1.Agreed Juror Excusals and the Globe's Courtroom-Access Motion
13 linesP R O C E E D I N G S
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. This is going to be brief, and then we'll bring the people out. I understand you've jointly agreed on some others. I will quickly look at it. I haven't yet because I just was given the list. Assuming I don't have any -- I actually recognize at least one that I know I looked at before. I just wanted to make sure we made a record of it. I don't know whether it is yet. The parties have agreed on 112, 117, 133, 135, 127, and 130. Is that accurate?
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: I think there were --
MS. CLARKE: There was more than that.
THE COURT: The three we talked about yesterday. Maybe that's not on the record yesterday. Those were 114, 122, and 125.
Now, so we'll follow the same procedure we followed yesterday. Those people will be told they can go along. There's no need for follow-up. And then we'll begin following up as usual with the remainder. It would be much better if we could get this the day before so those people don't have to come in. My goal actually -- and I'm still working out in my head the mechanics of this -- is to get this kind of thing done three or four days in advance so that we can backfill those slots with people who don't have this disability, that they're likely to be discharged for these agreeable reasons. I think it will give us a richer pool, more likely to yield more progress. So that's the objective. I hope by next week we're on that plane. That's all. I wanted to make sure that was on the record.
I wanted to inquire whether either side intends to take a position, make any filing, with regard to the Globe's motion. If not, I'm not going to wait for anything, and I'll proceed to address it. But I didn't know whether the parties had any -- as I said, I think it's an odd posture. It's a --
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, whether the government files something or not depends, in part, on the defense's position. As you know, from the start, our chief concern has been that the record reflect that there has been no infringement of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an open courtroom. We believe that that record had been made clearly and that the defense agreed that this was a public trial based on the measures the Court took and that, in addition, that they had essentially waived any right to a public trial beyond what they had agreed to with respect to the arrangements the Court made at the outset. If that is still the case, then we don't have -- we don't intend to file anything with respect to the Sixth Amendment.
As for the press's and the public's First Amendment right to be present in the courtroom, we do believe that, as the government, we have an obligation to safeguard that. And one proposal that we thought we might float, not necessarily in a filing but in this situation, if the Court is not inclined to simply grant the Globe's motion, is to point out that the Court originally made provision for each side to designate five members of the public. So far it appears nobody's taken either side up on that invitation. But that seemed to reflect a belief from the Court's part that having ten people in the audience wouldn't unduly influence the jurors. And so having, let's say, ten reporters in might be, you know, somewhat short the relief the Globe is seeking but could be a potentially reasonable accommodation.
But, in general, the government doesn't oppose this -- the courtroom being open to the public and the press. And so unless either the Court itself or the defense takes a position that would necessitate our filing something, we wouldn't be doing so.
MS. CLARKE: I think that Mr. Weinreb is correct on the Sixth Amendment position that we took, and we're not retracting from that. And I don't -- we don't plan to file an opposition to the Globe's motion.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. That's all I wanted. So I'll address it then. Okay.
So we'll proceed to excuse or send on their way, I guess -- excuse is not the proper term -- send on their way, the jurors that have been designated.
MR. BRUCK: After the jurors are instructed, we have two matters. One is an objection to one of the government's questions that we'd like to be heard on, and the other is a request to reconsider the qualification of Juror No. 60 that we just wanted to very briefly argue.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. That will be the next step, which will probably take a few minutes as Jim organizes the exodus.
(Short recess taken.)
THE COURT: Once again, I wanted to just note that there are some jurors who the parties and I agreed need no follow-up, and they have been sent on their way, and we will proceed with the reduced number. If you see fewer than you expected in the box, that's because we've determined that it's not necessary to conduct further voir dire with some of the members. I think there are about 11 at this stage. So we'll bring them in.
(The venire entered the room at 9:40 a.m.)