6.Individual Voir Dire — Transportation, Impartiality, and Death-Penalty Views (Part 3)
616 lines(In open court:)
THE COURT: Let me focus you on Question 10. You said you would have some transportation difficulties. Do you live in Plymouth?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you explored the bus service from Plymouth to Boston?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Do you know that there is a bus service from Plymouth to Boston?
JUROR: No, I don't.
THE COURT: If there were a bus service that left early enough in the morning to get you here by nine o'clock, would that solve the problem?
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: You say you work at a tanning salon doing various things, I guess --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- including reception and so on.
How long have you been doing that?
JUROR: About two years.
THE COURT: And what -- do you have a regular schedule during the week?
JUROR: Kind of, yeah.
THE COURT: What would your normal schedule be, or if it varies from week to week, give us some sense of that. What hours do you work --
JUROR: I usually work between 14 to 20 hours a week.
THE COURT: So it's a part-time job?
JUROR: Yeah, part-time.
THE COURT: And so how are your hours set? Who sets them?
JUROR: I think the manager does. The manager sets them, yes.
THE COURT: And are they the same -- like is it every Tuesday certain hours and every Thursday certain hours? Is it a regular --
JUROR: It varies a bit, but it's pretty regular.
THE COURT: So give me -- say, last week what was your schedule like?
JUROR: I usually work, like, three to six and the next day three to ten, a day off, and then work the other two days.
THE COURT: What are the hours the salon is open?
JUROR: I work sometimes at two different salons, the same company.
THE COURT: So for each of them, what are the hours generally?
JUROR: The hours are three to ten for one of them, then the other one is nine to eight.
THE COURT: Three to ten is 3 p.m. to 10 p.m.?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And nine to eight is 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Social media: You said you -- in the questionnaire you had Facebook but deactivated it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you don't use it anymore?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And Twitter you use a little bit but not much?
JUROR: I have it, but I don't use it.
THE COURT: You had an uncle who worked -- this is Question 34 if you want to look at it. An uncle who was employed, you said, for SWAT police?
JUROR: Yeah. I wasn't 100 percent positive on what he does.
THE COURT: Where would that be, do you know?
JUROR: Kansas City, Missouri.
THE COURT: Is this somebody -- obviously he lives out there and you live here. Do you see him very often?
JUROR: I haven't seen him in a couple of years. Not often.
THE COURT: If you would go to page 20, Question 77.
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, we skipped over page 17.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
THE COURT: In Question 77 we asked some questions about whether you had formed any opinion about whether this defendant is guilty or not guilty, and if so, what penalty he might receive. And as to the guilty or not guilty, you said you're unsure?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: As to whether he should receive the death penalty, you said no, and as to whether he should not receive the death penalty, you said yes, okay? So I want to focus first on the first two, A and B, the ones you said you were not sure.
Can you tell us what led you to indicate that you were not sure about that, do you remember?
JUROR: I'm just not sure about it. I don't know enough.
THE COURT: You haven't made any decision about it?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: With respect to the others, about the penalty possibility, we ask some specific questions about attitude toward the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: If you look at page 23, Number 88, we asked for general attitude toward the death penalty, and you said, "I will not make the decision" -- "that decision to put another human to death."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that your -- the next question we asked you to tell us where on a scale from strongly opposed to strongly favor, you circled 1 indicating strongly opposed.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And then on the next page, if you turn to Question 90, we ask which of the suggested statements closely matched your attitude, and you said A, "I'm opposed to the death penalty and will never vote to impose it in any case no matter what the facts."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that your view?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: There's no case you can imagine that you would vote in favor of the death penalty?
JUROR: I would never.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: I would not.
THE COURT: Any follow-up?
MS. CONRAD: Yes. Understanding that you don't support the death penalty, could you listen to the evidence in the penalty phase -- if the defendant were convicted, could you listen to the evidence from both sides -- and meaningfully consider it and not be already decided against the death penalty?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay. All right, sir. Thank you.
JAMES MCALEAR: Right this way, sir.
(The juror is excused.)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 128.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 128.
COURT CLERK: Sir, come right over here, if you would. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
COURT CLERK: Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: Have you been able to follow my instruction when you were last here to avoid discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: I tried like heck, yup.
THE COURT: And to avoid media reports about the case?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. That's the questionnaire you filled out. That's in front of you if you want to refer to it from time to time. Actually, if you'd look at page 5 -- you'd turn to page 5.
Question 9: You have some arthritis that bothers you if you sit for too long?
JUROR: I have rheumatoid arthritis, so...
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
JUROR: Rheumatoid arthritis.
THE COURT: And it bothers you if you sit too long?
JUROR: Long periods.
THE COURT: Give us an idea of what length of time would be.
JUROR: Four hours. So as long as I could get up --
THE COURT: It gets relieved if you get up and move around?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. So that wouldn't be a serious impediment, if you're able to do that?
JUROR: Shouldn't be.
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: You are currently retired?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And before that tell us what you did.
JUROR: Forty-five years for the department of public works.
THE COURT: Town department?
JUROR: Town of Redding, yes.
THE COURT: And what was your employment level when you left?
JUROR: Supervisor, highway and vehicle maintenance.
THE COURT: Stay closer to the mic.
JUROR: Sorry about that.
THE COURT: Just say that again.
JUROR: Supervisor for highway and vehicle maintenance.
THE COURT: On Question 34 we asked whether you or anybody in the family or close friends worked for various law enforcement agencies. You say you have a close friend who works for the Cambridge police?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: You don't have to identify the person, but could you tell us maybe what his or her, I guess I should say, rank is?
JUROR: He's patrolman.
THE COURT: And he's been doing that since 2006. Is that what you said?
JUROR: I think eight years that he's been there.
THE COURT: Cambridge is one of the communities where some events occurred that may be relevant to the case.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Do you know whether this friend had any involvement in any of those?
JUROR: Yes, he did.
THE COURT: He did?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: In particular, the week of April 15th?
JUROR: I'm pretty sure that he was involved in -- after the fact of the bombing, that he was one of the officers that got the call for the shooting.
THE COURT: You're talking about the shooting of the MIT police officer?
JUROR: The shooting of the MIT police officer.
THE COURT: So he was actively involved in that?
JUROR: I think so.
THE COURT: Have you had any discussions with him about his experiences during that week?
JUROR: Before I got picked on the jury, yes.
THE COURT: Can you give us some sense of how much you discussed with him or how much in detail you discussed with him?
JUROR: Well, he's close. I mean, so --
THE COURT: Yeah?
JUROR: Quite a bit.
THE COURT: Again, there's no right or wrong answers.
JUROR: Well, quite a bit. Quite a bit of discussion.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
JUROR: You know.
THE COURT: Give us an idea, you say he's a close friend. In a week how many times would you talk to him?
JUROR: In a week?
THE COURT: In a week?
JUROR: Four, five times. He was at the house yesterday.
THE COURT: Again, without necessarily getting into things that are too personal, how do you know him?
JUROR: Short story or long story?
THE COURT: Let's start short.
JUROR: Okay. Short story: Knew the family, worked with the grandfather, put him on as summer help at the garage. From summer help he progressed to full time. Full time, I helped him get him on the Reading police force. Reading police force, transferred to Cambridge. He lives one house down from me. He does stuff for me; I do stuff for him.
THE COURT: So he's a neighbor?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: But also, in a sense, you've been his mentor?
JUROR: Well, I've known the family for just about, you know, forever.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: You know.
THE COURT: Let's go back a minute. This is on page 19. And Question No. 74 we asked what did you think or feel when you got your jury summons, and you wrote, "Miss my trip to Florida."
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Do you have a trip to Florida planned?
JUROR: We've rented a house for the month of March, and we were leaving the middle of February. Now, I've been informed no matter what she's going.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: Fair enough.
JUROR: So it puts me in my place.
THE COURT: Okay. But you've -- as you say, you've actually made the arrangements to rent a place to stay down there?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: I think this is...
(Pause.)
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I think we're...
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. We're done.
JUROR: Questions?
JAMES MCALEAR: Right this way, sir.
(The juror is excused.)
MR. WEINREB: Just for the record, we do believe that the person he was referring to will be a witness at the trial.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 129.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 129.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, right over here, please. Thanks. Have a seat. Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here when you filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instruction to avoid discussing the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And avoid any media reporting of it and so on?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You're employed at the Federal Reserve Bank?
JUROR: I am.
THE COURT: And you've been there some years, I guess?
JUROR: I have.
THE COURT: You put down in your -- in the questionnaire I guess you've progressed through different job descriptions?
JUROR: Yes, I have.
THE COURT: But it's all been with the bank?
JUROR: With the Federal Reserve.
THE COURT: And you wouldn't have any hardship employment-wise in serving on the jury?
JUROR: No, I would not.
THE COURT: You in Question -- if you want to look on. That's why we give it to you so you can follow along.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: And I'm on page 10 --
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: -- Question 28, we asked if you had written anything, published or unpublished and so on, and you said an article on -- I can't quite get it.
JUROR: It's an article on change management. So how to facilitate change within your organization.
THE COURT: I see. And when was this that you wrote that?
JUROR: It was probably back in 2002-ish.
THE COURT: And where was it published? Was it published?
JUROR: It was published online.
THE COURT: And published in what?
JUROR: It's HR.com, was the website.
THE COURT: You're a Facebook user?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you said daily? Pretty much daily?
JUROR: Pretty much daily, yes.
THE COURT: And personal only?
JUROR: Personal, yes. That's all we're allowed from a work standpoint.
THE COURT: Have you posted anything about your being involved in this?
JUROR: No, I did not.
THE COURT: Your former husband worked as a police officer?
JUROR: He had applied to several departments but during our time together was not selected to be part of a --
THE COURT: I see. It says that, right. All right. Fair enough.
At page 17 and 18 we asked some questions about what you might call current events or international issues of one sort or another, including things about the war on terror, so-called, or attitudes towards Islam or Muslims and so on. Do you remember those questions?
JUROR: Yes. Yup.
THE COURT: Are you aware of events in Paris and Europe in recent weeks?
JUROR: Yes, I am. Yes.
THE COURT: Those happened after you filled out these answers, so my -- have you followed that closely or are you kind of just generally aware of it or --
JUROR: Just generally aware of it.
THE COURT: Would anything you heard about those incidents change anything you wrote in these answers?
JUROR: Not that it relates to how I answered this, no.
THE COURT: Has it had any other impression on you?
JUROR: Just personally makes me more nervous about things that are going on in the world, but not as it relates to this case.
THE COURT: The bottom of page 19, Question 74 and 75, we asked sort of some reactions you might have had when you were summoned, received the jury summons, and what you may have said to others or others said to you. In 74 you said you thought it would be very interesting. Can you just tell us about that.
JUROR: You know, I've been called to district court before, have never been selected. But I thought in the grand scheme of things if I was asked to do jury duty, it would be meaningful to do it with something that was as significant as this type of case as compared to some other cases that I might have been placed on in district court.
THE COURT: Are you referring to this district court or state district court?
JUROR: State district court.
THE COURT: This is a district court too. We call ourselves the same thing, but we have different subject matters, but we call ourselves the same, that's why I wasn't sure what you were talking about.
Then on the next page, section -- I mean, Question 77, we asked if you could tell us whether you have some opinions about several matters including -- based on what you've seen or heard before this, whether you have an opinion that the defendant is guilty or not, and then with respect to a penalty that might be imposed if he is guilty.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: You checked "unsure" for all of them, but you added to the first one "but probably."
JUROR: Sure. So I think it's hard to not think that he is guilty just given everything that's been in the news over the course of the last couple of years. But for me to say with utmost certainty that I know it to be true, I couldn't say that.
THE COURT: So in our system of justice, criminal justice, when the government charges somebody with a crime, the case will ultimately come to trial, presumably. A person charged with a crime is presumed not guilty, innocent of the crime, unless the government proves the opposite, proves that he is guilty by proof at the trial which persuades the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. And if the jury is not so persuaded, the jury is instructed to return a verdict of not guilty.
The burden of proof is always on the government and never shifts to the defendant. It's never a question of "Which side has persuaded me on the question of guilt or innocence?" It's: "Has the government persuaded me that he's guilty?" And if it has not, he remains not guilty.
Do you understand those principles?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Do you have any difficulty in faithfully applying those if you were a juror in this case even in the face of some preconceived ideas about what may or may not be true?
JUROR: I personally think I would not because I've done so many -- in my management roles, in my human resources role I have to do a lot of employment relation cases. So I may have a preconceived notion in my head, but if I'm going to go through the investigative process, I have to be sure I'm not using that in any part of the investigation or in any of my conclusions.
THE COURT: Can you tell us a little bit more about that, what your job responsibilities are with respect to considering, investigating -- I don't know what to call them -- complaints or issues in deciding whether -- whether to take some HR action of some kind?
JUROR: Sure. So it's going to sound probably very childlike, but sometimes employees can accuse each other of something not going the way they wanted or that somebody talked to them in a way that they felt uncomfortable or thought inappropriate; sometimes there are people who are around in that situation. If the employee makes a formal complaint either in my management role or if they escalated it to HR, I would need to investigate anybody who was potentially involved in that situation, anybody who might have overheard it, anybody who might report to either one of those to see if that was something that might be a pattern in this person's behavior and try to come to a conclusion either to help them mediate the situation, to help them resolve it themselves or, unfortunately, sometimes to take action, disciplinary action, against an employee.
THE COURT: And so I want to focus on perhaps your role as a decision-maker as opposed to an investigator.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: From what you said earlier, you've had the experience of perhaps changing your point of view as you had further information. Is that what you're telling us?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that what you meant to say?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you think of a particular instance when that happened?
JUROR: Well, sometimes there can be people who have a reputation of being complainers, if you will. So you might go into an investigation with that point in mind, and after you've talked to everybody who's involved you may find out that that person had a legitimate gripe in this situation, regardless if maybe they didn't have a legitimate gripe in previous situations.
THE COURT: Okay. On page 21 at Question 82 we asked you if you had personally participated in various, maybe call them supportive activities of one sort or another. I guess there are two. You said you have a bracelet?
JUROR: Yes, I have the Boston Strong bracelet. And there was a concert at TD North where bands came in support of victims.
THE COURT: Yeah. When was the concert, do you remember?
JUROR: I'd say maybe the fall after the marathon? I can't recall for sure.
THE COURT: Who did you go with?
JUROR: There was my husband and eight other couples.
THE COURT: Were any of them involved in the events?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Or personally affected by them?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: This is just general support for --
JUROR: General support. And interested in seeing the bands.
THE COURT: Okay. How was the concert?
JUROR: It was very good.
THE COURT: And the bracelet is, what, one of those sort of rubber like --
JUROR: The rubber one with the silver.
THE COURT: -- things that has the logo and stuff?
Do you wear it?
JUROR: I do wear it.
THE COURT: When do you wear it?
JUROR: Well, I wore it to the concert for sure, and then I might wear it based on what I'm wearing.
THE COURT: Because it goes with the outfit?
JUROR: Because it goes with the outfit.
THE COURT: All right. I'm just looking for my witness list. You recognize somebody on Attachment A?
JUROR: I did.
THE COURT: I guess I don't have it. Does somebody have a witness list?
COURT CLERK: Judge.
THE COURT: The person is an FBI agent.
JUROR: He was a former FBI agent.
THE COURT: He now works for the bank, is that it?
JUROR: He does. He's in charge of our law enforcement.
THE COURT: Do you interact with him on a regular basis?
JUROR: Given my current role, we do have interactions, I'd say, a couple of times a month.
THE COURT: Is he under your supervision or are you under his supervision?
JUROR: No, we're peers.
THE COURT: We also asked some questions about the death penalty as a possible penalty in the case, and that begins at Number 88 on page 23. First we asked for a general overview kind of question, how do you feel about it, and you say, "I'm not sure. I can argue both sides of the issue."
JUROR: Yes. So I knew this would get me an interview. So I really don't know. I can say in some situations that I have said in my life that I believe in an eye for an eye. I think that if somebody is guilty of a crime and they receive the death penalty, I'm not sure that's really a punishment for that person; I think it's a punishment for the people in their lives more so. At the same time, I think that if somebody is sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole and isn't rehabilitated, should taxpayers have to pay for that? So I really don't have a strong opinion either way. I can see multiple sides to that.
THE COURT: And you're talking about the general question of the advisability of the death penalty?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 89 asked whether you had any strong views about whether the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. And of course we don't get to the discussion of penalty until that's happened, somebody has been convicted of intentional murder, right?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You selected 5, which I guess sort of puts you in the middle.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And I think that's consistent with what you --
JUROR: I think that's consistent with what I just said, and perhaps in that situation where the person was involved or their mental state or there's probably other factors that might sway me one way or another.
THE COURT: And then on the next page, Question 90, we asked you to select which of the various possible options of statements proposed closely -- most closely reflected your view, and you picked D, "I am not for or against the death penalty. I could vote to impose it or I could vote to impose a sentence of life in prison without possibility of release, whichever I believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case."
Does that fairly state your view on this?
JUROR: I do. I hope that sounds consistent with what I explained here.
THE COURT: So I want to -- I take from that that you think that in a particular case -- now, this is not a general proposition, but in a particular case -- after having evaluated the evidence along with your fellow jurors, if you thought the evidence and the instructions -- consistent with the instructions of law if you thought the evidence supported the imposition of a death penalty, you could do that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And if you thought the evidence, considered again in light of the legal instructions, called instead for life imprisonment without possibility of release, you could vote for that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you don't have any pre-commitment to either of those in the abstract without assessment of the particular facts?
JUROR: I don't have any moral or religious foundational belief that would sway me in either direction.
THE COURT: Is there any reason your attitude as expressed in that selection would not apply to this case?
JUROR: I don't think so. I can't think of a reason that it would.
THE COURT: I'm looking at the last -- page 27. You've been there?
JUROR: I did go to Jamaica.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Weinreb?
MR. WEINREB: Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just wanted to follow up on your answer about the death penalty.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: So you were talking about whether you think it's a good idea or not to have a death penalty, and some of these questions, you know, can be read to ask about that sort of thing. Have you given that a lot of thought, whether there should be -- the death penalty should even exist or not as an option?
JUROR: I haven't given it in sort of those general terms, no. It's hard not to think about it as it relates to this specific case, but what may or may not -- what I would think -- what worries me about being a juror on this case is because I don't have a strong opinion either way, I don't know if I would be -- I don't know if I would be wishy-washy in my thinking and that is a good thing or a bad thing to be as a juror.
MR. WEINREB: Well, where I was going to go next, and I don't know if this is related to what you just said or not, but have you given a lot of thought to the -- how you would feel if you were a juror in this case and the jury found that the defendant was guilty of one of the crimes charged in the indictment that carries the death penalty, and now you're hearing evidence about whether the defendant should get the death penalty or not.
MS. CONRAD: Objection.
THE COURT: Is this the "capable" question?
MR. WEINREB: Yeah.
THE COURT: Yeah, why don't you get to it.
MS. CONRAD: But about this case?
THE COURT: All right. Make it more general. Yes, right. Fair enough.
MR. WEINREB: Let me rephrase that a little bit. Have you given a lot of thought to if you were a juror in a case in which the defendant was facing the death penalty and you were on the jury, whether you personally, if you decided it was the appropriate punishment, could do it, whether you could vote to give someone a death sentence? Have you given thought to that?
JUROR: Well, I have given thought to that. So I think if the evidence supported that and that was what was required, then I could do it. Would I be emotional? Would I have awkward feelings about that? Absolutely. But I would hope that I would be able to do what was required of me.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. So as the judge will instruct you, nobody's ever required to impose the death penalty in any case. Even if the death penalty is a possibility -- the juror in a case, hypothetically it could be you, hears aggravating -- evidence that might support the death penalty as being the appropriate sentence and hears evidence that might support life without the possibility of release as being the appropriate sentence, and then that juror has to decide on his or her own which is the appropriate sentence. There's no requirement either way.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I would hope that I could do what is the right thing. Whatever that decision is, whether the right decision is to vote for life or to vote for death, I hope -- I'm confident that I could think about it analytically. What I was getting at is the part that would be hardest for me is living with that decision either way. I think both outcomes are a terrible situation, but I would think -- I would hope that based on the facts that were presented to me, I would make the best decision regardless of how I felt about either one personally.
MR. WEINREB: So you're telling us you would give it thoughtful consideration. You would take the decision seriously?
JUROR: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely.
MR. WEINREB: But knowing that that's the kind of person you are, who would give it thoughtful consideration and take it seriously, my question is: Would your concerns about whether you could live with yourself if you gave someone a death sentence -- would that prevent you from giving it in the end, just that concern alone, or would you be able to give it if you believed, based on the evidence that you had heard, that it was the appropriate sentence?
JUROR: So having never faced that, it's hard to say 100 percent, but I believe I could do that.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon, ma'am. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
You had said that you work with/speak with an individual who's listed on the witness list?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: If that person were to testify and you were on the jury, would you tend to give that person's testimony more weight or more credibility or look at his credibility differently than someone you didn't know?
JUROR: Well, since I didn't know him in that capacity, I think I would look at him as any other witness.
MS. CONRAD: So you would be able to evaluate whether or not you thought he was being truthful?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: And you also indicated that you -- I think it was -- if you could just turn to page 20, your answer to Question 80.
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Is that somebody that you know personally?
JUROR: I do. It's my husband's best friend's sister-in-law. So I don't know -- I'm not close with her. I see her at occasional holiday parties, that sort of thing.
MS. CONRAD: And how did you find out that she was there?
JUROR: I think as soon as the event happened everyone was asking if anybody knew someone who was there and if they were home safe and that sort of thing.
MS. CONRAD: And was that somebody that you were concerned about when you heard --
JUROR: I didn't know at the time that she was there.
MS. CONRAD: And so when did you first find that out?
JUROR: It was probably within 24 to 48 hours.
MS. CONRAD: And do you know if she was physically harmed in any way?
JUROR: She was not.
MS. CONRAD: Do you know if she was emotionally harmed?
JUROR: She was emotionally. The fact that she still hasn't talked about it, about what she saw that day, I would say that she's emotionally impacted.
MS. CONRAD: Now, you said that this was your husband's best friend's sister-in-law?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Has your husband's best friend talked about how she was affected?
JUROR: Just the fact that she still hasn't spoken about it.
MS. CONRAD: Would that relationship -- do you think that would affect you as a juror listening to the evidence and having to make decisions about guilt and perhaps ultimately about penalty?
JUROR: I don't think so because of -- I mean, I'll be honest. If she was physically impacted by the event, that would be a totally different story, but not understanding where she's at with this, probably not.
MS. CONRAD: Has your husband's best friend made any comments to you about this case or the possibility that you might be a juror?
JUROR: Well, before coming here and figuring out that this was the case that we were being called to, all my friends told me I would be crazy not to just make some crazy statement to make sure I got off the case. So a lot of people have said a lot of things to me but nothing specific about what I should do either way if I was selected.
MS. CONRAD: And I think you said you post on Facebook daily and you hadn't posted anything about your jury service in this case. Have you ever posted anything about the marathon bombings or the aftermath at all?
JUROR: Well, on that Friday our building was in lockdown, and so I did post something about being locked down with police with semiautomatic rifles or something.
MS. CONRAD: So you were actually at work?
JUROR: I was at work that day.
MS. CONRAD: So you had to stay at work?
JUROR: I had to stay at work.
MS. CONRAD: And how did you feel at that time?
JUROR: Well, it was a pretty eerie feeling.
MS. CONRAD: And how would that affect you as a juror in this case?
JUROR: You know, I think if I was around the marathon, that might have a different feeling than being in that situation. We've been in lockdown for other reasons. I'm not trying to make light of that, but it wouldn't have an impact.
MS. CONRAD: You said that your ex-husband was -- never got a job as a police officer while you were together?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Do you know whether he became a police officer after that time?
JUROR: Actually, I don't.
MS. CONRAD: And you also said that you have a cousin who served in Iraq?
JUROR: Yes.
MS. CONRAD: Would that affect you in any way as a juror in this case given that you may hear evidence about the motive for these crimes being related to American involvement?
JUROR: You know, I didn't think about it in terms of motive, but I don't think so. He and I have never talked even about the marathon.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
JUROR: You're welcome.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: I think we only have two more. I'd just as soon keep going so they don't have to sit around for another hour, if everybody's okay with that. Are you okay with that?
MR. WEINREB: That's fine.
THE COURT: Next would be 132.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 132.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 132.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat, if you would.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Have you been able to abide by my prior instructions to avoid talking about the substance of the case and to avoid any exposure to media reports about the case and so on?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. That is the questionnaire you filled out before you, and we may be referring to some of the answers you gave because we're going to follow up on some of them and talk a little bit more about them.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: You're employed in a district attorney's office? I guess I'm inferring it's Essex?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Tell us about that, how long you've been with the DA's office and what do you do there.
JUROR: I've been with the DA's office now for almost two years, and I work in admin support with the ADAs over there.
THE COURT: Give us a little more day-to-day kind of idea.
JUROR: Day-to-day? We do a lot of data entry which we usually put in the arraignments. We'll get the arraignments; we'll come down; we'll enter the information on the arraignments. We update cases. We're in the courtroom bringing casework up. Telephone calls, answering questions on the phone. Victims will call in. We do -- victim/witness advocates will be there on-call.
THE COURT: Is this -- I don't know how the organization is set up. Is this what I would call, and you can correct me if it's wrong, the main office?
JUROR: It's not the main office; it's a branch of the main office.
THE COURT: What town?
JUROR: Newburyport.
THE COURT: You're in Newburyport?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And so there's a district court in Newburyport?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: So is most of the work focused on the district court --
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: -- rather than the superior court?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And therefore, all of the DAs, ADAs would be people who would be principally doing district court work?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And you've worked for lawyers in private practice before that?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: What kind of work did you do there?
JUROR: It varied. We -- it was a general practice law firm. There was personal injury; there was real estate work. I'm trying to think of what else. Civil litigation.
THE COURT: Did any of the lawyers you worked for or with do criminal defense work?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: I presume they didn't do any prosecuting either because they were in private practice.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: I'll ask you that anyway. Did they do any?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: What led you to go to the DA's office from a private firm?
JUROR: Basically benefits wise. I needed health insurance, and the practice that I was working for, the attorneys there didn't offer vacation pay or sick pay or healthcare, so...
THE COURT: Okay. So I guess this is sort of an obvious question for someone working for a prosecuting office, whether in a criminal case, if consciously or perhaps more likely unconsciously, subconsciously you would be rooting for the prosecutor in the case.
JUROR: I probably would sway maybe 80 percent that way. I generally want to know what the facts are, what the evidence is in order to make a sound decision. But, again, working for the prosecutors, I tend to sway more so probably that way. I don't know.
THE COURT: Well --
JUROR: It depends.
THE COURT: So I guess the question is whether it would actually have an effect on your ability to impartially assess the evidence, fairness to both sides. So let me just -- I'm sure you know this, but in a criminal prosecution a defendant is presumed not guilty, or innocent, unless proved guilty by the evidence at trial.
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And it's always the burden of the government to prove that by the evidence at trial.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And a defendant never has any burden to prove that he's not guilty. You understand that?
JUROR: Right. Yes.
THE COURT: Now, when you said you would sway towards the prosecution's side to some degree, do you think that would interfere with your fulfilling those obligations; in other words, would you sort of lessen the burden on the prosecution to win its case, or would you impose some burden on the defendant to prove the contrary of what the prosecution was saying?
JUROR: Well, again, I think it -- the bottom line, it comes down to I have to know the facts and I have to know the evidence and I have to know the law in order to put the pieces together in order to make a sound decision.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to turn to page 20 of the questionnaire. And I want you to look at Question 77.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: There we asked whether -- based on things you'd seen in the media and heard from people and so on, whether you had an opinion --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- whether the defendant was guilty or not and whether he should be punished by the death penalty or not, and to both of those you indicated yes, you did have an opinion based on what you had heard and seen.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: So I want to ask sort of a similar question of what I've just asked. Again, as a trial juror, we ask jurors to decide -- I want to separate the question of guilt from the question of punishment first. Let's just focus on the defendant's guilt. The burden is always on the government to prove by the evidence at trial convincingly, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of the particular crime he's charged with.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: You understand that?
And people may come into the -- jurors may come into the trial having some impressions from what they've seen. And the question is whether the jurors, and you in particular, having those impressions, can nonetheless listen to the evidence at the trial and make a decision based only on that and decide whether the government has fulfilled its burden or not based on the trial evidence, not on what you've heard someplace else.
So the question is: How do you assess your ability to do that given the proposition that you have some ideas already?
JUROR: Well, like I said, I think, given what I've seen and heard up to this point, I would -- that's why I said yes to that question; however, once I am able to hear, like I said, the rest of the facts, the evidence, the law, and try and put the pieces together, then I might have a different opinion.
THE COURT: And how would your sway, I think as you put it, towards the prosecutor affect that balance? Would that be an extra benefit to the prosecution in the case?
JUROR: Not necessarily. I don't -- I don't believe -- like I said, I think I would have to base my opinion on what I've seen, what I've heard and what I've learned in order to make a correct assumption. Whether -- just because I work where I work doesn't necessarily mean that my opinion would be more sided with the prosecution.
THE COURT: Let me turn to the second part of the question concerning that, your opinion about the death penalty. I explained this morning about the process. The first important part of the trial is whether the government can prove the defendant guilty of what he's charged with. If the jury concludes that he's guilty, and if he's guilty of intentional murder, for example, we'd proceed to a second phase where the question would be not guilt or innocence but what should be done, death penalty or life in prison without release.
And that's a little bit different from the first phase because in this phase both sides would be presenting evidence. The government would present evidence of things that made this case seem worse than the normal -- the average case and, therefore, called for a more serious penalty; the defense would likely present evidence that would say there are things about this that aren't related to the guilt question alone but are considerations that you should think of in -- and, they would argue, conclude that the death penalty is not appropriate here but life in prison is. So you hear the aggravating and the mitigating and so on.
Let's turn to page 23. We asked some questions there about the death penalty and your views about it. And in Question 88, you said, "I strongly believe in the death penalty."
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: And we asked you then in the next question to give us on a scale of 1 to 10 what your belief was regarding whether the death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder. Now, of course that would be the predicate of the consideration in the first place, that the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. You said "strongly favor" in that case.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: Does that accurately present your views?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: The next question, page -- Question 90 on page 24, we asked you to select the statement that was closest to your view from a range of options. You selected E, that you're in favor of the death penalty but you 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.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: I guess I'm -- there's a -- and I know this is -- could be just a result of the drafting of the questions, but that's a little bit inconsistent with the 10 on the previous one where you said you thought it should be imposed -- the death penalty should be imposed -- whenever the defendant has been convicted of intentional murder. And that, of course, is always going to be true when you're considering the death penalty, right?
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: Here you suggested your position is not that absolute and you could consider life imprisonment if you thought the facts called for that. So I guess I'm not sure which answer you've come down on. Those seem -- do you see what I'm getting at?
JUROR: I do see what you're saying. And I think at the time when I read the question I was probably thinking in my own mind it depended upon whether or not a person who intentionally murdered, you know, with malice or whatnot, then I would probably strongly go for the death penalty. But if someone were, say, an accomplice in a situation, then maybe I might just go for a life sentence or something like that. So I guess it's kind of, like, a border.
THE COURT: So can you envision an array of facts that could lead you to vote for a life imprisonment instead of a death penalty in a case of intentional murder?
JUROR: Probably not. For an intentional murder, probably not.
THE COURT: Okay. No? All right.
I was asking for follow-up. There's no follow-up. So thank you very much.
JUROR: Okay.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: This is 134.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 134.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 134.
COURT CLERK: Ma'am, over here, please. Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: Speak into the mic when you're giving your answers so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Thanks.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since the day you were here to fill out the questionnaires, have you been able to abide by my instructions not to discuss the substance of the case with anybody?
JUROR: I think so. It's funny, people ask questions and you go, "I'm court ordered not to talk about it," and they go, "Oh, oh," and they walk away.
THE COURT: That's a good answer you can give them, right, because you can blame me.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: And have you been able to avoid as much as possible any media accounts of what -- either the case or things related to it?
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah.
THE COURT: I'm just -- of course you recall we asked a lot of information about people --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- including some overseas residencies, and you have a couple. I'm just curious about them. Can you tell us? The UK and Brazil.
JUROR: No, I'm just a travel bug. Yeah, for grad school I realized in order to do a full-time program I was going to have to quit my job, and so I decided to make an event out of it. And I just went to London for grad school. And then I came back and wanted to see more of the world and found a job in Brazil, and went down there for a few years. And then there was too much family things going on, and so I decided it was time to grow up and come back, and now I'm here.
THE COURT: What kind of work did you do when you were in Brazil?
JUROR: I'm a teacher, so I taught at an American school.
THE COURT: Okay. And I guess I was just looking at what you filled out. You're an art teacher essentially?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: And have done that for a number of years but at different places. Is that it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And you were asked about blogs or posting messages or opinions on websites. You say you do that promoting your art exhibits?
JUROR: Not very often, but if a friend will send a promotion for their exhibit, I'll just write a note like, "Hey, congrats," or something like that. So I think if you Google my name, it will pop up, just little things like that, but not --
THE COURT: Do you have your own website for your own artwork?
JUROR: I do. Just for my shows, yeah.
THE COURT: And then besides that, we asked about other social media, and I guess you --
JUROR: I have accounts at many places, but I'm not very active.
THE COURT: You don't seem to use them very much.
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: And nothing about this case on there?
JUROR: No. You can check.
THE COURT: Okay. They probably have.
(Laughter.)
THE COURT: So you've served a couple of times on juries. In Massachusetts state court both times?
JUROR: Massachusetts loves me. Every three years, like on the calendar, I get called, including last year.
THE COURT: But, as you seem to have indicated -- if you want to follow along, I'm not trying to ask you blind questions.
JUROR: No, I remember.
THE COURT: You said both experiences were interesting and educational and you'd gladly serve again. So you found it to be a worthwhile experience?
JUROR: Yeah. You know, it's tough for everybody to get a few days out of work, but it's always really interesting. I've never had to deliberate. It's always been settled somehow.
THE COURT: Oh, I see.
We asked on pages 17 and 18 some questions about things that you might class as current events or international affairs and so on such as the war on terror and its impact on people, feelings about Islam or Muslims and so on and so forth. You answered all of those. Do you remember that?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: In the last month or so since you've done the questionnaire there's been news reports of shootings in Paris and so on. Have you followed that at all?
JUROR: Not closely because I've been afraid to. Every once in a while I'll have my fiancé look at something and he filters for me. Like what's going on in the world that I'm allowed to know about?
THE COURT: Would -- what you do know about those events, would they have any effect or change any of the answers you gave in this section of the questionnaire?
JUROR: I don't think so. You're talking about 17 and 18?
THE COURT: 17 and 18 principally, yeah.
JUROR: I don't think so.
THE COURT: If you'd flip to page 20, and I direct your attention to Question 77 where we ask some -- we ask whether you had -- based on what you had seen or read in the media, heard from people or otherwise learned, whether you'd formed an opinion about, first, whether this defendant was guilty or not, and then secondly, if so, what the penalty might be. And there were some boxes --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- and you could select, and you selected "unsure" for each of those answers except that for the first question about whether he's guilty or not you said "unsure but likely."
JUROR: So, I mean, I think I said "likely" just because I would be surprised if it would go this far if there wasn't some evidence. But I don't know what all the evidence is which is why I couldn't say yes.
THE COURT: So in our criminal justice system when a person is accused by the government of a crime, the person is presumed to be innocent, or not guilty, of that crime unless at trial the government proves the person guilty of the offense by the evidence, proves it to the jury so the jury's convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. The government has, as we say, the burden of proof in the case. And it is always with the government. A defendant never has any burden to prove he's not guilty of what he's accused of. Even if a defendant opposes the government's evidence, takes a position in the case, he doesn't assume the burden of proving himself not guilty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You understand those principles generally?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would any opinion you have, like the one that says it's likely based on your impressions -- would any of that prevent you from faithfully applying the principles that I've just summarized for you and insist that the government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt without shifting any responsibility for proving -- the defendant to prove himself not guilty?
JUROR: Right. No, I've been thinking -- you've given us three weeks to really think about this, and I don't think so. I feel like the other times I've been called to jury duty, I take it very seriously. And I like living in a place where we have to prove guilt, and so I don't think --
THE COURT: So even if you thought from the things you've heard that it was likely that he's guilty of one or more of the offenses that he's charged with, if after evaluating the evidence you thought the government had fallen short in its proof, would you be able to return a verdict on that matter of not guilty?
JUROR: Not if the government doesn't have enough proof. I don't think so, no. So I feel like the government has to have proof.
THE COURT: Right. If the government's proof fell short in your view, you were not in the condition where you were convinced of the guilt of a particular offense beyond a reasonable doubt --
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: -- could you/would you return a verdict of not guilty in that case because the government had failed to --
JUROR: I would have to, I think.
THE COURT: Would you be able to?
JUROR: Yeah, I do.
THE COURT: I'd like you to look at Question 80 further down the page. Somebody that teaches at your school was physically injured in the bombing. How do you know about that? I ask that because you say you have not had a direct conversation with her.
JUROR: I just remember when the marathon came up this year -- we're at lunch and somebody said something about it and they said, "Oh, did you know that" -- I know she's a runner because she's the track coach. And they're like, "Oh, Jen was there and I think she actually has -- has a scar but she wasn't badly hit or anything like that."
And I don't -- I don't see her very often. We don't have lunch together, and so I have not actually talked to her about it. So that's why I put her name down. She wasn't on the list.
THE COURT: Do you have some understanding about how severely or not she was hurt?
JUROR: I think not severely, no, or I'd think she'd be more -- I don't know.
THE COURT: Would you feel uncomfortable as a juror in making a decision that might be different from the one she would prefer or you might think she would prefer?
JUROR: I really don't know her that well. I think I would feel awkward if -- I don't know. I would feel -- I don't even think she knows that I'm here. If she knows I'm here and we were having lunch together all the time, I think that would be a different situation. Like I said, I haven't talked to her about it. You know, I assume it probably is something she feels strongly about.
THE COURT: The question really is how, if at all, that would affect you. Assume she would feel strongly about it.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: How, if at all, would that affect you?
JUROR: I don't think she is somebody who would affect me. I think there are other people in my life who would, and I wouldn't put her in that category.
THE COURT: How big is the school? How many teachers?
JUROR: Sixty?
THE COURT: On Question 81, you said you sheltered in place on the Friday? You were in Jamaica Plain?
JUROR: Oh, yeah, in our house.
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: I wasn't a teacher then.
THE COURT: Would that affect you, having done that? I mean, having been compelled to do that, would that have any effect on your fairness or impartiality in the trial?
JUROR: I don't think so.
THE COURT: In Question 85 you recognize a name that is not that distinctive a name, I guess, and you're wondering if it's the same person.
Does anybody have the answer to that question?
(Pause.)
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Sorry. No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Who is the person -- you went to college with somebody?
JUROR: It's somebody I haven't seen in 20 years, but I was scared not to say something.
THE COURT: So the person you went to college with, you don't know what he's doing?
JUROR: I don't know where he's living. It's just the same name.
THE COURT: Now, we also ask some questions about the death penalty. That begins on page 22 with Question 88. And 88 was to ask in general about attitude towards the death penalty, and you said you're not 100 percent in either direction and you're glad that it's a decision you've never had to make. Let's take the first part of that about not being 100 percent in either direction.
JUROR: I don't like it. I mean, it's one of those things where, you know, I've never -- like I'm not going to show up on a protest for either side. I have been lucky that it's not a decision that I've ever had to make, so it's never been on my conscience. I'm glad that we don't take it lightly in this country.
THE COURT: In the next question we ask if you could kind of weigh your opinion a little bit.
JUROR: Right.
THE COURT: But this is from strongly opposed to strongly in favor, and the question asked [sic], "The death penalty should be imposed whenever the defendant has been convicted of an intentional murder." Of course we don't get to the death penalty question at all unless the person has been convicted of an intentional murder, so --
JUROR: I feel like I would be teetering in the other direction for that question. I think I read it wrong.
MS. CONRAD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
JUROR: I'm sorry. I think I read that one wrong. I would definitely say I'd be more of a 4 than a 6. I'm definitely more on the "I'm uncomfortable with it" than "I'm excited about it" side.
THE COURT: Okay. If you'd look at the next page, and Question 90, we then asked you to choose from among a number of possible statements what matched your views, and you selected D, that you were not for or against; you could vote to impose it or you could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of release, whichever you believed was called for by the facts and the law in the case.
Is that a fair summary of your view?
JUROR: I think so, yeah.
THE COURT: And so you don't have a pre-commitment or a predisposition that is so strong that you would automatically go to one side or the other?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: You would evaluate it on the evidence?
So it is -- I guess let me ask it this way: Can you envision facts or circumstances that you would find would influence you to decide that this case called for -- I don't mean "this case," I mean the case you're considering -- the hypothetical case you're considering called for the imposition of a death penalty, can you envision that there would be such facts and circumstances that you could feel that it was appropriate that the death penalty would be imposed?
JUROR: It's hard. I mean, I think there are. I mean, you know, like I said, I'm always -- I've been fortunate that it's not -- that's not what I do, but it's hard to be an absolute no.
THE COURT: And the other side as well: You envision facts and circumstances where the death penalty is an issue and you can decide that under the circumstances of the case it's not the appropriate punishment and life without release is a more appropriate punishment.
Could you envision that there would be facts and circumstances --
JUROR: That would be easier, yes.
THE COURT: In Question 95 on page 25 --
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I feel that that is something -- like it's -- until you're there, it's hard to say for sure. I think you have to go through the process and see what the evidence is and --
THE COURT: Well, so this question asks whether, again, presuming the base fact that the defendant is guilty of a qualifying crime, if you decided that the death penalty was appropriate could you conscientiously vote for it, and you said you're not sure?
JUROR: Okay. So, I mean, yes. If I decided that the death penalty was appropriate, yes, I would be able to vote for it.
THE COURT: So the unsureness is about whether it's appropriate. Is that it?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is that what you thought?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Any follow-up?
MR. MELLIN: Good afternoon, ma'am. I'm Steve Mellin. I'm one of the prosecutors on the case along with this team right here.
Let me ask you a couple of questions about the death penalty. You indicated that -- you said you -- when you were going through this questionnaire and thinking about it, that the questionnaire and just the idea made you think about your position on the death penalty, and then we've gone through it a little bit today. How would you say your thoughts about the death penalty are evolving, or have they evolved?
JUROR: I guess I just think it should be reserved for the most extreme cases, and it's -- it can't be taken lightly and there has to be incredible evidence and -- I mean, the death of anybody, anything, animal, you know, it's hard to say that it's something that you're for. And so I feel like it may have its place but it has to be for something extreme.
THE COURT: Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by "extreme"?
JUROR: I mean, I guess -- murder is extreme. But whether -- I mean, I don't feel that every person who's currently in prison for murder should be on death row as well, and so -- I mean, I don't know. I would have to -- it's a case-by-case thing and it has to be serious. And all murder is serious. It's hard for me to articulate this.
MR. MELLIN: We understand this, and this is a difficult issue. I'm sure you don't sit here and think about this.
JUROR: No, I'm like shaking here.
MR. MELLIN: We don't want you to shake.
You said earlier that you don't like the death penalty in answer to one of Judge O'Toole's questions.
JUROR: Right.
MR. MELLIN: When you say you don't like it, what don't you like about it?
JUROR: That it's killing someone.
MR. MELLIN: In the common questionnaire you mentioned that you were glad you never had to really address this issue ever before.
JUROR: I mean, I guess the fear is what if I was wrong. It doesn't happen very often, but there's always that, you know, you're responsible for it and you just have to really make sure that you are correct.
MR. MELLIN: Would that fear keep you from not being able to ever impose it?
JUROR: I mean, I don't think. I think just, you know, being part of a jury is an incredibly important thing. And I think that if -- you know, sometimes you have to step up to the plate, and if that is what the task is, it's an unfortunate task, but it has to be dealt with. And so I would not want it as my job. I would not want to have to, you know -- I don't know. I'm...
MR. MELLIN: And that's what we're kind of getting at. You know, at some point this theoretical position about not liking it but --
JUROR: Right. It becomes real.
MR. MELLIN: It becomes real and you do have to step up to the plate.
JUROR: Right.
MR. MELLIN: So we're trying to figure out when you step up to the plate, if you believe that the death penalty was appropriate based on the evidence that had been presented to you, would you be able, yourself, to actually vote to impose the death penalty against someone else?
JUROR: Right. I think that if -- if it seemed like it was the right thing that I would be able to. But, again, until you're in that situation. I mean, again, it's hard because I've never been in that situation and it's scary. And I know that I'm not here saying, "absolutely not"; I'm saying that I'm open and I would listen and -- I'm really nervous.
MR. MELLIN: That's fine. And just one last question, your Honor, if I may.
I appreciate that you're open to it and you could consider it and everything, but what I'm trying to find out is if you really came to that position, do you believe you could do it if you felt it was appropriate?
JUROR: And I'm saying I think so but I won't really know until I'm there, or I'm not there, I don't know.
MR. MELLIN: Thank you, Judge.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon, ma'am. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Hello.
MS. CONRAD: Understanding that a juror is never required to vote for the death penalty, could you consider the evidence and if you thought that voting for the death penalty was the right thing to do, would you be able to vote for it?
JUROR: I think if I thought it was the right thing to do that I could.
MS. CONRAD: I have nothing else. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. You may go along.
JAMES MCALEAR: Right this way.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: Okay. Well, thank you for sitting through that, but I think she gets on her way faster this way.
I'm suggesting 2:30 to reconvene. This will be in sidebar mode at 2:30.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you, your Honor.
(The Court exited the courtroom and there is a recess in the proceedings at 1:41 p.m.)
(The Court entered the room at 2:43 p.m.)