case and I thought the grand jury made the right decision.
THE COURT: Did you post anything about your own opinions about it?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: On Facebook or anything?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Any other cases that -- I think that may be the one you particularly mentioned. Were there others --
JUROR: Yeah, that's really the only one that I remember. There was the Casey Anthony case a few years back as well, but, like, to be honest, all of the details have escaped my mind.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions about attitudes to various potential issues including attitudes towards Islam and Muslims and the war on terror and so on.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you tell us that your mother is a native of Iran. Is that right?
JUROR: Yes. Yes, she is.
THE COURT: And she is a -- just casually, I guess, a former Muslim who has changed to a different faith?
JUROR: Yes, that's correct.
THE COURT: How long has she lived in the U.S.?
JUROR: She came in '78, I believe, just before the Iranian Revolution.
THE COURT: Do you have family there now?
JUROR: Not anybody that I know.
THE COURT: In the region at all?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You answered these questions when you filled out the questionnaire, obviously. Since then there have been some attacks in Paris and events in Europe. Do you follow those, the news about those?
JUROR: Just vaguely. The first day it kind of happened, just to see what was happening, but after that --
THE COURT: No?
JUROR: -- I didn't really follow through.
THE COURT: Would -- did you have any reaction to those events that would have led you to change any of the answers you've put down in these matters?
JUROR: Not really. It obviously was not a good thing that happened at the time, but my views, from what I remember that I filled out, since then have not changed.
THE COURT: Okay. Looking at Question -- oh, Question 67. You know a little bit of Arabic?
JUROR: A little bit of Farsi.
THE COURT: Farsi?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Is that close to Arabic? I don't know the answer to that.
JUROR: The writing is somewhat similar. A lot of the -- there are some Arabic roots. There are some French roots as well. I mean, Iranians are Caucasian in origin, so they're not Aramaic or Arabic, from my understanding.
THE COURT: Have you studied your heritage?
JUROR: A little bit. When I was a kid I took some, you know, like Farsi language classes, but it escapes me for the most part. Now I just know a few phrases and some very basic conversational things or, you know, words and phrases, like if I speak with relatives.
In terms of my culture or the culture that, you know, my mom is from and I share half my heritage with, there are some things that interest me, but it's more like -- like there's this thing called the Pahlevan, which is a house of strength in Iran, and they do like the Indian club swinging. Again, going back to the fitness, that's kind of what I was more interested in more than anything else.
THE COURT: Looking at Question 71, you seem to have sort of an international taste in news.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You pay attention to BBC America, Al Jazeera America?
JUROR: Every now and then. And, I mean, I probably watch like a little -- you know, the 30-minute news broadcast maybe once every other week or so.
THE COURT: Do that on the Internet?
JUROR: No, usually on the TV. If it just happens to be on. If it's not on, I don't really go out of my way.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at page 20, Question 77.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In that question we asked whether, based on things you'd seen or read, learned from any source, whether you had an opinion about whether this defendant is guilty or not and whether -- how he should be punished, if he is. And to each of the four parts of that question you answered that you were unsure.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you tell us about that answer.
JUROR: Sure. If I just may reread the --
THE COURT: Yeah. Go ahead. Take your time.
JUROR: Okay.
(There is a pause.)
JUROR: Okay. So I believe at the time my logic in saying "unsure" -- I'll start at the bottom. In regards to should he receive the death penalty or not receive the death penalty, I'm not sure because I don't really know much about the case outside of what I saw a couple of years ago and what we read in the brief, so I just felt that -- I didn't feel at the time that that was conclusive enough to be able to say whether I should -- whether I believe he should get that or not get that, that penalty.
In regards to him being guilty or not guilty, obviously he was involved in something, but as it is my understanding that you're not guilty until proven -- you're innocent until proven guilty, I just thought it would be best to say "unsure."
THE COURT: Understanding you probably have things from the media and so on, recollections, you've referred to the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- of guilt.
Do you have any concern or reservations about your own ability to apply that -- those principles?
JUROR: No, I don't.
THE COURT: Specifically to require the government to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt by its evidence at trial?
JUROR: Right. Wait. Could you repeat that one more time?
THE COURT: Well, as I think you've recognized, the government -- when someone is accused of a crime, the person doesn't have any obligation to prove he's not guilty of the crime; the government has to prove he is.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And that's done by evidence at trial to a jury.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And it's the obligation of the government to produce evidence that convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise, the jury is required by law to find the person not guilty.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Is that something you'd be able to do?
JUROR: Yes, I would be able to do it.
THE COURT: I guess specifically what I want to know is how would you handle whatever ideas you've had from before the trial?
JUROR: Sure. Well, based on the evidence presented and -- you know, I do have a knack to listening to people and what they say. You know, you guys have to do a fair job in presenting the facts the best you can. Based on that, that's probably when I would -- that's definitely when I would make my decision because I think it would be wrong to do -- or to have any preconceived notion as to what he deserves or doesn't deserve otherwise until that happens.
THE COURT: You and your family, as far as you know, were not personally involved or affected by the events?
JUROR: No, nobody that I know in my immediate family was involved or affected.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 23. Beginning with Question 88, we ask people about some ideas they may have about the death penalty. And in 88 we asked in general terms what -- if you have any views about the death penalty, what they are. I have to confess I had a little trouble reading your writing. Maybe you can tell us what you wrote there.
JUROR: Yes. So I said that in certain cases, if the evidence and reason's fair and the punishment deemed as the death penalty, then I hope that it's given in the hope that it serves the purpose of justice as -- I guess as outlined by what your objective or idea of justice in terms of what he deserves as -- so, yeah, the standard -- whatever standard --
THE COURT: I'm trying to read the last phrase. "In fairness and equity of all involved"?
JUROR: Yes. To say that people weren't affected, obviously somebody or -- or something has to be held accountable in some regard for what happened during that time that he was accused of carrying out the things that you had mentioned. So, you know, it didn't just happen on its own.
THE COURT: Well, okay. So the question was asking about -- your general views about the death penalty. And now that you've read the answer -- but I mean apart from the answer, can you tell me in general terms what your view is?
JUROR: I think the death penalty is valid in terms of being a good punishment, but, again, it all depends on the severity of what he did and how people around him -- or that were affected by his decisions were affected. So, you know, I think it would be merciful at times if you believe in an afterlife for the justice system to give someone the death penalty. Maybe it takes away some of the burden of the person's soul. But then again, I think that in certain cases, say, life in prison can also be an opening -- or eye-opening experience for a person as well. Maybe they'll change before the time that they naturally die.
And I also think that the death penalty is fair, you know? There has to be an appropriate punishment for certain crimes out there, and to not have that as an option on the table would be wrong. Not that I think it should always be pushed on people, but I think it is a valid punishment.
THE COURT: So you -- we asked you in Question 89 -- if you want to go back to that page.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: -- if you could sort of give us where on a scale of 1 to 10 -- where you thought you were with respect to the death penalty, and you picked 6.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Which is sort of in the middle.
JUROR: Yeah. And I still feel that way. I mean, if you guys had, you know, like a 6-1/2 or a 7, I probably would have done a half of some sort.
THE COURT: On the next page, Question 90, we ask you to tell us not by a numerical scale but in words which statement came closest to your view, and you circled letter D.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That says you're not for or against the death penalty; you could vote to impose it or to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, whichever you thought you believe was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that a fair summary of your view?
JUROR: Yes, I think that was the most accurate statement that reflected my views and does reflect my views currently.
THE COURT: So in this case after hearing the evidence would you be able to conscientiously consider a penalty of death?
JUROR: I believe I could.
THE COURT: And similarly, would you be able to conscientiously consider a life imprisonment?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you open to either depending on the evidence?
JUROR: I definitely am open to either.
THE COURT: So you wouldn't automatically vote for one or the other regardless of the facts in the case. Is that what you're saying?
JUROR: Yeah, I couldn't do that. It would go against my principle, to be honest.
THE COURT: Mr. Weinreb?
MR. WEINREB: No questions, your Honor.
MR. BRUCK: Good morning. I've been calling you Mr. 83, of course trying to protect everyone's privacy by not using their name. I don't mean to be rude. My name is David Bruck, and I'm one of the attorneys for Jahar Tsarnaev, and I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask you, if I could.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: You mentioned that -- I think the words you used were "obviously he was involved in something."
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: Tell us about that.
JUROR: I mean, just from media reports, I do remember his name being mentioned as well as -- I believe his brother's name being mentioned as well. So I mean, I don't know if this is a case of mistaken -- I don't know -- I don't think this would be a case of mistaken identity, so obviously he was involved in something. Just exactly what and how, I don't know.
MR. BRUCK: Well, do you know -- I mean, why he's the one charged rather than anyone else?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Well, just based on what you've heard.
JUROR: Sure, based on what I've heard.
MR. BRUCK: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think sustained. I think this goes beyond what we've outlined, so...
MR. BRUCK: All right.
You mentioned your mom changed her religious faith to Bahá'í.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And I'm -- are you aware of the treatment of Bahá'í's in Iran?
JUROR: Yes. Yes, I am.
MR. BRUCK: It's extremely cruel.
JUROR: It is.
MR. BRUCK: And, of course, Iran is a -- styles itself as an Islamic Republic.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: If there was a great deal of information, of evidence about Islam and the defendant's Islamic faith and beliefs -- you see where the question is --
JUROR: Yes, I could see where that's leading.
MR. BRUCK: Can you answer it?
JUROR: Yes, I can. To be honest, I personally have nothing against Islam, as well as I know that many Bahá'í's do not. You know, we are taught to respect all religions. And, you know, what the Iranian government decides to do against Bahá'í's in terms of human rights violations or the like, you know, that's a shame that they do that. But the governing body of the Bahá'í faith also say that Bahá'í's are supposed to follow the laws of the country and to respect the government and the rights and to help people regardless of whether they're Islamic or Bahá'í or Christian or whatever else. So I have nothing against Islam or the people of Islam.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Well, thank you.
You said in response to the judge's question about the punishment that -- in this case you -- that what you know is not conclusive enough to base an opinion. I just wonder -- I guess I want to probe a little bit about that.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: As you sit here today, knowing that this case is the Boston Marathon bombing and its aftermath, and assuming now just for my question that he has been convicted -- let's picture that.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the whole jury has agreed, so we're now in the sentencing phase. Do you lean one way or another regarding death penalty or life imprisonment?
MR. WEINREB: I object.
THE COURT: No, you can answer that.
JUROR: Do I lean one way or the other?
MR. BRUCK: Yes.
JUROR: If he's proven guilty, you said, correct?
MR. BRUCK: That's the assumption, right. Because you wouldn't have a decision to make until he was first proven guilty.
JUROR: I still -- I don't know. There's just -- I don't know enough. I mean, I would say definitely life in prison at this point, I mean, if I had to make a decision based on what you said, but in terms of the death penalty, I couldn't -- I couldn't say that right now.
MR. BRUCK: I see.
So I take it that there could be circumstances under which life imprisonment could be a sufficient punishment for this type of crime in your mind?
JUROR: I could see that as being an appropriate punishment, yes.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. And do you appreciate in the end it's up to the jury, not up to the law and up to the Court?
JUROR: I do.
MR. WEINREB: Objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Well, the answer's given, so...
JUROR: I apologize.
THE COURT: No, that's fine.
MR. BRUCK: Do you remember -- you may have answered this already. Did you have any -- did you do any Facebook postings about this case?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Or any friends' postings come up on your Facebook page?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Would you like to be on the jury?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BRUCK: Bear with me just a moment.
(Pause.)
MR. BRUCK: Thank you so much. That's all I have.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I have one question, if I may, please.
Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just have one question which is you've talked about that you're open to the possibility that the death penalty would be an appropriate penalty and also open to the possibility that life imprisonment would be appropriate.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: My question is: If you determined after hearing all the evidence --
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: -- if the defendant were found guilty and you had heard evidence in the penalty phase and you had actually come to the belief that a death sentence was the appropriate sentence, would you be able to actually impose it, vote that somebody be put to death for a crime?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: All right.
(The juror is excused.)
MR. BRUCK: Before the next juror comes out, please, just for the point of view of the record, of course the government objected to a couple of the questions on our list. The Court sustained some. When the Court sustains an objection, do -- is the record complete or in -- or will it be necessary for me to -- or for the questioner, when the juror has been excused, to note our objection or --
THE COURT: I think asking the question makes your point.
MR. BRUCK: Very well.
THE COURT: I don't think it's necessary to take an exception --
MR. BRUCK: Well --
THE COURT: -- as we used to do.
MR. BRUCK: Right. You see that our issue --
THE COURT: I think your record is fine.
MR. BRUCK: Fine. Thank you. That's all we need.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 84.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 84.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, if you'd come over here and have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: Welcome back.
JUROR: Thank you.
THE COURT: Since you filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the details of the case or any unnecessary exposure to media accounts or anything?
JUROR: Yeah, for -- I mean, I've talked just in general terms with my husband, but for the most part, yeah.
THE COURT: Oh, about that you're in this process?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: But not the details of the subject matter of the case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: One of the questions we asked on the questionnaire was about whether it would be a particular hardship for the potential juror. You've noted that there might be an impact on -- you're a teacher?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: It might be an impact on your students, but as far as -- I want to make sure I'm understanding it. As far as you personally, it would not be a hardship?
JUROR: No, it would not.
THE COURT: And as you say, you assume that the school would find a substitute to fill in?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Tell us about your use of social media. What is it and how much and so on? What do you do, if anything?
JUROR: I text -- ever since my kids were teenagers and I would need to know where they are, I text. And I'm also on Instagram with just family members.
THE COURT: No Facebook --
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: -- or Twitter or anything else like that?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We asked a series of questions in the middle of the questionnaire about attitudes towards some international issues, the war on terror, for example, attitudes towards Islam and Muslims and so on. Do you remember answering those?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Since you filled out the questionnaire there's been some events elsewhere in the world -- Paris, for example -- involving terrorist attacks. Would any of your answers that you gave change as a result of what you've seen or observed about those events?
JUROR: No, I don't believe so.
THE COURT: If you're uncertain, you could look at it. I'm not saying you have to or I'm not saying that you are uncertain, but it's -- the questions I'm referring to are pages 17 and 18 on the questionnaire.
(Pause.)
JUROR: No, my answers wouldn't change.
THE COURT: Okay. To what degree have you followed those news accounts of what's been happening in Europe or elsewhere, actually?
JUROR: Pretty closely.
THE COURT: You generally follow the news pretty closely?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: I'd like you to look at page 20, Question 77.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: We asked whether you had, on the basis of things you'd seen or heard or read about, formed an opinion about certain issues, particularly whether the defendant's guilty of what he's charged with or not and what the penalty should be if he is guilty. And you answered that you do have an opinion about whether he's guilty.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And that comes from things you've read and seen on TV or whatever?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The obligation of a juror would be to -- in a trial, to understand that the -- any defendant, any criminal defendant, is presumed innocent of any charge against him unless and until the government proves otherwise by the evidence at trial and proves it to a level of persuasion that the jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
Do you understand that that would be the obligation of a juror?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Yes.
THE COURT: As someone who has some impressions about whether he's guilty or not already, what would your self-assessment be about your ability to presume him innocent according to the law and require the government to prove him guilty by the evidence at trial?
JUROR: I'd like to think that ideally I could fulfill that role, but I can't say that I don't have an idea in my head of my belief over his guilt or innocence.
THE COURT: And the question is whether you could evaluate the evidence and if it was consistent with that notion, act one way, but if the evidence, for example, was inconsistent with that preconceived idea, would you stick with the preconceived idea or would you amend it by reaction to something else you might learn?
JUROR: If I'm receiving new information and it changes what I think, I would amend. I would go with B.
THE COURT: Tell me about the -- you've said if he were to be convicted you were unsure about the death penalty or not. Tell us about what you were thinking about that.
JUROR: It's funny because you might think one way in your life how you believe about things and then when you're actually forced to act on those beliefs, things might change a little bit. But upon reflection, even I think since filling out -- filling this out, I strongly oppose the death penalty and I think -- I think my answer for D would be that he should not receive the death penalty.
THE COURT: Let's turn to page 23. We asked a series of questions about the death penalty at this stage, and the first one was Question 88, which was a general question, asks you about your general views.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And I guess you continue the answer at the bottom of that page.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Rereading that, does that still represent your views or have you changed your views as you thought about things?
JUROR: Just ultimately I -- I don't believe that you respond to killing by killing, and I don't feel that that would -- I don't feel like I would want to be responsible for somebody else's death.
THE COURT: On the scale -- in Question 89 we gave you a scale of how strong your views were, and you indicated it was pretty strong --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- by selecting 1.
If you would turn the page to Question 90, instead of a numerical scale, here we ask you to select the statement that came closest to your view. You selected B. It said you were opposed to the death penalty and would have a difficult time voting to impose it even if the facts supported it. The question is whether you would automatically vote against the death penalty firmly, that is, without consideration of the facts -- in other words, it's not a question of whether the facts support it or not, you're against it -- or whether you could in some case imagine a case that -- although you're pretty much opposed to it, there could be some circumstances you'd hear about that would be so awful that you would decide to vote for a death penalty.
So I guess I'm trying to gauge what you were thinking when you selected "difficult time." I mean, is a "difficult time" "might be difficult but I maybe could if the right circumstances were there" or is "difficult time" "I could never do it"? Do you see the difference?
JUROR: Yes. This was tricky because I've never -- I have no background, knowledge, nothing. I've never been in this situation. I've never been on a jury before, and I have never been on a jury that would consider the death penalty before. So it's very -- I'm very opposed to the death penalty. But I didn't want to say that there was never, ever, ever a case that I would not consider using it. So I --
THE COURT: Can you put some content into that? Can you think what kind of a case it might be that that would be the circumstance? In other words, is it just hypothetical or can you actually think of some circumstances where, "Yeah, this would be an exception to my general opposition, I would do it under these circumstances" or is it just that anything is possible?
JUROR: I think it's just that anything is possible. I didn't want to rule out that it could somehow sometime somewhere be possible, but I -- I can't think of a specific thing where I would say, "Yes, this person deserves the death penalty."
THE COURT: Look at Question 92 and just take a minute to read your answer there.
JUROR: There's a grammatical error. Yup.
THE COURT: So that seems to indicate that you think that for what -- whatever you think these crimes were, you would not be able to vote for the death penalty for these crimes.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: That's all I have.
MR. WEINREB: Nothing from the government, your Honor.
MS. CONRAD: Good morning, ma'am.
JUROR: Good morning.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
If you were selected for this jury, would you be able to listen to the evidence -- assume for a moment Mr. Tsarnaev is found guilty and you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Would you be able to listen to the evidence during the penalty phase that the judge described and listen to the law and consider the death penalty as an alternative to life without parole?
JUROR: Can you ask that one more time?
MS. CONRAD: Sure. I'm not sure if I can. I'll try it one more time.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: If you were on the jury and you -- and Mr. Tsarnaev were convicted and you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt and then asked to consider the penalty phase that Judge O'Toole described earlier, would you be able to listen to the facts and listen to the law and meaningfully consider the option of either the death penalty or life without parole?
JUROR: I would like to think I could, yes.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, can I follow up?
MR. MELLIN: Can I follow up on that?
THE COURT: Do you want to fight about it?
MR. MELLIN: I don't really want to fight Mr. Weinreb, but, ma'am, just -- you were just asked if you can meaningfully consider --
And for the record, I've Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case along with everyone else right here.
-- and you said that you would like to think that you could meaningfully consider.
Going a step beyond that, though, is at some point the jury's going to have to deliberate and go back into the jury room and to decide what the appropriate punishment is. And if you believed that the aggravating factors sufficiently outweigh the mitigating factors to justify a sentence of death, would you ever be able to vote to sentence someone to death?
JUROR: No.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 85.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 85.
COURT CLERK: Over here, sir, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Before you is the questionnaire you filled out when you were here the last time. We may refer to it.
Since that time have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the details of the case or to avoid any --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- exposure to media accounts that you could avoid?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Yeah? So we're going to just follow up on some of the things you told us. If you look at page 5, we asked in Question 10 -- we asked whether -- we explained what the schedule was going to be and what the likelihood of -- what it would mean for a juror to be here and so on, and then we asked if it was a special hardship of some kind, and you just said yes without explaining what the hardship would be.
So could you tell us why you think it would be a hardship for you to serve?
JUROR: Yeah, I got to bring the kid to school in the morning.
THE COURT: One?
JUROR: Hmm?
THE COURT: Just one child?
JUROR: Two child.
THE COURT: Two? How old are they? I guess it's in here someplace.
JUROR: Five and 12.
THE COURT: And what time do they go to school?
JUROR: One is 7:15 and the other is 7:30.
THE COURT: When was the first?
JUROR: 7:15.
THE COURT: 7:15 and 7:30?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You live in Lowell?
JUROR: Yes, Lowell.
THE COURT: Would you be able to get here by nine o'clock?
JUROR: Yeah, I got to leave earlier.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: By nine o'clock?
THE COURT: Yeah. After dropping someone off by seven-thirty.
JUROR: With traffic.
THE COURT: We all know traffic. But assuming no major traffic problems --
JUROR: Yeah, I guess.
THE COURT: Was there anything else or was it just that, that you were concerned about the morning -- getting the kids to school?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So tell me what you -- you say you're a staff accountant?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What kind of business is it?
JUROR: Web-posting company. A web-posting.
THE COURT: Web-posting?
JUROR: Web-posting.
THE COURT: Okay. And you've been doing that for about ten years or more?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I guess a little more than ten years.
JUROR: More than ten years.
THE COURT: Okay. Are you a salaried employee?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Do you use -- I guess you say you use Facebook and Google Plus?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you make postings yourself?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What kinds of things do you talk about?
JUROR: Holiday, birthday, vacation photos. Sometimes I read the news.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: News sometimes.
THE COURT: Have you done any posting about this case?
JUROR: No, not at all.
THE COURT: I don't mean just since you've been a juror, but even back when things were happening?
JUROR: A little, yeah.
THE COURT: You did?
JUROR: A little.
THE COURT: Do you remember what kinds of things you might have posted?
JUROR: Some comment to, like, a friend's Facebook page, something like that.
THE COURT: And what were you commenting? Was it your feelings about the case, or what was your --
JUROR: Yeah, like how could anybody do that or do this? Do you know about this case, about the news, something like that.
THE COURT: Okay. So one of the questions we asked was whether in the past you had followed court cases with interest. Court, I guess, probably -- I guess it could be any court case. And you said not particularly but the Hernandez case is one that you hear a great deal about.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that something you have a particular interest in for some reason?
JUROR: Yeah, I like football, so I kind of follow that.
THE COURT: If you look at page 17 and 18 we ask some general questions about things that may be international affairs, sort of, the war on terror, attitudes towards Islam or Muslims and so on and so forth. Since you filled out the questionnaire there's been some incidents in Europe and Paris, for example, a shooting. Are you aware of that?
JUROR: Yes, I am.
THE COURT: Have you followed it closely or not closely or --
JUROR: Some quite closely. Not that much.
THE COURT: Okay. Do those events or things like them -- would they have any effect on how you would answer these questions? Would you change any of your answers to these questions in light of those things?
JUROR: Maybe a little, yeah.
THE COURT: What would you change, do you think? And feel free to look at the answers you gave so you know what...
JUROR: What sort of question you ask?
THE COURT: Well, because we're asking about, you know, things like the so-called war on terror, your attitude towards Islam or Muslims and so on. Would any of those questions -- do you have anything that's been prompted by things recently that might change your -- alter what you've written here?
JUROR: Not quite so much, no.
THE COURT: Your reaction when you received the summons, and you thought it was for this case, was "OMG. Don't pick me." Was that really your reaction?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Why was that? Why did you react that way, do you think?
JUROR: Because I know -- I've been following the news that the trial was starting this January, so when I got the summons I was like, "Oh, my God."
THE COURT: But was it the length of the trial --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- or the subject matter of the trial?
JUROR: The length of the trial and the big decision that has to be made at the end of the trial, so...
THE COURT: Okay. So let me ask you about the big decision that has to be made at the end of the trial, as you put it. Turn to page 20, Question 77. We tried to gauge -- we asked jurors here whether as a result of what they've seen or read in the news they'd formed an opinion about whether he's guilty or not, and if so, what the penalty would be. There's a four-part question. You answered only the first part which you said you had formed an opinion that he's guilty.
If you were a juror in the case would you be able to presume that he is not guilty or innocent unless and until the government proves by the evidence at trial that he is guilty and proves it beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words, that's -- that's the requirement that -- the burden that is placed on the government in a criminal case is to present evidence to a jury that convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt of the crime charged, or fails to do that, and jurors not being convinced by the evidence would be required to find the person not guilty.
Would you be able to fulfill that duty in light of the fact that you have some preconceived idea about whether he's guilty or not?
JUROR: No, I don't think so. I think he's still guilty.
THE COURT: No matter what you heard at trial. Is that it?
JUROR: Yeah.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think we've pretty much --
THE COURT: Let me just look through...
You were -- your company was shut down?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And that affected you personally?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Yeah. Where's -- what's the town?
JUROR: Burlington.
THE COURT: Burlington? Okay. Thank you. That's it. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 90.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 90.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, have a seat right here, if you would. Also, make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good morning.
JUROR: Good morning.
THE COURT: There's a little bit of morning left.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Since you were last here, have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case in detail or any --
JUROR: As best as I can.
THE COURT: -- exposure to media reports or anything?
JUROR: Certainly NPR, you know, listening to the radio in the morning and things like that. But otherwise, no.
THE COURT: Have you been listening to reports about the case?
JUROR: They'll come on every once in a while. I try and turn it off.
THE COURT: So there's the questionnaire you filled out.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And we'll follow up on some of the questions you have -- you've answered there. Let me start, if you would look on page 5, Question 9, you have a chronic back problem that affects --
JUROR: Question 9?
THE COURT: Question 9, page 5.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- that affects you if you sit for long periods of time?
JUROR: Long periods. Like just in the jury room, you know, I was standing up, walking around a lot. I try to do that as much as I can.
THE COURT: How frequently will you have to do that?
JUROR: Probably every hour, every two hours.
THE COURT: Okay. And you have to -- for another condition you have to have something regularly to eat too?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: But that's also roughly on a two-hour cycle?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: So if you were sitting as a juror and there were breaks in the hour-and-a-half-to-two-hour range, that would be okay?
JUROR: I think so.
THE COURT: Tell us about your work.
JUROR: I'm a social worker at Mass. General. I work in pediatrics and cover a number of clinics, predominantly transplant.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. "Transplant," is that what you said?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And generally what are your -- what's your daily activity, I guess?
JUROR: I work a lot with our team and the families. So if there's any psychosocial issues that are in the way of these kids and/or their families qualifying for transplant, we have to -- I, first of all, identify them and then work it out. We have to help them figure out how to move forward, because otherwise they don't get listed for a transplant and these kids will die. So a lot of times -- and we're also mandated by Medicare to make sure that certain things are not in the way. So I tell families that it's not no; it's just not yet.
THE COURT: Okay. I skipped over something I wanted to ask you. We ask about people's spouses as well, and you say your spouse is retired?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: From what?
JUROR: Let's see. She's -- well, I think she'd like to be retired from motherhood, but I hear you never do. She -- and then she worked -- she worked in youth ministry for a while, and then she most recently retired from North Shore Elder Services.
THE COURT: Is she a social worker?
JUROR: No, she -- she's unlicensed, but she was working as an ombudsman in a -- like for nursing homes and things like that.
THE COURT: Okay. Your own use of social media?
JUROR: Not much. I'm not on Facebook. I don't do Twitter or anything like that.
THE COURT: Okay. We asked -- and if you want to look at it, it's on pages 17 and 18, we asked some questions about what you might call international affairs and so on, about the war on terror, attitudes towards Islam or Muslims and so on. Do you see those answers?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: I just wanted to sort of update them. Since filling out some of these things, there's been some possibly relevant events occurring in Paris, for example. Are you aware of the shootings in Paris?
JUROR: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Did you follow that closely or not closely?
JUROR: Not closely but I know about it.
THE COURT: Would that affect any of the answers you gave here?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So if you'd turn to page 20, I want to focus on Question 77, which is where we asked about whether you have -- based on news reports or other sources of information, you have an opinion about whether the defendant's guilty or not, and if so, whether he should receive the death penalty or not.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And let's take the first part, A and B. You checked that you had an opinion that he's guilty, and I guess you did not have an opinion that he was not guilty. They go together, I guess. So in a criminal trial such as this, any defendant charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent unless and until the government proves he's guilty by the evidence at trial and proves it to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you were a juror, would you be able to discipline your mind so that you could make a judgment based on the evidence produced at trial rather than emotions you came into trial with, or would those pretrial ideas be so strong that they would control your thinking throughout the trial? Now, this is obviously a question about what you might think in the future.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: So it's hard to answer in that sense.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: But you know yourself, I guess, and you tell us what you think your best assessment would be.
JUROR: Honestly, I'd have to say that, you know, anyone who lives in the world, anyone who is -- lives in this area, anyone who works where I work, which is Mass. General, it would be -- it's a given that you're going to think that he's guilty. And, you know, whether I could put that aside or not, honestly, I don't actually think so. I think that I would be pretty still convinced that he was guilty, honestly.
THE COURT: Even if the evidence was unconvincing to that effect at trial?
JUROR: If the evidence was unconvincing?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: To the --
THE COURT: In other words, if you were not convinced by the evidence but -- you would remain convinced by what you thought before you heard the evidence?
JUROR: If the evidence was not convincing? Where's the prosecution? You're killing me.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Well, I mean, that's the issue. People obviously know things about this because there's so much publicity about it.
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah.
THE COURT: But the jury as a whole will be asked to assess what is actually presented to them in the formal proceedings of the trial.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And if they are convinced by it, consistent with what they've already thought, they will act accordingly. The question is if they're not convinced by the evidence -- and this is really about you now, you're not convinced by the evidence -- would you adhere to the prior notions realizing you're not convinced by the evidence?
JUROR: If I was not convinced by the evidence? Maybe.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: But I can't imagine not being convinced by the evidence.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I think --
THE COURT: I understand that makes it difficult.
Let me just ask you about Mass. General.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Did you get involved -- obviously, some people affected by this were treated at Mass. General. Were you involved in that at all?
JUROR: I wasn't in the ED that day. My colleagues who work directly in the ED were. I had to cover for them the following weekend in the ED because they were very traumatized, and understandably so. And so they needed to, you know, get some help in terms of coverage. And so I think being there that soon after and also having talked with them and just being a part of the hospital on a daily basis where we'd get bulletins and, you know, you'd just see the presence of so many officials and medical personnel and just the news media and everything like that, it was a very tough time.
THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 92.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 92.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat right here, if you would. Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were here before.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And we may refer to it as we follow up on some of the answers you gave there.
Since the time when you were here and filled that out, have you abided by my instruction to avoid discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: And tried to avoid any exposure to media accounts of the proceedings?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Tell us what you do for work.
JUROR: I work for a private equity firm in Providence. I'm an executive assistant.
THE COURT: Providence, Rhode Island?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you've been there --
JUROR: Fifteen years.
THE COURT: -- it looks like 15 years.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Throughout -- the same job, basically, throughout --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You're -- it looks like from your answers that you don't really use social media?
JUROR: I can't stand it. Sorry.
THE COURT: That's a good reason. LinkedIn for professional connections?
JUROR: Yes, for my job.
THE COURT: At page 17 and 18 we asked some questions about what might loosely be called international issues, or the war on terror, attitudes potentially towards Muslims or Islam, and you answered all of those?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I just want to follow up on that. After you gave these answers, perhaps you've seen news reports about events in Paris, a shooting?
JUROR: I heard of it. I haven't watched the news.
THE COURT: You haven't really followed that, do you know?
JUROR: You said not to, so I haven't.
THE COURT: Fair enough.
So you don't have in-depth knowledge of what was going on over there?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I was going to ask whether it affected any of your answers, but if you don't know it --
JUROR: I know what happened, but other than that...
THE COURT: Okay. Would knowing what happened generally change any of your answers?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Now, we asked a couple of questions about your reaction when you got the response for the case. You said you were excited and interested?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And tell us about that.
JUROR: I just feel that -- I'm not in the military; I never served in the military. This is a way to do something for my country. I find certain things in life and different trials very interesting. I always have. No more really than that, other than I thought it was a great opportunity and something to be honored by.
THE COURT: Something -- is that an attitude you would have about any jury service, or is there something particular about this case?
JUROR: I've gotten excited when I've gotten jury duty down in the local area just because I felt it was something different and out of the norm and interesting.
THE COURT: So you've been summoned before, but I think from the answers you gave you've never served?
JUROR: No, I've never served.
THE COURT: But you've been summoned before?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And I'm just trying to understand you. Did you have the same feeling then, is that it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you'd look at page 20, Question 77, we asked here if you've formed any opinion about whether the defendant's guilty or not, and if so, what the punishment might be. You indicated "unsure" throughout. Can you tell us why you selected "unsure"?
JUROR: When the incident first happened I paid attention for the fist few days and then I didn't pay attention after that. I, you know, from casual conversation with people in the last couple of years, that's been about all the information. I didn't pay attention to it in great detail. I mean, I know what happened and I can't say otherwise. I don't know all the information. I don't know who or what transpired as far as -- you know, there's a question in here someone asked -- that was asked about siblings. I mean, I'm an only child, so I don't know how other siblings affect other siblings and...
THE COURT: So I want to be sure we understand what you're saying. You paid some attention when the events were happening?
JUROR: Some, yes.
THE COURT: You haven't paid much attention since then. Is that what you're saying?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And is it because you think you don't have enough information to have one that you don't have one, or is it that the information that you do have is ambiguous about these issues? I'm trying to understand why you said you don't have an opinion.
JUROR: Well, it's the information that I have. Obviously, I don't know all the facts. I haven't paid close attention to it. Yes, I certainly know of it and I have -- like I said, I paid attention to it in the first couple of days. I don't know the relationship between him and his brother. I know that was spoke [sic] about. I'm not sure.
THE COURT: Do you remember that Friday when the law enforcement people were searching for the people who had done the bombing?
JUROR: I do.
THE COURT: Where were you then?
JUROR: In my office.
THE COURT: Was that in Providence?
JUROR: Providence, yes.
THE COURT: You told me that. So you weren't in the Boston area when it happened?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: So you weren't affected by that.
Did you follow that? I mean, a lot of people, whether at home or in the office, I imagine, were kind of glued to the TV watching things unfold.
JUROR: We don't have TVs or radios in our office. The Internet isn't really something we should be using during work hours on that Friday.
THE COURT: Well, apart from the shouldn'ts and so on, were you following it?
JUROR: I paid a little bit of attention to it, not --
THE COURT: How --
JUROR: Just through casual conversation. I wasn't glued to the TV. I don't watch a lot of TV.
THE COURT: You were also asked some questions about attitudes towards the death penalty, which is, as you have heard, a possibility on certain conditions in this case.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So turn to page 23, Question 88. We asked in that question if you had any general views about the death penalty, and you said you were neither for nor against it.
JUROR: I feel if someone is found guilty and that is what their punishment is to be and it fits the crime, then I am for it; if they are not found guilty and that's not what they deserve, then I would not go for that.
THE COURT: So I explained this morning, generally speaking, the process in a penalty phase. If you assume that someone is guilty of an intentional murder, you get to the phase where the government would seek to convince the jury that there were certain aggravating factors that made this worse than your average murder; for example, that there's something special about this case that makes it worse. The defense might present evidence to show that there's something special about the case that would argue in this circumstance for something less than the death penalty, specifically, life imprisonment, and the jury would decide subject to some rules of law that I would provide whether one penalty was better or more appropriate than the other penalty.
Depending on the evidence you heard in that phase of the case, would you think that you are prepared to vote for the death penalty if you think it is warranted?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And on the other hand, to vote against the death penalty and for life imprisonment if you thought that was warranted?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Mr. Weinreb? Or Mr. Mellin?
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, may I?
Good morning. I've Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors, along with everybody over here.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. MELLIN: I just want to make sure -- you gave an answer, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Do you understand there would first be a phase where it would be called the guilt phase, where the jury would decide if the defendant was guilty or not guilty? Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. So if the jury does find him guilty, we would then go to the second phase. Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. And it's at that phase where the question is: Is it going to be life imprisonment or would it be the death penalty? Do you understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. MELLIN: Going into that phase, given the fact that you've already found him guilty -- all right, do you understand that -- would you go into that phase with an open mind and consider all of the evidence before you decided between life or death?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. MELLIN: Okay. Thanks a lot.
MS. CONRAD: Good morning, ma'am. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Good morning.
MS. CONRAD: The judge asked you some questions about your experiences on April 19th, the day -- of 2013. And you said you were at work that day?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: So was this something that people were following on the Internet, other workers in your workplace?
JUROR: One of the higher-ups, the owner of the company, had mentioned it to us. Like I said, we don't usually go on the Internet that often. The owners obviously have the ability to do so, but as an employee, the Internet's not the one thing we should be on unless it's for business purposes.
MS. CONRAD: So was it something that people were talking about at work that day?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And do you remember any of the things that were said?
JUROR: Just that there was a lot of stuff going on in the town that it was in and -- the higher-ups have their own offices. They carry their own meetings. I'm an executive assistant. I don't sit directly near them. We don't, you know, have meetings in their office unless it's business related. But there was chatter.
MS. CONRAD: What about on April 15th, 2013, Marathon Monday; were you at work that day?
JUROR: No, I was not.
MS. CONRAD: Where were you?
JUROR: Las Vegas.
MS. CONRAD: And do you remember hearing about the bombing?
JUROR: Not when we were there. We were on a plane on the way home that day.
MS. CONRAD: So you didn't find out about it until you got home?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And what was your reaction when you heard about it?
JUROR: Shocked, sad that it happened so close to home.
MS. CONRAD: And you said that you didn't know anybody who had -- this is your answer to Questions 81 and 82, that anyone was -- anyone who was personally affected or who participated in any Boston Strong-type activities?
JUROR: No, I don't know anyone.
MS. CONRAD: You don't know anybody who, for example, has a Boston Strong bumper sticker or T-shirt?
JUROR: I do not.
MS. CONRAD: Now, you said on Question 13, I believe that's on page 6 --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: -- that your ex-husband is or was a firefighter?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And so would that affect your reaction to testimony from witnesses who were first responders?
JUROR: No. We've been divorced for over six years now. It has no effect.
MS. CONRAD: And where was he a firefighter?
JUROR: Fall River, Massachusetts.
MS. CONRAD: Is he still a firefighter there?
JUROR: I believe so. I'm not sure.
MS. CONRAD: With respect to Question 77 -- I'm sorry I'm jumping around a little -- page 20 --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: -- you said -- certainly that's perfectly appropriate, that you don't have all the information. But based on the information that you do have right now, do you have an opinion -- not a final opinion but just an opinion, as to whether Mr. Tsarnaev is guilty?
JUROR: I really -- I don't know everything that is involved in the case. I mean, I'm not -- I couldn't sit here and say, "Yes, I feel this way" or, "No, I feel that way." I don't know if he's guilty. I don't know. I can't say that I know he's innocent. I don't know that either.
MS. CONRAD: I just want to make sure we're understanding each other.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MS. CONRAD: I'm not asking what kind of verdict you would return if you sat on the jury.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: Obviously, you would, we hope, listen to all the evidence and make a decision based on that.
JUROR: All right.
MS. CONRAD: But just based on what you've heard so far, just from the news media, from friends, neighbors, relatives, do you have an opinion --
MR. WEINREB: I object.
MS. CONRAD: -- one way or the other?
THE COURT: Yeah, I'll sustain the objection on that question. You don't have to answer that question. It's too specific. Too direct.
MS. CONRAD: And do you have an opinion based on what you've heard, read, seen, discussed whether if Mr. Tsarnaev was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes with which he's charged --
JUROR: I don't think I understand your question because -- is it the same question? I'm confused.
MS. CONRAD: No, I'm just getting to it.
JUROR: Okay.
MS. CONRAD: If he were found guilty, do you have an opinion sitting here now as to whether or not he should receive the death penalty?
JUROR: If he were found guilty right now and that's what the decision needed to be made, based upon life or death penalty? Life in prison --
MS. CONRAD: As the judge explained, if he were found guilty, then there would be a penalty phase.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: I'm not asking you what you might -- putting aside what you might hear during the penalty phase, based on what you know right now --
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: -- do you have a belief as to whether or not he should receive the death penalty?
MR. WEINREB: I object. There's no foundation.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think -- sustained. You don't have to answer the question.
MS. CONRAD: I have nothing further. Thank you.
THE COURT: Let me just ask -- there were some questions about your ex-husband. I see there's another person in your life. You say business owner?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What kind of business?
JUROR: He does home security systems.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
JUROR: Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 98.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 98.
COURT CLERK: Sir, this way, please. Have a seat, if you would. Speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: Hi.
JUROR: Hi.
THE COURT: We put before you the questionnaire you filled out when you were here the last time. Since that time have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid any discussion of the case or try to limit your exposure to media accounts of anything connected to the case?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: Tell us about your employment.
JUROR: I currently am a senior software engineer for Safari Books Online where I'm working on a custom publishing software platform that is servicing Oxford Encyclopedia, Wiley Reference, and a number of publishers in education.
THE COURT: And how long have you been working for --
JUROR: I've been working with Safari for about five months.
THE COURT: Would extended service on this jury, if you were selected, be a problem for you at work?
JUROR: I've already confirmed with work it would not be.
THE COURT: Okay. What prompted that was you're relatively new there, and seniority may have an effect on things.
And you've done similar software engineering work for other companies?
JUROR: I've primarily been in the field of educational technology and publishing, and I had a small stint in advertising technology.
THE COURT: Okay. You have a degree from MIT?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: One of the persons killed in the events that lead us to this trial was an MIT police officer.
JUROR: I understand.
THE COURT: Does your connection with MIT give you any concern about an emotional reaction to evidence about that that would affect adversely your ability to serve as a juror?
JUROR: I graduated in 1996 and really haven't had much connection with MIT since then.
THE COURT: So --
JUROR: So no.
THE COURT: -- the answer would be no?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Regarding -- we asked about posting messages or blogging on websites. And I guess you say you don't do any of that?
JUROR: Not generally.
THE COURT: Is there anything for the company -- it's an online company. Are there company websites or anything that you --
JUROR: Apparently I will be required to do at least one blog a year for Safari, usually based on some sort of technical concept, but I have not yet done one.
THE COURT: And then personally you use -- you use Facebook on a daily basis?
JUROR: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Anything else? Twitter, Instagram or anything else like that?
JUROR: No, just Facebook and email.
THE COURT: At pages 17 and 18, if you want to look at it to refresh your memory, we asked some questions that dealt with sort of what you might call international affairs issues, questions about the war on terror, perhaps attitudes towards Islam or Muslims and so on. Do you remember answering those?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Since you filled out those answers there have been some events in Europe, particularly Paris, that might be characterized as terrorist events.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Are you familiar with those? Have you followed those at all?
JUROR: I am aware of the headlines, but I have not actually read those articles.
THE COURT: Okay. Whatever you do know about it, would any of that affect any of the answers you gave to these questions? Would you change anything as a result of knowing about those things?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20. In Question 77 we ask if, based on what you've seen or read or learned from anyplace else, had you formed an opinion -- have you formed an opinion whether the defendant's guilty or not, and if so, whether he should receive the death penalty or not, and you indicated yes to both of the questions about whether he's guilty or not and whether he should receive the death penalty.
We then asked whether you -- in the next paragraph, if you had answered yes, whether you would be able to set aside that existing opinion and base your decision about guilt and punishment based solely on the evidence that would be presented in court. You said you would be able to.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you explain those answers for us?
JUROR: Sure. During the events that occurred I generally did no research, did not read into any of the evidence or any of the aspects of the case other than abiding by the lockdown, you know, don't go out, stay at home, that sort of stuff. Popular opinion and all media said this is -- the defendant's guilty, and so I just sort of accepted that at that time.
Since then I have not actually done -- I have obeyed what you ordered us to do, so... And so my thoughts are: I understand as an engineer the need for evidence, logic and following laws, and I also understand based on your instructions that if I were to be in this case, I must only accept whatever evidence is presented within the court. And logically I can do that, or at least I believe I can.
THE COURT: You mentioned sheltering in place. In Question 80 we asked people if they had been affected, including in that way. It indicates N/A, which I assume means "not applicable." So is that correct or were you affected? Did you shelter in place on that Friday?
JUROR: That particular Friday I happened to be working from home, so it didn't actually disrupt my work.
THE COURT: And so you continued working?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Did you follow the events as they were unfolding?
JUROR: Not in particular.
THE COURT: The law enforcement pursuit and so on and so forth?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: If you'd turn to page 23.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Beginning with Question 88, we asked a series of questions to gauge potential jurors' thinking about the death penalty, both generally and perhaps more specifically. So 88 was a general question, what are your general views, and you said you're in favor of it as allowed by law, especially for heinous crimes.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And then we asked in the next question if you could give us the strength of that view, and you circled 9 out of 10, again strongly in favor.
Then the next question on the next page we asked you to select which of the possible several statements that are presented, which best expressed your view, and you selected E that says you're in favor of the death penalty but could vote for a sentence of imprisonment without the possibility of release if you believed that sentence was called for by the facts in the case.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Is that accurate?
JUROR: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Is that true about this case?
JUROR: Yes, it is.
MR. WEINREB: No questions, your Honor.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck. I'm one of Jahar Tsarnaev's lawyers. I won't keep you too long. I just have a couple of questions, if that's okay.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: You checked the box on Question No. 77, D, about -- I'm sorry -- 77, C.
JUROR: May I ask for a page number?
THE COURT: Twenty. Page 20.
JUROR: Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: You said it was your opinion when you filled this out that Mr. Tsarnaev should receive the death penalty. You checked yes. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? Why did you check "yes"?
JUROR: My understanding of what I believe happened, which obviously is just my opinion --
MR. BRUCK: That's what I'm asking you for.
JUROR: -- is it was a willful act of trying to harm as many innocent people as possible, including trying to kill them.
MR. BRUCK: And --
JUROR: And that, for me, qualifies as a heinous crime.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Thanks, because you've answered my next question about heinousness, which is a term you used on your form.
The judge has explained to you this is a two-part trial.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. BRUCK: And at the -- if the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and you go to the second part in which the aggravating evidence, circumstances of the crime, might be things about the defendant are presented by the prosecution --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. BRUCK: -- in favor of a death sentence -- are you with me?
JUROR: Yeah, I'm following. And then the mitigations would be presented by the defense.
MR. BRUCK: Exactly. And that can involve things about the defendant or things about the crime that might weigh in favor of life. Given what you know about this case already, are there any circumstances that could ever be shown by the defense that would cause you to believe that life is the appropriate sentence in this case?
MR. WEINREB: Objection. That's mixing two issues. He hasn't heard any evidence in this case at all. He said he doesn't know anything about it other than what he's read in the news.
THE COURT: Go ahead. You can answer it.
I'll let you follow up.
JUROR: Okay. Based on the answers I gave in this questionnaire, my ability to be a juror is such that if the evidence is presented, I can be persuaded.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Could there ever be a case involving an intentional act of terrorism that was intended to and did kill multiple people in which you could be persuaded by anything that the death penalty was not the appropriate punishment?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
THE COURT: I will sustain the objection to that question, so you don't have to answer that.
MR. BRUCK: You've told us a little bit about -- or you've said that you followed some media and heard some facts. Can you tell me what stands out? You've mentioned a couple of things. Can you tell me what stands out about this case in your mind based on everything you've heard or read or seen on the Internet?
MR. WEINREB: Objection to that too.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BRUCK: Thank you so much. That's all I have.
JUROR: You're welcome.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. WEINREB: No, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: Thank you very much.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 100.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 100.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat right here. Thanks.
Also, make sure you talk into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: How you doing? Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were last here. We may refer to it --
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: -- to follow up on some of the answers.
Since that time have you been able to follow my instructions about avoiding any discussion of the case or any exposure to the media accounts?
JUROR: Yes. It's not very easy, but I have done it.
THE COURT: Okay. You're employed as a glazier?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What does that involve?
JUROR: Glass work. I work mostly --
THE COURT: In detail, what do you do?
JUROR: Put glass in buildings, interior or exterior, all around this area basically.
THE COURT: So construction?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is this a union position?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And this could be an extended trial, as I think you know.
JUROR: Yeah, that causes me some conflict, mostly on insurance.
THE COURT: That's what I want to get at. Given the nature of your job -- are you an hourly-wage employee?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What would the impact on your work be if you're here?
JUROR: I wouldn't lose my job because I'm hourly and they always need help, but my biggest impact would be getting my insurance hours to carry on my healthcare. If I don't maintain 600 hours a half year -- at least 600, then I lose that. And I've never lost healthcare in 32 years I've been doing this. But it's a potential if it's that many months of the trial.
THE COURT: Yeah. I'm just trying to do the quick math, how many months 600 hours is.
JUROR: Well, you get 40 hours a week typically, so three months would wipe me out of like 12 weeks, you know? And so that's quite a few hours. I usually average about 200 to 220 a month in hours, just ballpark, with holidays and that.
THE COURT: Okay. And is that counting overtime hours? Do they count?
JUROR: Overtime hours count too.
THE COURT: And that, I guess, depends on the ebb and flow of work?
JUROR: Right. The last half of year I only got 650 hours from July to December, but that was a bad time, when it was slow. Normally I would get close to 900 for a half year. So that presents a problem.
THE COURT: I think that's all we need to know. Thank you.
JUROR: That's it?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Okay.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 102.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 102.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, have a seat right over here, if you would, please.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
COURT CLERK: Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were here last. We may refer to it as we follow up on some of the questions you gave.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Since that time have you been able to follow my instruction to avoid any discussion of the process, the case?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And tried to limit your exposure to any news accounts about things?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So looking at your questionnaire, you were until recently employed as an R.N. at the Good Samaritan Medical Center?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Where is that?
JUROR: In Brockton.
THE COURT: And it says that you left late December and are currently unemployed?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: That's when you filled this out. Is that still the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you planning to reemploy or are you taking some time off or --
JUROR: I'm actually taking time off. I was -- well, we're planning on going cross-country. We were going to start in April when our lease was up, and just travel.
THE COURT: When you say "we" --
JUROR: My boyfriend and I.
THE COURT: You had that idea. Had you made specific plans for a particular time for your trip?
JUROR: Well, our lease is up. We have an RV. We were planning on going cross-country in the RV. And if I was called, we were just going to stay in the RV around here.
THE COURT: That was my question, if you were called and if the case continued beyond April, what would the impact be on you. And you're saying you could adjust?
JUROR: Yes, definitely. We had already planned on making adjustments if I was chosen to sit, so...
THE COURT: Okay. Tell me just a little bit about your training and work as a nurse. Do you have any specialty?
JUROR: Yes; for the last ten years I've been in the emergency room.
THE COURT: Emergency room?
JUROR: Yup. Before that I was an LPN and worked for an agency, so I basically staffed nursing homes, rehabs, transitional care units, things like that.
THE COURT: Okay. But throughout your time at Good Samaritan, you've been in the ER?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Some but no extensive use of Facebook. Is that --
JUROR: Hardly any.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Basically, family, friends. I'm a cake artist, so I post cake pictures.
THE COURT: If you want to refresh your recollection, at pages 18 and 19 we ask jurors some questions about what might broadly be called international affairs issues, things about the war on terror, so-called, and perhaps attitudes about Islam and Muslims and so on and so forth. Since you filled out the questionnaire and gave those answers, there have been some events in Europe involving some terrorist attacks. Have you followed those at all?
JUROR: I don't really know much about it.
THE COURT: You don't know what or where?
JUROR: I think France.
THE COURT: Right. Well, my question was going to be if what you knew about those things would affect any of the answers you gave here.
JUROR: No, I don't believe so.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20 and direct your attention to Question 77.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: That's a multiple-part question in which we asked whether you'd formed an opinion from things you'd seen in the media or heard otherwise about whether this defendant was guilty or not, and if so, whether he should be punished by the death penalty or not.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And to each of those you indicated -- you checked the box that said "unsure."
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Would you explain that for us?
JUROR: I can't make a decision whether he's guilty or not until I hear evidence. I don't know really much about it, so I can't tell you one way or the other if I think he's guilty now or not guilty. I don't know.
THE COURT: You probably heard some things about the case, right?
JUROR: Yes. I mean, I read what was -- the beginning of this that told facts.
THE COURT: That's on the next page, if you want to -- I think that's what you're referring to, the bottom of page 21?
JUROR: The facts. Yeah, so I read that.
At the time, bits of pieces of what was going on, but, still, I really could not tell you what the accounts of what happened. So I really don't know. I don't have enough information.
THE COURT: Do you remember following any of it as it unfolded at the time?
JUROR: I believe I was working at the time, so I really couldn't follow it step by step after the fact.
THE COURT: You're talking about the day of the marathon itself?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Of course it continued into the end of the week, Thursday and Friday, as people were trying to --
JUROR: Yeah. I've worked nights for ten years, so having that shift, I really don't have much access to news. I'm either sleeping during the day or working during the night.
THE COURT: All right. Now if you'd go to page 23, we asked a series of questions beginning with Number 88 about attitudes or beliefs, convictions about the death penalty and so on. And 88 is a general question, it says generally what your views are, and you said you didn't have any. Is that --
JUROR: I really don't. I -- I don't know. I would have to see what the charges were. I'd have to -- I'd have to weigh everything in order to have an opinion on that.
THE COURT: The next question was sort of asking you to put it on a scale where you were between strongly oppose and strongly favor, and you chose number 5.
JUROR: Right. I'm not either.
THE COURT: In the middle, is that it?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: The next question, Number 90, we ask you to select the statement that was closest to what your beliefs were about the death penalty. You selected D?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: It says you're not for it or against it and could vote to impose it or vote to impose, instead, a life imprisonment, whichever you thought was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Is that an accurate summary?
JUROR: Completely.
THE COURT: Do you feel confident that -- of course you don't know what the evidence is you're going to hear --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- but can you envision evidence that would lead you to feel that the death penalty was the right decision --
JUROR: If there was --
THE COURT: -- and vote for it?
JUROR: If there was evidence and if that was called for, then, yes, I guess I could.
THE COURT: And can you envision that there was evidence that you could consider that might lead you to conclude that the death penalty was inappropriate and that life imprisonment was the appropriate sentence?
JUROR: Definitely. I have no, like I said, views either way. I am really in the middle. I would have to hear everything and make an educated decision.
MR. WEINREB: Good morning.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill -- good afternoon.
JUROR: Oh, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Just so the record is clear.
My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just wanted to ask you a few questions about the death penalty.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: Have you given a lot of thought to the idea of the death penalty in general?
JUROR: I have. You know, it's part of this case, so, you know, I've thought about it. And, again, I would have to make an educated decision about that.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So you've told us that you could consider the evidence and you could consider both possibilities, but I want to ask you a slightly different question --
JUROR: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: -- which is, as you know, because the judge instructed you earlier, the jury -- if the defendant in this case is found guilty --
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: -- of one of the crimes that carries a potential penalty of death, then it will be up to the jury to decide whether he lives or dies.
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: You'll be one of those people who will have to make that decision --
JUROR: Right.
MR. WEINREB: -- on another human being.
My question is simply: Can you imagine yourself on the jury thinking about whether this person sitting at the table should live or die? Would you be able to -- if you thought it was the appropriate punishment, would you be able to sentence him to death?
JUROR: If I felt it was appropriate.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRUCK: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. BRUCK: My name is David Bruck. I'm one of the attorneys for Jahar Tsarnaev, and I just have a few things I want to talk to you about.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. BRUCK: You live in Massachusetts now. Have you ever lived in other places?
JUROR: No.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Understanding that you didn't follow all of the facts or that you weren't glued to the TV set the whole time when this was first happening, I'd like to ask you what stands out in your mind, if anything, about this case from anything you've heard, seen.
JUROR: The only thing that I definitely can remember from that time is probably after the fact when they showed the finish line. That's about it really.
MR. BRUCK: And did you have any feelings about what you remember of that scene?
JUROR: It was scary. There was a lot of confusion.
MR. BRUCK: Anything about the defendant?
JUROR: I honestly didn't even know the defendant until -- I didn't know what his name was until the court summoned me here.
MR. BRUCK: Okay. Anything else that you recall about any aspect of this case at all?
JUROR: No. Just personally I thought, my goodness, the ERs are going to be overloaded, how are they going to deal with that. It was just a work perspective.
MR. BRUCK: You've been asked a bunch of questions just now about the death penalty, mostly by the judge. I want to ask you something about it but in a slightly different way. Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty, as the judge told you.
JUROR: Right.
MR. BRUCK: Some states used to have it and recently abolished it. If you were in the legislature and the issue came up should we have it on the books in the state, would you be in favor of having it as an option or would you think it would be just as well, or better, not to have it as an option?
JUROR: I don't know. I would need more information. I'm glad I don't have to make those kinds of decisions. And I was surprised when told that the death penalty was on the table because I knew that Massachusetts didn't have it. Whether or not I would vote for it, I don't know. I'd have to think about that even more.
MR. BRUCK: How do you feel about serving on this jury?
MR. WEINREB: Objection.
JUROR: How do I feel?
THE COURT: No, you can answer that.
JUROR: Well, I feel as though I, you know, bring an honest and impartial view. I really, you know, have no opinion at this point. I would definitely need more information and facts before I could make any decisions on anything. I feel I'm a fair person. So I don't know if, you know, a feeling is a correct question. I'm not sure if I have a feeling.
MR. BRUCK: Let me ask it this way: Some people may get their jury summons and know it's for this case and say, "Oh, boy, I hope I don't get picked."
JUROR: No, I didn't know my summons was for this case. I had no idea at all.
MR. BRUCK: Would you have had that reaction?
JUROR: I don't think so. It's a case like any other case.
MR. BRUCK: Bear with me just a moment.
(Pause.)
MR. BRUCK: Thank you so much.
JUROR: Thanks.
THE COURT: Is that it? All right. Thank you.
JUROR: All set?
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 108.
Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat, if you would, please. Speak into the mic so everyone can be sure to hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were here last. We may refer to it, so we put it in front of you so you can look at if you want. We're going to follow up on some of the things that you wrote in the questionnaire.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Since you were here last and filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to live up to my instructions to avoid discussing the case or getting exposed to media accounts about the case?
JUROR: I think so. As far --
THE COURT: Okay. Let me just ask if you'd look at page 5, Question 10. You wrote -- and before I get into it substantively, let me ask, because this is perhaps a personal matter, would you prefer that this not be public or do you not care?
JUROR: No, it's okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: This is fine.
THE COURT: So when we asked would you have difficulty serving as a juror, you said you have a disabled daughter and sometimes have to go to meetings for her. Tell us what you were thinking about that.
JUROR: Should I tell you about my daughter, because that's what it has to do with.
THE COURT: I want to understand what the issue is.
JUROR: The issue is she just came out of the hospital about six months ago. She also -- she has cerebral palsy and she's mildly mentally retarded, and she has a mental illness on top of it. And she speaks very little. So I'm really the one that speaks for her, and that's the reason I said about the meetings. I have to go -- I'm her legal guardian, and I have to go to most of them.
THE COURT: What kinds of meetings are they? Are they medical meetings or --
JUROR: They're both. They're medical, what she will do for the -- you know, they have ISPs, and it tells them -- tells us what we're going to work on and what she needs help with.
THE COURT: So therapy kind of things are you talking about?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: And some of this sort of -- I don't know -- for lack of a better word -- you probably know the words better than I do -- but educational or something like that? I mean, activity-related or --
JUROR: She does do some activities, but for the past six months -- before that, a year before that, she did nothing. I used to have to bathe her. That's how bad it was. Then when she went to this program by the state, she really -- they took her off all her medications, and that really helped a bit. So, but like I said, she really doesn't explain herself well, so I'm there to help.
THE COURT: Can you give us some idea of how much on a weekly basis you're involved in these kinds of meetings?
JUROR: Well, the meetings take place sometimes once a month or once every six months. But if she has problems, then I see a doctor more often. I'll see a neurologist. There's a bunch of them. A psychiatrist. And it depends on what's going on with her at that time.
THE COURT: So it's somewhat unpredictable?
JUROR: It is. And she's a cutter. She cuts herself when she's under stress, so...
THE COURT: She's living at home with you?
JUROR: No, no, she lives in a group home. She lives like ten minutes from my house, yeah.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Thanks.
JUROR: Oh, okay. You're welcome.
THE COURT: That's it.
JUROR: That's it? Okay. Thank you.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: Okay. I'd suggest we take a break for lunch, perhaps come back at two. That will be a sidebar conference at that point; it will not be broadcast.
MR. MELLIN: Your Honor, can I raise one point before we do that?
Mr. Bruck asked the question of not this juror but the juror before about if she was aware that other states had abolished the death penalty recently and if she was on the legislature how would she vote. I think that's a completely objectionable question and I think it's completely inappropriate for Mr. Bruck to be trying to indicate to one of these jurors that there's some trend out there about the abolition of the death penalty or anything like that. And I think asking whether or not the juror would vote for or against the death penalty if they were hypothetically in the legislature is completely inappropriate.
THE COURT: Noted.
(There is a recess in the proceedings at 12:51 p.m.)
(The Court entered the room at 2:12 p.m.)