8.Individual Voir Dire — Additional Juror Examination (Part 3)
608 lines. . . END OF SIDEBAR CONFERENCE.)
THE COURT: Maybe we should just give them noise-canceling earphones so they don't have to keep getting up.
MR. CHAKRAVARTY: Your Honor, if your Honor is seriously considering that as an option, we can inquire with our -- the law enforcement agencies to see what they might have available to --
THE COURT: Might be. It would save them bouncing up and down.
MR. WEINREB: That was raised by our first assistant who thought we could make it happen if the Court wanted.
THE COURT: Something we can talk about.
MR. WEINREB: Okay.
THE COURT: Okay.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 152.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 152.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you filled out your questionnaire when you were here a few weeks ago, have you been able to abide by my instruction to avoid any discussion of the substance of the case?
JUROR: I have.
THE COURT: And to avoid any contact with the media, reports about the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Thank you.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about what you're doing now. You're working, it says, for Roche Brothers.
JUROR: Yup. So I'm just finishing up school right now.
THE COURT: Well, let's do that before I hear about Roche Brothers.
JUROR: Absolutely, yup. So went to school at UMass Amherst, finishing up with a degree, political science.
THE COURT: Are you in school this semester?
JUROR: I just finished winter classes, so I will be getting my degree.
THE COURT: That wrapped it up with the winter -- the semester that just ended in the winter?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: When do you get the degree, in May still? Is there a winter ceremony, I guess, is what I'm saying?
JUROR: No, I don't believe so. I'm not quite sure to be honest. I'm still kind of in that process. I just finished up school.
THE COURT: All right. So the employment you have is temporary employment or something, is that it?
JUROR: It is, yes.
THE COURT: Are you looking for something more permanent?
JUROR: I will be. I'm not quite sure exactly what I want to do so --
THE COURT: Okay. What I'm getting at is whether it somehow is going to be difficult for you as a personal matter if you're, you know, working -- I assume this is an hourly wage job that you have?
JUROR: It is, yeah.
THE COURT: If you're unable to do that because you're selected for the jury, it's going to cost you some money and so on. Is that a problem?
JUROR: Right now, I'm in kind of a transition period. I'm working part time. I was working part time so I could finish up classes. Right now I'm part time, and I don't think that they're going to hire me back at the moment full time for -- I don't think they can for another year. So as of right now, I'm waiting for my degree to come in, and I'm waiting -- I'm kind of searching around trying to find a full-time job. I don't think it's going to be too much of an issue to answer your question.
THE COURT: From something you said, it sounded like you're not in a big rush to find something. Is that unfair? Do I sound like your father?
(Laughter.)
JUROR: Exactly, yeah. I'm looking. I'm looking. That's the answer I'll give my father, too. I'm looking.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Living at home is pretty nice so I can't complain.
THE COURT: All right. So you say that's not an issue. If you got placed on the jury, you could serve out, and it wouldn't be a problem for you?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: That's your questionnaire. We're going to follow up on some of the answers you gave. That's really one of the principal purposes for this, is to make sure we can explore something a little more than the questionnaire allowed.
JUROR: Yeah, definitely.
THE COURT: Let me just ask you, on Page 7, Question 16, your sister is a journalist?
JUROR: She is, yes.
THE COURT: Can you give us some idea what she does?
JUROR: She works for -- I believe it's the Somerville Daily Times, I believe, some paper in Somerville.
THE COURT: Local?
JUROR: Local paper, yup.
THE COURT: How long has she been doing that?
JUROR: She's been a journalist for, I'd say, about four or five years.
THE COURT: Always with the same paper?
JUROR: No. She's been kind of all around, working for something called Wicked Local, doing different towns, I guess. I know she was working in Lincoln, Sudbury for awhile. But she's been all over the place, doing free-lance and whatnot.
THE COURT: Is she, to your knowledge, doing anything to cover this case?
JUROR: I do not believe so, no.
THE COURT: Have you talked with her about your possible service as a juror on this case?
JUROR: Yes. She knows about that, yes. I haven't mentioned anything about the case, but --
THE COURT: You know that if you were selected, you would have to avoid that entirely with her?
JUROR: Oh, yeah, absolutely.
THE COURT: You spent some time at the American University in Beirut. You had a semester abroad?
JUROR: I was, yes.
THE COURT: Tell us a little bit about that. How was that?
JUROR: It was in the winter in 2013. I went with a friend of mine. We both studied political science and concentrated on the Middle Eastern studies, Middle Eastern politics. I figured it would be fitting to at least go to the Middle East itself before -- you know, just to get a better idea. I had a great time there.
THE COURT: Give us the time frame if you could. From when to when were you there?
JUROR: It was from the end of January to, I'd say, the end of May.
THE COURT: 2013?
JUROR: In 2013, correct.
THE COURT: So you were there when the Marathon events happened?
JUROR: I was, yes.
THE COURT: Was there significant coverage news-wise or otherwise of the Marathon events while you were in Beirut?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Did you know about it?
JUROR: I did know about it. To be honest, I wasn't -- I was checking American news, obviously, the day, but from -- and people I'd heard of had heard what happened, but I don't think it was as big of a media frenzy over there than it was here.
THE COURT: Did you, after you learned -- did you learn about it right around the time that it happened or some days afterwards or what?
JUROR: Right around the time. It was actually a funny story. I was in a class on -- it was, like, an international relations class. And I was talking with a guy, and we were saying how Beirut has a perception of being very dangerous; but when you're there, it doesn't seem as dangerous to you. And people from, you know, I guess, Europe or the U.S. would think that you're more likely to get attacked. And I was talking to this guy about it. He said, That's really funny that you said that because there was just a bombing in Boston. I was, like, I didn't know anything about that. I called my folks and everything, and they had told me it was. But for me, it was hard to find coverage on it. It was hard to find a lot of sources out there.
THE COURT: You looked a little to learn about what had happened?
JUROR: Oh, yeah, yeah, absolutely.
THE COURT: The events continued for the rest of that week. I think you've heard some of the other dates that it involved in this case, including the charges that are made, were the 18th and 19th of April, which are the end of the same week. Were you still trying to follow it at that point?
JUROR: Yeah, I was.
THE COURT: Did you continue after that, continue to follow it?
JUROR: Yeah, I followed it a little bit. I never tried to follow it too in-depth. But I did -- you know, I did try to find out, you know, if everyone was okay from my family first off and, you know, kind of what was going on.
THE COURT: How were you trying to follow it? Through the internet or --
JUROR: Yes, through the internet.
THE COURT: Trying to find news sources there?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: This is skipping around a little bit, but in Question 67, it says you have studied beginners Arabic. So you know some level of Arabic?
JUROR: Correct. I knew a lot more when I was in Beirut. Obviously, not having used it, I've forgotten a lot of it. But I know kind of how to read the alphabet, how to read and write, not -- I know very beginner's vocab, but a lot of it has gone just through memory, through not using it.
THE COURT: Was that a course you took while you were in Beirut, or you had you taken it before you went?
JUROR: I had taken a semester before as well at Amherst College.
THE COURT: At Pages 17 and 18, we asked some general questions about the War on Terror, about relationships with Muslims or the religion of Islam and so on. You answered all those things. That's where we learned about you knew some Arabic.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Since the -- let me actually go back a page. Actually, I guess it probably begins at the bottom of 16. You indicated you were very familiar with the teachings of Islam. Again, could you tell us how you are very familiar with that?
JUROR: Just having studied it. I don't read the Qur'an or anything like that, but I've taken a lot of classes that kind of go through that. So I figured, comparatively, at least to a lot of people, I know a good amount. I guess that's comparing to a lot of my friends who don't know anything about it but --
THE COURT: Your major was international studies, is that --
JUROR: Is political science.
THE COURT: Political science. But you --
JUROR: Had a concentration --
THE COURT: You had a concentration, and it was Middle Eastern?
JUROR: It was, yes.
THE COURT: That's how you --
JUROR: Just through classes, yeah.
THE COURT: If you'd turn to Page 20, in Question 77 we asked a four-part question about whether you had formed an opinion from the media or other places about whether the defendant was guilty or not and then whether he should receive the death penalty or not. I want to focus on the first two of those first, guilty or not guilty. To both of those you checked "no," you hadn't formed an opinion, but you also checked "unsure" with respect to the first one.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Can you maybe explain what you had in mind when you filled those boxes?
JUROR: Yeah, absolutely. So I think I'm more towards unsure about what the opinion would be, but for me, finding someone guilty is having looked through all the evidence and whatnot. So I wouldn't just assume someone's guilty right off the bat.
THE COURT: So in our criminal justice system, every defendant who's accused of a crime is presumed to be not guilty, presumed to be innocent.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Unless and until the government proves otherwise by proving at the trial that he's guilty by the evidence.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: I guess you're a political science major. You probably understand that.
The burden is always on the government to prove its case, therefore, to prove somebody guilty. A defendant never has any burden to prove he's not guilty. He can oppose the government's case, but by opposing it, he doesn't have to convince anybody of anything. The question is always -- it's not which side has convinced me, but has the government convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Would you be able to faithfully apply those principles if you were a juror deliberating on guilt or innocence in this case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Now let's turn to the penalty issue. If you'd look to Page 23, we ask a series of questions beginning at Question 88 about your views about the death penalty. First, in general terms, Question 88 asks if you have any views about the death penalty in general, that is, as opposed to any particular case, what are they? And you said basically you're undecided.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Do you want to amplify that or --
JUROR: I kind of lean more strongly towards not giving the death penalty. Now, that doesn't mean to say that I am for or totally against the death penalty. I just think it needs to be to certain cases. I know there would have to be, for me, a strong opinion -- a good amount of evidence given for that person to have to receive the death penalty. There has to be a strong persuasion on my part or a good persuasion. So I generally lean against opposing the death penalty, but that doesn't mean I'm throwing it out the window, so to speak.
THE COURT: In the next question it asks, sort of to take your temperature on that, it runs from strongly opposed to strongly favor, 1 to 10, and you selected 4. Is that consistent, you think, with what you just told us?
JUROR: Absolutely, yes.
THE COURT: Slightly on the side of opposed but somewhere in the middle?
JUROR: Yeah. But I feel, like, for some circumstances, it could be given, but I do generally oppose the death penalty, yes.
THE COURT: Okay. So that 4 might have been a 3?
JUROR: 3, 4, 3.5. I'll meet you right in the middle.
THE COURT: All right. Look at Question 90 on the next page.
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Here we asked you, rather than picking a number, to express -- to look at one of these options to put in words, and you selected (c). And you said, "I'm opposed to the death penalty, but I could vote to impose it if I believed that the facts and the law in a particular case called for it." Is that --
JUROR: That represents how I feel, yes.
THE COURT: That's, I guess, pretty much what you've already told us.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: So you're not prepared to go into a case committed to one way or the other? You're going to --
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: -- take each case on its own?
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Question 93 because it sort of relates to what we've been trying to assess here. The comment you wrote in 93 is, "Life imprisonment is a great" -- I think that's what it says, "a great alternative to the death penalty."
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Can you --
JUROR: You want me to explain that?
THE COURT: Yeah.
JUROR: I think that -- well, from what I've heard -- not from what I heard but -- I would say that life imprisonment is generally what I would give to people just being mostly opposed to the death penalty. That's not to say that, again, I'm throwing -- I'm wicked opposed to the death penalty. However, I just think that, through a lot of these cases, if it's not a completely special circumstance, that life imprisonment is an alternative that can be used.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MR. WEINREB: My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case. I just want to ask you a couple of follow-up questions about the death penalty.
JUROR: Absolutely.
MR. WEINREB: It sounds like you're a person who has given some thought to whether the -- you're for or against the death penalty in general.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. WEINREB: But a lot of times people don't really give a lot of thought to the question of -- a slightly different question, which is, if you were personally on a jury that had to consider whether someone should live or die for a crime that they had been convicted of, whether you could actually impose the death penalty. Have you given that any thought?
JUROR: I have, yes.
MR. WEINREB: And so the question is -- not talking about this case, just in general, as a -- if you were on a jury where the jury had convicted the defendant of a crime for which the death penalty was a possible sentence; and then taking it the next step, you had heard evidence for and against the death penalty in that particular case, and you had decided that this was one of those rare cases where the death penalty was an appropriate sentence. Could you do it? Could you vote to send someone to their death knowing you could never take that back?
JUROR: I could, yes.
MR. WEINREB: Thank you.
JUROR: Yup.
MS. CONRAD: Good afternoon. My name is Miriam Conrad. I'm one of Mr. Tsarnaev's lawyers.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
MS. CONRAD: I just have a few questions for you. I think it's on Question 81 on Page 21. You indicated that your sister reported on the events surrounding the Marathon bombing.
JUROR: Yes. She -- from what I do remember, she reported something along the lines of -- I know she was working for Somerville Times. I believe she reported something like -- just a small thing on kind of what had happened.
MS. CONRAD: So she wasn't physically at the scene?
JUROR: I don't believe so. I cannot tell you exactly where my sister has been.
MS. CONRAD: But has she told you anything about what she did or what she saw?
JUROR: From what she told me, she -- I know she was gathering facts the night of -- I believe what had happened was a car chase. And she said she was trying to gather, like, facts from witnesses or something like that. I don't know what was said. I didn't even read the article.
And another thing she had told me was that during -- I know there was a curfew. During the curfew, a lot of people were inside. And she said -- she had mentioned to me that the only thing open was a Dunkin' Donuts, which, being from here, I could believe.
But from that, that's pretty much all I've heard about that. I don't know really -- I haven't read what she had written, and I don't really know much up until that. But I do know that she had written some kind of story regarding the events. I don't know how in-depth or in detail it was but --
MS. CONRAD: And have you ever seen the story or read the story?
JUROR: No, I have not.
MS. CONRAD: You also -- if I could just ask you to turn to two pages back, on Page 19. You said, in answer to Question 74, that you were interested, when you got your jury summons, in the fact that this is a publicized case. Can you just tell me a little bit more about that?
JUROR: I was interested -- let me see. Yes. I had heard from friends -- when I -- previously, when I got the jury summons, I had no idea. So the night before I had heard from friends, oh, you might get this case. So, to me, I believe that is a little bit interesting just because, being anyone from Boston, you've heard of what happens -- or what happened. I don't know. I don't know what else to say from that. I believe -- I don't know. It is kind of interesting to me to see but -- yeah.
MS. CONRAD: Did your friends say anything to you about the possibility that you might be on the jury in this case?
MR. WEINREB: Your Honor, I object to all these questions about what friends thought and felt. It's not really about whether this juror should be struck for cause.
THE COURT: I think I'll allow this. The Question 75 said you told friends about it. I guess we can find out what you may have been thinking as a result of those conversations.
JUROR: Absolutely. I'm sorry. Could you ask the question one more time?
MS. CONRAD: I just wanted to know what your friends said when they realized you might be on this jury.
JUROR: They just thought it was a big deal.
MS. CONRAD: Thank you.
JUROR: Absolutely.
THE COURT: That's it? Okay. Thank you, sir.
COURT CLERK: 156.
COURT CLERK: Juror 156.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please, if you would. Have a seat right here.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were last here and filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to abide by my instructions not to discuss the substance of the case with anyone and to try to avoid any media coverage of the case?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: So that is the questionnaire you filled out last time, and we're going to basically ask some follow-up questions to some of the things you've indicated in the questionnaire. Let me start with: You're a graduate of Middlebury College?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: What year?
JUROR: 2010.
THE COURT: I guess, after graduating, you were a teacher for a couple years, and now you're with Galatea Associates?
JUROR: Yeah. Teacher for two years, and I've been at Galatea since then.
THE COURT: What is Galatea Associates?
JUROR: We do IT consulting for investment banks.
THE COURT: What do you do particularly?
JUROR: Actually a mix of software development, so actually writing code and also kind of business analyst.
THE COURT: We asked, in Question 10 on Page 5, if you want to look at it -- you don't have to -- if you were selected to serve on the jury in this case, because of the length of the trial and so on, whether it would be a significant hardship for you. Does it present you with any problems at work?
JUROR: No. I mean, yes.
THE COURT: It does for anybody. The question is: Would it be unusually difficult or anything?
JUROR: I think no, I think no.
THE COURT: Social media, you indicated in Question 30 that you're on LinkedIn, but you don't use it very often.
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: Do you use any other social media?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram?
JUROR: I don't have any of those.
THE COURT: You live in the software world, right?
JUROR: Yeah. I used to have a Facebook, but it just was -- I don't know. It's a waste of time.
THE COURT: Okay. In Question 42, we asked about prior jury service, and you said you were summonsed but not chosen for jury duty in state court last year, I guess, 2014.
JUROR: That was -- yup.
THE COURT: Where was that?
JUROR: Woburn.
THE COURT: Did you report?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And then you spent the day hanging around and got discharged or something, is that right?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Is that -- okay. On Pages 17 and 18, we asked a series of questions about attitudes about current events or also other issues, such as attitudes towards Islam and Muslims and so on, some of the things that might come up during the course of the trial. You answered all those. One of the answers you gave on Question 62 is that you think that the War on Terror is overblown or exaggerated. Could you just amplify on that?
JUROR: Sure. I think -- I just -- I don't really know what the War on Terror means. I don't know. It's just one of these things that's been going on for a while. You wonder what's actually being accomplished or what's actually being done that's good. So it's one of those things that I'm not, I don't know, thrilled about it, I guess is maybe what I was indicating there.
THE COURT: Have you noticed or followed reports about a shooting in Paris in the last month or so?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: How closely have you followed that?
JUROR: I would, like, read some of the news articles on my phone on the train ride in, kind of thing, not -- I don't know, so some articles, I guess, not --
THE COURT: Okay. Knowing about that, does that change any of the answers you gave in these questions?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Let me ask you to look at Page 19, Questions 74 and 75. You said you were a little annoyed when you got the summons because you had just gotten a summons.
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: And a little nervous as well. And then somebody asked you if you had tried to get out of it, and you replied you would just be honest. Can you maybe tell us what you were thinking when you gave us those answers?
JUROR: Sure, yeah. The little annoyed, it's because I had just had the jury summons.
THE COURT: What month was that, by the way?
JUROR: Yikes. April.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: Plus or minus a month maybe. Of course, then it was explained to me that it's -- federal is unrelated. The nervous, it's just a nervous -- it's a -- it's something I'm not -- I don't do every day, right? This is something different.
Yeah, you know, people, you know, when I -- people say would you try and get out of it or do you want to do it or you don't want to do it? I kind of just decided, well, I'm not going to have an opinion. I'll just answer all the questions and whatever happens, happens.
THE COURT: All right. Turn to the next page. At Question 77 we asked whether, as a result of things you've read or seen in the news or maybe you learned from other sources, whether you had formed an opinion about, first, whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty and then, secondly, if he was, what penalty might be imposed. You checked "unsure" for each of those. Can you just explain why you made that selection or what you intended to convey by that?
JUROR: Yeah. I think I was intending to convey that I don't know. I mean, I don't -- I don't know.
THE COURT: We ask jurors to -- who actually participate in a criminal trial to listen to the evidence in the trial and determine whether on that evidence the government's proved its case or not. You understand that every criminal defendant is presumed at the outset, until the jury verdict, to be innocent and that the burden is upon the government to prove otherwise at trial. Do you understand that that's the basic premise of our criminal justice system?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: The question is never in the -- this is -- I'm referring to -- in this case, it would be what might be the first phase of a two-phase trial. But it would come first, and it would be -- the proposition would be, charged with this crime, is he proved guilty of that crime or not? And the government bears the burden of proving it. They make the proposition, and they have the responsibility and the burden of proving it. And if they don't carry the burden, the defendant's entitled to be found not guilty. Right?
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The burden never shifts to the defendant to explain why he is not guilty. The burden is with the government to prove that he is by the evidence. Do you have any -- think you would have any difficulty faithfully applying those principles if you were a juror in this case?
JUROR: No, I don't see any problem with that.
THE COURT: You were -- turn the page to the next, Question 81. You sheltered in place with other people. You said --
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: -- it impacted you and your friends.
JUROR: Yeah. On that --
THE COURT: Where were you living then? Were you living in Cambridge then?
JUROR: Yeah, I was living in Cambridge. On that day actually -- I take the red line to work. I left early for work. The red line was closed, so I had to actually bike to work that day. But then I had to then shelter in place at the office. I was at the office.
THE COURT: Was the office also in Cambridge?
JUROR: Somerville.
THE COURT: When did you get to leave?
JUROR: I don't know, in the afternoon sometime. I don't know anymore.
THE COURT: Does having done that, does that -- actually having been compelled to do that, does that leave you with any resentment or any other feelings that would interfere with your ability to be a fair judge of the evidence in this case?
JUROR: I don't think so, no.
THE COURT: Let's turn to the questions about the potential penalties. Beginning -- this is Page 23. Beginning at Question 88, we asked for some -- first, there's a series of questions that deal with your attitudes or beliefs about the death penalty. The first one asks, in general, what your views may be. And you said, in general, not a huge fan. Can you maybe tell us what you meant by that?
JUROR: Yeah. I guess it's something I think I've thought about before and certainly since filling out this questionnaire. I think I just don't -- in general, I think that's true. I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty, but I think I also know that I don't really know. It's been -- I don't really know how to think about it properly or -- I don't know. So, in general, it seems like one of those things that -- you know, maybe one of those things that you wish we would never need to do, but maybe there are times when we need to do it.
THE COURT: Okay. In the next question, we asked you to kind of indicate on a scale from 1 to 10, from strongly opposed to strongly favor, where you might be. You selected 4. As you think about it, do you think that was the right choice for you to indicate the view you had?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: That's -- okay.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And then, if you turn to the next page, Question 90, instead of asking you to pick a number, here we ask you to pick a statement that you thought came close to you. You picked (d), which was, you're not for or against the death penalty. You could vote to impose it, or you could vote to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without release whichever you thought was called for by the facts and law of the particular case. Is that a --
JUROR: Yeah, I think that's correct. I agree.
THE COURT: Just to push you a little on that, what you previously told us might be closer to (c)?
JUROR: Yeah. That's fair, yeah. I guess what I was getting at in this question, I think, was the point which said whichever I believe was called for by the facts and the law kind of, you know. I think I could -- I don't know.
THE COURT: That's the important part of the statement, either one of those statements; is that what you're saying?
JUROR: I suppose that statement is in both anyway, yeah.
THE COURT: So, in summary, if you had the decision to make in a particular case, as I'm hearing what you say, you would have to hear the evidence, perhaps the evidence favoring the imposition of a death penalty and the evidence opposing it, and then evaluate all that and make a decision, is that -- is that what you're saying essentially?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah, I think so.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. WEINREB: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Weinreb. I'm one of the prosecutors in the case.
So I wanted to ask you if you could elaborate a bit on some of those answers.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: As you know, this is a case in which, if the defendant is found guilty, the death penalty will be a possibility if he's found guilty of a capital crime. And so we're trying to get a sense of whether jurors can fulfill their duties in that respect.
So turning back to your answer to 88, you said, "In general, I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty." Could you explain a little more why you're not a huge fan of it?
JUROR: Yeah. I guess it kind of comes down to, I think, like, it's -- I don't know. I guess probably, if I were the one to write the laws or if that were a choice, I probably wouldn't -- I don't know if I would make the death penalty an option perhaps. But that being said, I recognize that, you know, I think about it, and you think that perhaps there's a situation that -- where it would be warranted. I guess I just don't know. It's kind of a conflicting thing.
MR. WEINREB: Well, let me ask you to stick with the first part of that for a minute.
JUROR: Sure.
MR. WEINREB: Why wouldn't you, if you were writing the laws, not make it an option? What would be your reason for doing that?
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, is this an appropriate area to question?
THE COURT: Well, I think -- yeah. I think the follow-up on the -- I think what we want to get at is your views of the death penalty as a matter of public policy, whether you think it's -- you would be inclined to think it's good public policy to have it available or if you think it's a good public policy that it not be available, whatever. I think that's what the questions are trying to get at.
MR. WEINREB: Well --
THE COURT: As a general --
MR. WEINREB: That actually wasn't my question. I'm sorry.
THE COURT: Can you answer that one?
JUROR: Whether I think it's a useful public policy or --
THE COURT: Useful, beneficial, moral or otherwise. I'm not trying to put the words in your mouth. I want you to say it. That's the sort of idea we're getting at.
JUROR: I don't -- it's one of those things, if I think about it in the abstract or some sort of place that doesn't exist, some sort of philosophical domain, it seems like it makes sense in certain cases. I don't really know what that means, "in certain cases" or what. I think then you think about it in practice, and I wonder whether, in the real world where we live, you know, whether or not -- what is it -- what does it accomplish or other -- I don't know -- other problems associated with it. I don't know.
THE COURT: Okay. Ask your question.
MS. CLARKE: Well, that was what I was trying to stop.
THE COURT: Well, I want to hear it again.
MR. WEINREB: First of all, do you think it's immoral?
JUROR: No, I don't think that.
MR. WEINREB: So here we are in the real world, and it's not a theoretical question. There is a death penalty, as you know. And the question that we need to know -- or the question I would like to know the answer to from you is -- I'm not talking about this case or this defendant but just imagining yourself in a situation where you're on a jury and the jury has convicted the defendant of a capital crime. And now you have to decide, you personally, whether to sentence this person to life or death.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
MR. WEINREB: And you'll have the benefit of a penalty phase of the trial where you'll hear evidence that may suggest to you that one penalty is the appropriate one or the other one is the appropriate one. But either way, it won't be a theoretical question anymore. It will be -- if you vote for death, you will be handing out a death sentence to another human being. Otherwise, you will be handing out a life sentence to somebody who may have done something that you find was very serious. Putting yourself in that situation, can you see yourself actually sentencing someone to death?
JUROR: Yeah, I think I could, yeah. If it -- I think what -- with the right -- I guess my role there would be to decide what's the criteria for which direction I should choose.
MR. WEINREB: Let's say that the Court gave you some guidance on that.
JUROR: Yup.
MR. WEINREB: And then you heard evidence one way -- you heard evidence both suggesting that this was an appropriate case for the death penalty, and you heard evidence that this was not an appropriate case for the death penalty. But in the end, there's no formula, no checklist, for determining it. It's up to you. You have to weigh the evidence and decide ultimately whether you believe that it's the appropriate sentence and not just as a theoretical matter, but you have to decide whether an actual human being should live or die. Could you do it?
JUROR: Yeah, I think I could.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. And I appreciate your trying -- your effort here. But rather than -- it's hard to put yourself in that position. It's hard to predict. But I'd like to see if I could push you a little beyond "I think I could."
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I think he's trying to push for a commitment.
THE COURT: Yeah, I think so too. I think the last answer was fine.
MR. WEINREB: Let me ask you another thing. Just to make it a little less hypothetical, can you imagine circumstances in your mind where the death penalty would be an appropriate sentence?
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, I think that's a stakeout.
THE COURT: Yeah. I think we have to be careful of that. I agree. It comes close.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. I'm not asking you to imagine what the particular circumstances would be, but can you imagine -- is there any case in your mind, in other words, so not just that it's hypothetically possible, but as a real practical matter, is there any case that -- in which the death penalty would be appropriate, actually appropriate?
MS. CLARKE: I think this --
THE COURT: No. I think that one is okay. Go ahead and answer that.
JUROR: I guess I don't quite understand the question. You said not hypothetical, but could I imagine a scenario?
MR. WEINREB: I'm trying to avoid suggesting to you or having you suggest to us what the actual criteria would be for you imposing the death penalty but get at a slightly higher level of abstraction, which is, simply, is it a real thing that you could do -- could you really imagine a situation where you have concluded that the death penalty is appropriate, or is that something that just really exists only as a hypothetical possibility for you?
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, he's answered.
THE COURT: No. He can answer that.
JUROR: Yes. I think there are -- there is a circumstance or scenario where I think it would be warranted.
MR. WEINREB: Okay. Thanks very much.
MS. CLARKE: Thank you.
THE COURT: Nothing?
MS. CLARKE: Thank you very much.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Just leave that there. We'll put it back together. I guess we have three left. I think we'll break, come back at 2 if that's okay.
MR. BRUCK: Sure.
(Luncheon recess taken at 1:11 p.m.)
(After the recess:)
(The Court enters the courtroom at 2:06 p.m.)
THE COURT: Ready for 158?
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 158.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 158.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat, if you would. Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were last here. I'm going to follow up on some of the answers in there and ask a few other questions.
Since that day when you filled it out have you been able to abide by my instructions not to discuss the case with anybody and to kind of avoid any media accounts that touched on the case?
JUROR: Correct, right.
THE COURT: You're a graduate of Assumption College?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What year did you graduate?
JUROR: 2011.
THE COURT: Question 24, apparently you say you took a course on "Terrorism in Modern Society"?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Could you tell us what that content -- the course content was, generally speaking?
JUROR: Yeah. I was a political science minor and I took several political science courses, and one of them was terrorism my senior year. And it basically went through different histories including some in Russia, some in the Middle East, as well as -- like my focus on there was -- we were taking a different organization and recounted the history and wrote several reports on different aspects of that organization. My particular one was the NIRA, which was the northern Irish terrorist group.
THE COURT: Okay. So was this like a team, you have -- were you working by yourself on that project?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Each student had a separate organization?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Sometimes you work in teams.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And what were some of the others? After you did that and you did your report, you presented it to the class or just to the teacher?
JUROR: Just to the teacher. It was different reports. Like one was -- it was 2011. I'm trying to remember everything. But, yeah, like the resources, how they would recruit people and how they would make their money and how they would spread their message, basically was each different report.
THE COURT: Okay. I see. Okay. And was this a full semester course?
JUROR: Yes. Yes.
THE COURT: And while you were focused on the Northern Ireland group, did you also -- you also learn about or study what I guess would be characterized as terrorist groups from other parts of the world?
JUROR: Yeah, correct.
THE COURT: Including the Middle East?
JUROR: Including the Middle East.
THE COURT: Including South Asia?
JUROR: Yup.
THE COURT: Including the Caucasus region?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: All those?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Any others?
JUROR: South America as well.
THE COURT: South America?
JUROR: And Africa, yeah.
THE COURT: East Asia?
JUROR: East Asia, yeah. Mostly --
THE COURT: When I said South Asia before, I was thinking of Afghanistan and the Kazakhstan area.
JUROR: A lot of the more modern stuff was more Middle East; the rest of it was other parts of the country focused mainly on -- not the country but the world -- was history related, so early 20th century.
THE COURT: Early 20th century?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: I was going to ask how far back in history did you go. Just early 20th century?
JUROR: Yeah, I guess World War I and a little bit before that as well, yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. That was your minor? What was your major?
JUROR: History. History was my major.
THE COURT: And now you're employed as a contractor?
JUROR: Yeah. It's --
THE COURT: For the Federal Department of Transportation doing programming?
JUROR: Yeah, it's a system analyst. And it's basically what I do is I work on a safety program and that works with different DMVs. So it's basically I help people with the files to understand them, if they have any questions. It deals with, like, trucks and motor carriers and seeing which ones are safe and should be on the road.
THE COURT: Your direct employer is -- I can't read the writing.
JUROR: JJJ Microsystems.
THE COURT: JJJ?
JUROR: And they're contracted by the Federal Department of Transportation.
THE COURT: All right. Is this a salaried position?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: And you'll be okay if you get picked for this jury --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- salary-wise? Yeah, okay.
Tell us about what you do on social media. You note, I guess here, that you are sometimes on Twitter and occasionally on Facebook.
JUROR: Yeah. Facebook: I don't do a whole lot of Facebook. Basically, I'm there to get invites to different events. And then I do check Twitter every day. I have a lot of sports things that I look at entertainment-wise, but I don't really post a lot.
THE COURT: To the extent you do post, is it in that subject matter, sports and stuff?
JUROR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. TV, sports.
THE COURT: Nothing about this, I presume?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: We asked you some questions on pages 17 and 18 about your attitude towards various topics including the War on Terror.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Attitudes towards Islam or Muslims and so on and so forth. Do you remember answering all those?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Have you paid attention to the recent events in Paris, the terror attack there?
JUROR: Not a whole lot, but I understand what happened in a minimal sense, yeah.
THE COURT: Would anything about that lead you to change any of the things you said in response to the questions on 17 and 18 roughly?
JUROR: Not entirely. I mean, yeah, I did see one, like, news story that changed my mind -- not entirely -- but a little bit. Yeah, it did affect me a little bit.
THE COURT: In what respect?
JUROR: Let's see. Yeah, I missed -- I misspoke there. Yeah, I agree with my answers. I was thinking about something else. No, but I agree with my answers there.
THE COURT: Okay. Most of them were sort of negative. No content, I guess.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: One, 62, said, "Do you believe the War on Terror is overblown or exaggerated?" and you said yes. Can you tell us a little bit about your thoughts on that matter?
JUROR: Yeah, I believe in regards to the War on Terror that -- yeah, some people have unfairly targeted Muslims, and that's what I think. When I think "overblown," I don't think a lot of people are as informed as they should be. And that's mainly what I think: If they were more informed, then they would have a better, more reasonable approach to that I'd say is what I mean.
THE COURT: In Question 74 we asked what your reaction was when you received your jury summons. You said you were surprised. And then you said you were worried about missing work.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: But I've asked you about that and you said that's not a concern at this point?
JUROR: Well, I started the job around five months ago so it's a new job. What I was saying worried about missing work was more training aspects. Sometimes we go on-site training which I haven't been a part of yet. That's mainly what I mean. I'm not worried about my responsibilities being taken care of; I'm more worried about missing opportunities, basically.
THE COURT: So if there was an off-site training or something like that during the period you were serving, would you be able to make it up and catch up later or not?
JUROR: Yeah. Yeah, we do trainings every year.
THE COURT: So that's manageable?
JUROR: Yeah, manageable. Definitely.
THE COURT: All right.
On page 20, if you look at Question 77, we asked you to let us know whether you had formed an opinion based on news media and so on, and about -- the first two parts are whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and then the second two parts relate to the potential penalty. This is not entirely clear to me, what your answers are on that response. Focus on A and B for now.
JUROR: Yeah. A, I said yes, and then B is -- it was unsure. What I mean by saying -- I believe there's a measurement of guilt there.
THE COURT: There is what?
JUROR: I think there's guilt there, I just don't -- I'm unsure of the extent. I'm a fact-oriented person. I like to know facts before I make my decision up. And when I say "guilty," I think there's not 100 percent innocence there, is basically --
THE COURT: Well, if you look down to what you wrote under Question 78, you said, "I think he's not 100 percent innocent or 100 percent guilty. I want to hear the facts." Is that what you're trying to say now?
JUROR: Yeah, basically.
THE COURT: Well, you understand that in our criminal justice system a person is accused of a crime is -- just because of the accusal is presumed to be innocent of that unless the government proves at trial that he's guilty of what he's been charged with.
JUROR: Yeah, I understand that. But more what I mean is I think that, like, officers do their job and there has to be a reason why someone is brought in. I'm not saying that -- I guess I'm just -- basically what I said. I don't believe --
THE COURT: Well, I guess what I was trying to get at was if you were a juror in the case, would you be able to put aside any thoughts you might have had from prior to the beginning of the case and listen to the evidence presented in the case and make a judgment about guilt or innocence based solely on the evidence presented in the trial guided by the law, obviously --
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: -- rather than being influenced by a pretrial, if I can call it that, pretrial opinion.
JUROR: Yeah. If I saw, like, facts and evidence supporting innocence, then, yeah, I would definitely listen to those.
THE COURT: Well, you say "supporting innocence." You know that the defendant does not have a burden to prove he's not guilty.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: The burden is always with the government. So it's really a focus on whether the government's evidence has been convincing enough as to guilt, and in the absence of convincing evidence, the jury's obligation would be to find that the person is not guilty.
JUROR: Again, I like making the decision based on facts. So if -- again, I would be open to changing my mind based on the facts I saw.
THE COURT: But you have to change your mind. I guess that's what I'm trying to get at.
JUROR: Yeah, yeah.
THE COURT: So you start with the presumption against the defendant?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask you about the death penalty questions.
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Let's start at page 23, Number 88.
MR. BRUCK: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm sorry?
MR. BRUCK: We're content.
THE COURT: You don't need any follow-up on these questions?
MR. BRUCK: No.
THE COURT: All right. So that takes away my last question. So thank you.
JAMES MCALEAR: Thank you, sir.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: I just wanted to be sure I had the signal correct, that's all.
Hold off a minute.
(Pause.)
[REDACTED]
COURT CLERK: Are we back on, Judge?
THE COURT: Yes. Bring him in.
MS. CLARKE: Your Honor, he apparently marked another one private.
THE COURT: We'll do that with him when he's here. Which one? What number?
MS. CLARKE: Number 41.
THE COURT: All right.
(In open court:)
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 159.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 159.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, if you would, please. Have a seat.
JUROR: Thank you.
COURT CLERK: And make sure you speak into the mic so everyone around here can hear you.
JUROR: All right.
A little too much.
THE COURT: Powerful.
Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: That's the questionnaire you filled out when you were last with us. Since that time have you been able to abide by my instructions to avoid discussion of the case with anyone?
JUROR: I think I misinterpreted -- some of the substance itself of the case, no; some of the logistics I have looked into -- or people have talked to me about jury selection somewhat, but not knowing specifics, just told me --
THE COURT: Like what? People who have been through the process?
JUROR: No, no, no, people just heard the news and said, "Well, I heard that they were going to pick 100" and this and that type of thing. That kind of information has not been in my mind -- at the time was not something that I should not be discussing. I was thinking more of the details of the particular case.
THE COURT: What we're mostly concerned about is the substance of the case.
JUROR: Right. The substance of the case, no. I have avoided conversations, I have walked away from discussions.
THE COURT: Have people tried to discuss it with you?
JUROR: Somewhat. They know I'm a potential. It's just natural in the marketplace, I mean, to -- for people to be interested -- and not to learn from me as much as share their opinions, possibly.
THE COURT: To try to maybe influence you?
JUROR: I wouldn't think as much influence. The people that I'm thinking of is it's just a conversation point of interest.
THE COURT: All right. How about avoiding any extended exposure to media coverage of the --
JUROR: No media coverage.
There is one other aspect of the -- well, it's not an aspect of the case, but in terms of my questionnaire. I have done -- in my questionnaire -- well, I have done more soul-searching, I guess, on the death penalty.
THE COURT: We'll come to that.
JUROR: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: We'll come to that. That's one of the things we're going to follow up on.
JUROR: All right.
THE COURT: Tell us what you do. You work for Gloworks, it's called?
JUROR: Gloworks. It's a lighting showroom -- electric lighting showroom, a very small business. And I'm one of -- besides the owner, I think I'm one of three full-time employees. It's a small business.
THE COURT: Okay. One of the questions we asked early in the questionnaire was -- after describing the schedule we're going to follow and the likely length of the trial and so on and so forth, we asked whether you thought this was going to be an exceptional hardship for you if you were called to serve, and you wrote "Do not know until confer with employer."
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Have you done that?
JUROR: I have. And he was very negative to the possibility of paying me for my regular hours. You know, it would be a financial hardship at $40 a day. It would be a hardship, not necessarily could not be overcome.
THE COURT: How would it be overcome?
JUROR: It would probably be overcome from summertime with money and potentially -- potentially talking to him because I was -- I was willing -- I'm willing to go in work Fridays and Saturdays, if that's acceptable to the Court.
THE COURT: Sure.
JUROR: And even --
THE COURT: One of the reasons we set the schedule the way we did, so people would have Friday at least.
JUROR: Yeah, Friday and evenings. So I would hope he may -- I think his biggest concern is that it could harm the business itself. I asked him this past week if he could -- if I did not need to get paid at all, would he still feel the same way and he said, "You know, we had a hard time when you were on vacation," so...
THE COURT: So this is a showroom?
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Is this where both contractors and, say, homeowners --
JUROR: Builders and homeowners.
THE COURT: -- would come in?
So you have all the display and then people --
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: -- talk to somebody like yourself about what they might want to buy and so on and so forth?
JUROR: Like myself, right, about something they want to buy. I will do the sales and I will do the purchasing as well. So I'm pretty much -- I've been there longer than the boss, the owner has, so I pretty much do soup to nuts.
THE COURT: The traffic of customers might be different in terms of its ebb and flow of it depending on whether you're talking about the contractors or the homeowners. Would that be true? Let me just say one thing: I was thinking for homeowners, it might be evenings and Saturday that you would see --
JUROR: We're open just nine to five-thirty and then Saturday nine to three.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR: But a good majority of my work is actually doing the ordering and troubleshooting.
THE COURT: Back office kind of thing you mean?
JUROR: Hmm?
THE COURT: Not on the sales floor, if you can call it that?
JUROR: The good majority is not on the sales floor. I -- we have some capable salespeople that -- a couple that will -- I do have some regular customers that are very important but potentially could keep track of them.
I think the biggest concern for me is my employer. And, you know, you had even mentioned if I was a potential juror and you felt I was important -- you had mentioned you could potentially even call, which I don't know if that's a possibility, but...
THE COURT: Well, it sounds like you're pretty unsure about what the impact would be. Is that it?
JUROR: Yeah, I'm pretty unsure myself of what the impact would be.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: Bear with us just a moment.
(Pause.)
MR. BRUCK: It might make sense to go right to the concern expressed by the juror.
THE COURT: Yeah. So let me actually ask a few lead-up questions. We may jump around a little bit. We asked about whether you'd been -- had been at all involved in -- this is Question 39, if you want to look at it. It's on page 13. Involved in any effort to reform the laws, and you say you attempted to get a pro-life question on the Mass. ballot several years ago?
JUROR: Yes, I did some door-to-door -- there was a -- Massachusetts had a potential ballot question that was -- enough signatures were garnished but it was turned down by the attorney general. This must have been back in the early '80s. And it was a question about when life begins.
THE COURT: Okay. So let's talk about your attitude towards the death penalty.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: This is on page 23. Beginning with Question 88 we began to ask a series of questions to try to find out in different ways what your attitudes toward the death penalty would be. The first one was a very general one, whether you had any views about the death penalty in general, and if so, what were they. And you wrote, "Having a hard time with this question. Understand justice but let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
Could you interpret that for us or tell us what you were getting at?
JUROR: Sure. I've never put deep thought into the question. I always considered -- I think another point I considered myself against the death penalty. And the justification for my viewpoint in that was when Jesus dealt with the woman caught in adultery and they were -- they wanted to -- and Pharisees wanted to stone the woman. And Jesus did not say that the penalty -- the crime did not fit the penalty but he told the group that wanted -- actually, they brought the woman to him as a test, and his response was not that the penalty was not right but that anyone without sin should cast the first stone.
THE COURT: You take that to heart?
JUROR: I have -- I have -- that was in my limited research and limited soul-searching on the issue. That was the strongest statement I had to sway my viewpoints. I have since had stronger.
THE COURT: Tell us about that.
JUROR: Well, when I -- when I got my summons and it was for January 5th and I realized that January 5th was the beginning of this trial and suspected that there was a good possibility that this was the trial I was being summoned to, I immediately questioned because of the -- what I understood it to be was, you know, what would happen if I was -- had to make the decision. So I started do some soul-searching, some research.
And before we met for this questionnaire I had actually talked to six people that I had respected, and at the time when I walked in here had not had anyone articulate clearly enough for one side or another. And so when I filled this out, I was quite confused on the issue. I had three people on one side of the issue and three people on the other but none really articulated very well.
And then I ended up reading a statement by Chuck Colson, a personal statement written by Chuck Colson, which is called "Personal Statement" -- his personal statement on capital punishment, and I found an articulate reason to believe that capital punishment was a very necessary part of our laws -- body of laws, and without it there could be no true justice, there could be no true mercy. Actually, without the ultimate justice, there could be no true mercy.
So I came to -- and he basically summed up his viewpoint three ways -- in three statements. Should I make those statements?
THE COURT: If they're what you're thinking about, yes.
JUROR: The first statement is that capital punishment preserves the sacredness of life and its protection; the second is that -- excuse me. It's for the respect of life, respect of the sacredness of life. Respect for the sacredness of life and its protection. The second reason, the second necessity, is for preservation of law and order in society; and the third is for the point -- purpose of attainment of justice through the law.
And I have come to believe that there needs to be a civil law with the ultimate penalty for the ultimate crime, but I do not discount the possibility that mercy can be pleaded for and requested, especially for those who are closest to the situation. I would not -- even though the -- even though the law is there, I think it would be admirable for those closest to the situation to plead for mercy but I have -- I have begun to wonder if seated on a jury, if I would be representing civil authority and would not have the right from my vantage point or being unaffected, if I would have the right to be calling for mercy. That is something that I would continue to work through.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRUCK: That clears it up for the parties. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Satisfied?
Thank you very much.
JUROR: All right.
(The juror is excused.)
THE COURT: Hold on a sec.
MS. CONRAD: There's an issue here, your Honor.
THE COURT: Yeah, okay.
All right. You can bring him in.
COURT CLERK: Juror No. 161.
JAMES MCALEAR: Juror No. 161.
COURT CLERK: Sir, over here, please. Have a seat, if you would. Make sure you speak into the mic so everyone can hear you.
JUROR: Sure.
THE COURT: Good afternoon.
JUROR: Good afternoon.
THE COURT: Since you were here when you filled out the questionnaire, have you been able to follow my instructions to avoid discussion of the case?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And to avoid as best you could any media reporting of the case?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. The first thing I want to ask you about, I see from the form your wife is a lawyer?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: What type of law does she practice?
JUROR: It's basically general practice. For the most part she does a lot of medical malpractice representing Southcoast Hospital groups. And then she does a lot of other stuff.
THE COURT: Is it mostly a civil practice as opposed to criminal law?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: Does she do any criminal law?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Has she ever?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Like been in a DA's office or anything like that?
JUROR: Class-action civil litigation before that, and that's it.
THE COURT: You yourself are -- it looks like it says manager of the restaurant group?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: How many restaurants?
JUROR: In total under the Newport Restaurant Group we have seven, and then we've also acquired six Paparazzi restaurants as well under a separate umbrella, under the Newport Harbor Corp.
THE COURT: And what is the role of the manager? That's you.
JUROR: I'm in charge of the day-to-day operation at my location at my particular business.
THE COURT: You have a particular restaurant location that you manage?
JUROR: Correct. Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. We'd asked -- we'd set out earlier in the questionnaire the schedule we're going to be following and so on, and asked whether that was going to be a problem of serious nature for somebody to serve on, and you said no. Are you satisfied with that?
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, I would be fine. I work ridiculous hours. I mean, the schedule itself was not a problem.
THE COURT: What is the -- where -- never mind. I don't care.
Let me ask it the other way. What are the hours of the restaurant you work at?
JUROR: Well, we open for business Monday through Saturday at 11:30 a.m., and we stop serving at nine Monday through Thursday. Friday is ten; Sunday we open early.
THE COURT: Right. But so Monday through Thursday, which is what our trial schedule would be, you'd be missing the lunchtime but you'd be back for dinner and afterwards. Is that possible?
JUROR: That depends. Probably not.
THE COURT: It's a long day.
JUROR: Probably not. I wouldn't want to drive from Boston down to Tiverton to go to work.
THE COURT: Is that where it is, Tiverton?
JUROR: Tiverton, Rhode Island.
So it would be pretty difficult. I understand I would be here till four, so...
THE COURT: Yeah, right.
Social media: What do you use and how often?
JUROR: Facebook every day and I have a LinkedIn account. I check it every once in a while. That's mostly professional, for networking and such.
THE COURT: What do you use Facebook for?
JUROR: Spying on friends, I guess you would say? You know, I don't do much communication on there, but...
THE COURT: So you mostly check out what other people put on there?
JUROR: Basically the feed that comes up. And that's about it, yeah. And there's cool videos on there sometimes.
THE COURT: You have a cousin who had two tours in Afghanistan?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: I assume that you mean the U.S. military tours?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: How close is the cousin to you?
JUROR: Very.
THE COURT: Do you see him a lot?
JUROR: I don't anymore. I mean, we both have families. He has a family, I work a lot. We grew up together, though. His dad was basically a substitute dad for me so... He's since gone.
THE COURT: Similar age?
JUROR: No, he's younger.
THE COURT: Is he finished with the military now or is he still in?
JUROR: He's in the reserves, so I don't believe he's finished. You know, he signed up for a second -- for his second tour. I don't -- I'm not sure whether he's getting out now.
THE COURT: You note in his first tour he saw combat?
JUROR: That's correct.
THE COURT: It's hard to be in the Afghanistan and not.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Has he talked to you about that?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Extensively?
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Question 42 you said you had been a witness in a murder case in New Bedford?
JUROR: Correct.
THE COURT: When was that?
JUROR: Oh, boy. I can't remember. It was a long time ago. I don't remember a specific year but, yeah, I must have been 18 years old, 19 years old or so, if I remember correctly. It was quite some time ago.
THE COURT: How old were you?
JUROR: Almost 18.
THE COURT: The late '90s, maybe?
JUROR: I would say so, yeah. I believe I was out of -- I was definitely out of high school by then, I would say.
THE COURT: What was your contribution to the trial? I mean, you said you were a witness. What were you able to provide as evidence and for which side, I guess?
JUROR: Well, the gentleman who murdered his wife and child was a friend of mine and we were together the day before the incident.
THE COURT: So you were a defense witness or a prosecution witness?
JUROR: Unfortunately, the prosecution. I mean, I was for the DA.
THE COURT: Okay. Has that experience left you with any feelings about the criminal justice system that might interfere with your ability to be a fair juror in this case?
JUROR: I don't believe so. I believe in the judicial system so I don't think so.
THE COURT: Do you think it worked in that case?
JUROR: Absolutely. Absolutely.
THE COURT: Let me just ask you to turn, if you would, to page 13.
Actually, I think we'll cut the audio for a minute here.
(Discussion at sidebar and out of the hearing of the public:)