Day 9 - January 23, 2015

Capital Instructions, Individual Voir Dire, and Juror Rulings

10Proceedings

10Pages

0Witnesses

1,875Lines

Day 9 of 67

Judge O'Toole explained capital-trial standards as individual voir dire examined publicity, impartiality, and sentencing views. The court preserved a continuing defense objection to questioning limits, excluded Juror No. 140 after a conditional social-media agreement, and ruled on several juror challenges. The issue of jurors viewing life imprisonment as harsher than death remained unresolved.

Full day summary

Judge O'Toole instructed prospective jurors on the separate guilt and possible penalty phases, the differing burdens for aggravating and mitigating factors, and the unanimous findings required for a death sentence. He emphasized that death would never be mandatory. He also explained individual questioning, privacy measures for sensitive answers, and restrictions on outside discussion, research, and media exposure. The court reaffirmed Juror No. 60's inclusion and accepted the defense's continuing objection to omission or restriction of its proposed Morgan life-qualifying questions. Individual questioning explored prior opinions about guilt, religious and personal views on capital punishment, employment, and family obligations. Several jurors said they could set aside prior impressions or consider either sentence, while others expressed uncertainty. Juror No. 158 acknowledged starting with a presumption against the defendant; his interview ended without an express cause ruling in the supplied record. Juror No. 140 was excluded by agreement after Conrad described social-media materials she believed belonged to the juror. The prosecution's agreement was expressly conditioned on the identification being accurate. The court declined a general question about whether prospective jurors wanted to serve, but permitted case-specific inquiry when answers or demeanor suggested inappropriate eagerness or an agenda. It also limited questions about particular mitigating factors and isolated sentencing circumstances, and stopped pressure on Juror No. 156 for a firmer commitment to imposing death. In later qualification rulings, the court excused Juror No. 143 on an unopposed government challenge concerning death-penalty opposition and Juror No. 152 on an unopposed defense challenge following discussion of online material. It denied the government's challenge to Juror No. 156. Juror No. 161 was excused principally because of a close relative's IED injury and Afghanistan service, not financial hardship; other asserted grounds were not resolved. The court left open the legal issue concerning jurors who personally consider life imprisonment harsher than death.

Jury Instruction

Preliminary Venire Instructions on the Capital Trial

14 lines

Judge O'Toole explains capital sentencing standards, individual juror responsibility, and safeguards for upcoming questioning.

Highlights

Preliminary Venire Instructions on the Capital Trialjury eventThe Court explains the conditional penalty phase, differing burdens for aggravating and mitigating factors, and unanimous findings required for a death sentence, emphasizing that death is never required.Preliminary Venire Instructions on the Capital Trial“You should understand that a jury is never required to find that a sentence of death is justified.”— George A. O'Toole Jr.The Court emphasizes that a death sentence is not mandatory, even when no mitigating factors are found.

Procedural

Juror No. 60 Retained; Standing Morgan Objection Preserved

47 lines

The court retained Juror No. 60 and recognized a continuing defense request and objection concerning proposed Morgan questions, without requiring repeated requests.

Highlights

Juror No. 60 Retained; Standing Morgan Objection PreservedrulingThe judge confirmed that the defense need not repeat its proposed Morgan questions and accepted a continuing objection to those questions not being asked or permitted in the requested form.

Voir Dire

Individual Voir Dire

368 lines

Jurors No. 138 and 139 discussed impartiality and capital sentencing; the judge limited mitigation-specific and phase-related questioning.

2 sidebars inside this proceeding

Procedural

Motion to Limit Voir Dire About Jury Leadership

9 lines

The court accepted a juror-specific explanation for questions about jury leadership while cautioning against speculative questions about deliberative behavior.

sidebar

Juror 140 Social Media Concerns

24 lines

Defense counsel questioned Juror 140’s social media disclosures based on accounts believed to be hers, including a Twitter account following a reporter covering the trial.

Highlights

Juror No. 140 Excluded After Social Media ReviewrulingAfter the prosecution objected to the defense's broader argument about juror candor, the court confined the discussion to this juror's suitability and confirmed that Juror No. 140 would not be seated.

Procedural

Limits on Asking Jurors Whether They Want to Serve

13 lines

The court rejected a general question about jurors' desire to serve but allowed targeted inquiry when demeanor or answers suggested an agenda.

Voir Dire

Individual Voir Dire - Continued

469 lines

Jurors No. 143 and 145 addressed publicity, impartiality, and capital punishment. The court limited some defense questions while permitting inquiry into a prior preference for death.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding

No Inquiry RequestedThe judge noted apparent consistency with an answer, and counsel confirmed that no inquiry was sought.

Voir Dire

Individual Voir Dire - Resumed

608 lines

Five prospective jurors discussed impartiality and sentencing. The court limited commitment-seeking questions; Juror No. 158 acknowledged a presumption against the defendant.

1 sidebar inside this proceeding

Sidebar Discussion Outside Public HearingA sidebar discussion took place outside the hearing of the public.

Highlights

Individual Voir Dire - Resumedjury eventJuror No. 158 expressed a belief in some guilt and agreed that he started with a presumption against the defendant. After defense counsel declined further questioning, the court ended the interview and the juror was excused; no express cause ruling appears.

Voir Dire

Individual Voir Dire - Resumed

233 lines

A prospective juror discussed impartiality, sentencing views, and financial concerns; repeated objections led the court to limit capital-sentencing questions.