Jury Voir Dire — Court and Individual Examination
1,171 linesSAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA AUGUST 31, 2021 P R O C E E D I N G S
(COURT CONVENED AT 8:55 A.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: LET'S GO ON THE RECORD IN OUR MATTER TODAY 18-258, UNITED STATES VERSUS ELIZABETH HOLMES. LET ME FIRST CAPTURE THE APPEARANCES OF THE PARTIES. WHO APPEARS FOR THE GOVERNMENT?
MR. SCHENK: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JEFF SCHENK ON BEHALF UNITED STATES, JOINED AT COUNSEL TABLE BY JOHN BOSTIC, ROBERT LEACH, KELLY VOLKAR, FBI SPECIAL AGENT ADELAIDA HERNANDEZ, AND THE PARALEGAL FOR THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MADDI WACHS.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. AND WHO APPEARS FOR THE DEFENSE?
MR. DOWNEY: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. KEVIN DOWNEY FOR MS. HOLMES. WITH ME ARE MY COLLEAGUES LANCE WADE, KATIE TREFZ, AND ALSO JOHN CLINE. MS. HOLMES IS PRESENT IN COURT TODAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING TO EACH OF YOU AS WELL. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. WE'RE ABOUT TO START THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS FOR THIS TRIAL. OUR JURY HAS NOT BEEN SUMMONED UP YET. I AM INFORMED, AND I THINK MS. KRATZMANN INFORMED YOU, THAT REGRETTABLY WE HAD SOME FAILURES TO APPEAR THIS MORNING ON OUR PANEL. AND THAT CAUSES US TO ADJUST OUR CHARTS, DOESN'T IT? SO THE JURY IS NOT UP YET, BUT IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT, I THOUGHT I WOULD GO OVER JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS IF I COULD WITH YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT OUR -- YOU KNOW, WE'VE BROKEN UP OUR PANELS IN GROUPS. WE'RE SOCIALLY DISTANCED AS YOU CAN SEE, AND WE WILL DO -- I'M INFORMED THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ONE PANEL A DAY FOR THE JURORS TO COME UP, PROSPECTIVE JURORS TO COME UP. I THINK IN OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS WE THOUGHT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH PERHAPS TWO A DAY, BUT I THINK OWING TO THE CRISIS AND THE DESIRE TO MINIMIZE TRAFFIC IN THE COURTHOUSE, WE'RE GOING TO JUST DO ONE PANEL A DAY.
SO WE'LL DO OUR FIRST SET OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS TODAY. WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD FIND SOME MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT CAN HEAR THIS CASE TODAY. IF NOT, WE'LL COME BACK TOMORROW WITH THAT SECOND PANEL, AND WE'LL DO THE SAME THING. THAT AGAIN WOULD BE AT 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE RESERVED THURSDAY IF WE NEED IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. WE WILL NOT BE IN SESSION ON FRIDAY. AT LEAST WE'RE NOT PLANNED TO BE IN SESSION ON FRIDAY. SO I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. ALSO, AS TO ANY SIDE-BAR DISCUSSIONS, WE TYPICALLY HAVE A MICROPHONE HERE, AND WE DO THEM ON THE SIDE-BAR. I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE HAD OUR SIDE-BAR CONVERSATIONS IN THE JURY ROOM, WHICH IS JUST TO MY RIGHT HERE, AND I'VE DONE THAT IN OTHER TRIALS THAT I'VE HAD THIS YEAR. THAT SEEMS TO WORK EFFICIENTLY. OUR COURT REPORTER WILL TAKE HER MACHINE IN THERE, AND WE CAN MEET IN THE JURY ROOM AND HAVE ANY SIDE-BAR DISCUSSIONS THERE. I'LL NOTE THAT, MR.
DOWNEY, YOUR CLIENT HAS WAIVED HER PARTICIPATION IN ANY SIDE-BAR CONVERSATIONS. I RECEIVED THE STIPULATION YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT I THINK IT WAS YESTERDAY THAT I SENT COUNSEL A LIST AFTER I REVIEWED THE QUESTIONNAIRES FROM THE JURORS. I REVIEWED THOSE AGAIN, AND THROUGH MS. KRATZMANN I SENT AN EMAIL TO COUNSEL IDENTIFYING A NUMBER OF JURORS THAT I'D LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT AGAIN TO CONSIDER ANY ACTION THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO TAKE ON THOSE JURORS. I WANT TO THANK YOU BOTH. BOTH SIDES MET AND CONFERRED, AND YOU BOTH GOT BACK TO MS. KRATZMANN AND INDICATED SOME AGREEMENT AS TO JURORS THAT COULD BE EXCUSED. AMONGST THOSE WERE A GROUP OF JURORS THAT HAD INDICATED ON THEIR QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THEY HAD NOT, HAD NOT BEEN VACCINATED, HAD NOT RECEIVED THEIR COVID VACCINATIONS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO THE USE OF THOSE JURORS. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT WITH YOU AND PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
THE COVID CRISIS AS WE KNOW IS UNABATED, AND IT CONTINUES IN ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES REGRETTABLY. WE ARE TAKING STEPS, AS I SAID, WITH OUR PANELS TO REDUCE FOOT TRAFFIC IN THE COURTROOM SUCH THAT WE CAN ALL BE SAFE. OF COURSE, THE MEDICAL INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IS THAT VACCINATION IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS AN INDIVIDUAL CAN DO TO ENSURE THEIR AND THEIR FAMILY AND THE COMMUNITY SAFETY. OWING TO THAT AND RECOGNIZING THAT, WE ASKED THAT QUESTION ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE. WE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION FROM THOSE JURORS, AND IT SEEMED THAT IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST ADVENTURE WITH COUNSEL. IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG TRIAL, AND I THINK SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT SHOW UP TODAY PHONED IN WITH SYMPTOMS, AND WE ADVISED THEM THROUGH OUR JURY COMMISSIONER NOT TO COME IN AT ALL JUST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE THE REASON THAT I RAISE THESE NONVACCINATED PROSPECTIVE JURORS. I THINK THERE WERE MAYBE TEN. IT WAS OUT OF THE 200 PEOPLE THAT WERE SUMMONED THERE WERE ABOUT 10 THAT WERE NOT VACCINATED. BUT LET ME HEAR FROM THE PARTIES. MR. SCHENK.
MR. SCHENK: YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT IS CORRECT THAT THE PARTIES MET AND CONFERRED AND DISCUSSED THE ISSUE OF RELEASING UNVACCINATED JURORS. AT OUR HEARING LAST WEEK THE COURT ASKED THE PARTIES TO CONSIDER THIS, AND THE PARTIES DID MEET AND CONFER OVER IT. OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEFENSE IS REQUESTING IT, AND THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OPPOSE THAT REQUEST, AND, IN FACT, WE SUPPORT THAT REQUEST, AND WE APPRECIATE THE COURT MAKING A RECORD ON THIS ISSUE. WE AGREE THAT THE CURRENT COVID CRISIS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY WOULD PRESENT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO UNVACCINATED JURORS, ESPECIALLY DURING A TRIAL OF THIS LENGTH. THE COURT HAS HAD TRIALS DURING THE COVID CRISIS BUT NOT ONE OF THIS LENGTH, AND WE THINK THAT MAKES THE SITUATION DIFFERENT THAN IN SOME PRIOR TRIALS AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT UNDUE HARDSHIP PLACED ON UNVACCINATED JURORS AND ASKING THEM TO COME TO COURT FOR SEVERAL MONTHS DURING THE LENGTH OF THIS TRIAL WOULD BE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP, AND, THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RELEASE THESE JURORS. I'M HAPPY TO READ OUT THE NUMBERS. I BELIEVE IT'S NINE
JUROR: 22, 98, 100, 103, 151, 183, 199, 218, AND 233.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. SCHENK. MR. DOWNEY.
MR. DOWNEY: WELL, FIRST, YOUR HONOR, WE AGREE WITH THE DISMISSAL AND EXCUSAL OF JURORS WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN VACCINATED FOR THE REASONS THAT I ARTICULATED LAST WEEK, AND I AGREE WITH MR. SCHENK'S IDENTIFICATION OF JURORS WHO HAVE INDICATED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT THEY HAVE THAT STATUS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND YOU AGREE WITH THE REASONS FOR AND THE SAFETY OF ALL OF US IN THE COURTROOM, BUT PARTICULARLY FOR THE JURORS WHO WILL BE SITTING NEXT TO ONE ANOTHER, ALBEIT SOCIALLY DISTANCED, BUT DISTANCED DIFFERENT THAN IN A NORMAL TRIAL, YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
MR. DOWNEY: I DO, YOUR HONOR. YOU KNOW I ARTICULATED LAST WEEK SOME JURORS WHO REMAIN ON THE PANEL MAY HAVE PARTICULAR CONCERNS THAT I KNOW THE COURT WILL BE SENSITIVE TO AS WE GO THROUGH THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS. SO WE ALSO WILL TRY TO BE SYMPATHETIC WITH RESPECT TO THOSE CONCERNS FOR INDIVIDUAL JURORS WHO HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE THAT THEY LIVE WITH WHO ARE UNVACCINATED.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR JURY PANEL BECAUSE -- AND MY SENSE IS THAT THIS WILL PROVIDE THEM SOME REASSURANCE. I'M GOING TO TALK WITH THE JURORS ABOUT THAT. BUT THANK YOU. I'LL RECEIVE YOUR STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT TO THAT AND THANK YOU. THE RECORD WILL SO REFLECT. THE OTHER ITEM I WANTED TO CHAT ABOUT FOR JUST A MOMENT IS VOIR DIRE AND HOW MUCH TIME EACH SIDE SHOULD GET FOR VOIR DIRE, AND THAT IS YOUR TIME TO SPEAK WITH THE JURORS. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TRIED CASES IN MY COURTROOM BEFORE KNOW THAT I TYPICALLY DON'T SAY, AND I THINK I SAID THIS IN OUR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE, IT'S -- I TYPICALLY DON'T GIVE A TIME LIMIT. I DO SUGGEST IN TRIALS THAT I HAVE THAT THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN ABOUT 20 MINUTES, 15, 20 MINUTES. THAT SEEMS TO WORK. SOMETIMES IT GOES A LITTLE OVER THAT. I WAS THINKING ABOUT IN ANTICIPATION OF YOUR REQUEST FOR SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO ALLOW EACH SIDE ONE HOUR, ONE HOUR OF VOIR DIRE, EACH SIDE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT. I KNOW NATURE ABHORS A VACUUM, BUT I THINK YOU ALL CAN BE VERY EFFICIENT WITH WHAT YOU DO, AND I CERTAINLY HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE LITIGATION YOU HAVE SO FAR AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, AND THAT'S THE GUIDELINES I WOULD LIKE TO IMPOSE. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
MR. SCHENK: NO QUESTIONS, THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNEY: NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LENGTH, BUT I WONDER BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN THAT YOUR HONOR'S PRACTICE IN THE PAST HAS VARIED A LITTLE BIT. I KNOW YOUR HONOR CONDUCTS VOIR DIRE DIRECTED AT INDIVIDUAL JURORS. WILL IT BE YOUR HONOR'S PREFERENCE THAT WE QUESTION JURORS INDIVIDUALLY WHEN YOUR HONOR IS DONE OR SHOULD WE WAIT UNTIL THE END TO CONDUCT ALL QUESTIONING?
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, I'M GOING TO -- THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. THE WAY THAT THIS WORKS IS THAT I'LL SPEAK WITH THE JURORS, EXCUSE ME, OUR PROSPECTIVE JURORS FIRST, AND I'LL ASK MY QUESTIONS FIRST. AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO -- I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT TODAY. I SAY THAT WITH SOME TREPIDATION, BUT I'M GOING TO -- BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS, I'VE PLACED QUESTIONNAIRES -- MS. KRATZMANN IS GOING TO HAND IT TO YOU. IT'S JUST A VERY BRIEF SIX QUESTION PAGE (HANDING). AND I THOUGHT THAT JUST OWING TO THIS TRIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING IT, I THOUGHT I WOULD ENGAGE THIS FOR EACH JUROR, PROSPECTIVE JUROR, JUST AS AN ICE BREAKER. WHAT I HAVE HANDED YOU IS I SUPPOSE TO ASK EACH PROSPECTIVE JUROR TO ANSWER AN EXAM, AND IT ASKS FOR THEIR ADDRESS, NOT ADDRESS BUT GENERAL BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION. I DO THAT, AS I SAID, AS AN ICE BREAKER FOR THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS, BUT I THINK IT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS AND THE PANEL I THINK. SO WE'LL ASK THEM TO DO THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE THEM STAND. I THINK EVEN THOSE WHO MIGHT BE SEATED IN THE BACK, I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO HEAR THEM. WE DO HAVE THE MICROPHONE. YOU SEE IT BETWEEN YOUR TABLES. IF THE JURORS FROM THE BACK WISH TO ADDRESS THE COURT AND WE'RE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING THEM, I'LL INVITE THEM TO THAT MICROPHONE. I THINK WE HAVE A -- MS. KRATZMANN, DO WE HAVE A SIMILAR MICROPHONE UP IN THE FRONT OR HAVE WE DECIDED THAT WE CAN TRY TO LISTEN TO OUR JURORS WHO ARE IN THE BOX?
COURT CLERK: YOUR HONOR, THE OPTION WOULD BE TO COME TO THE PODIUM WHERE MR. SCHENK IS OR RAISE THEIR VOICES. WE ONLY HAVE THE PODIUM OR THE MICROPHONE THERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: THAT'S FINE. I THINK THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
MR. DOWNEY: TWO QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR. ONE RELATES NOT DIRECTLY TO THAT BUT JURORS WHO WILL BE ON PANEL 2 TOMORROW.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
MR. DOWNEY: THERE'S ONE JUROR WHO IS A 78-YEAR OLD-MAN. HE STATED IN HIS QUESTIONNAIRE THAT HE HAD THE OPTION IN COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO CHECK A BOX AND BE EXCUSED --
JUDGE DAVILA: HAD HE KNOWN.
MR. DOWNEY: AT THE TIME HE DIDN'T BECAUSE I THINK THE SITUATION WITH COVID WAS NOT AS SEVERE AS HE FEARS IT WILL BECOME AND AS A LOT OF PUBLIC DISCUSSION INDICATES IT MIGHT BECOME, AND HE STATES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT IF HE WERE FILLING THAT QUESTIONNAIRE OUT TODAY HE WOULD INDICATE THAT HE WAS OVER 78 AND AUTOMATICALLY BE DISMISSED. I WANTED TO JUST NOTIFY THE COURT THAT THE DEFENSE HAS NO OBJECTION TO HIS DISMISSAL. I'VE TOLD MR. SCHENK, AND I'VE IDENTIFIED THAT ISSUE TO MR. SCHENK. THE REASON I RAISE IT IS THAT IF THE COURT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT DURING THE COURSE OF THE TODAY, AND MR. SCHENK DOES AS WELL, MAYBE WE CAN MAKE A DECISION AS TO THAT SO THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO APPEAR TOMORROW.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, I DID READ THAT QUESTIONNAIRE AND THAT DID SING OUT TO ME. I REMEMBER HIS RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION. MR. SCHENK.
MR. SCHENK: NO OBJECTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU CALL OUT THE NUMBER, HIS JUROR NUMBER?
MR. DOWNEY: IT'S 163, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THEN WE'LL CONTACT JUROR NUMBER 163 AND OFFER HIM AN EXCUSAL IF HE WISHES, AND WE'LL EXCUSE HIM. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. I DID READ THAT AND I WAS -- I DID NOTE IT. THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNEY: THE SECOND ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO THE COURT'S REFERENCE TO INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSIONS WITH JURORS. IN GROUP 1 THERE ARE JURORS WHO THEMSELVES HAVE EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE TO TALK WITH THE COURT INDIVIDUALLY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE ARE SOME JURORS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE CASE IN A WAY THAT WE WOULD PREFER QUESTIONING NOT TAKE PLACE IN FRONT OF THE OTHER JURORS. I CAN IDENTIFY THOSE JUROR NUMBERS AS WE GO ALONG. WHAT IS THE COURT'S PREFERENCE?
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, THANK YOU. I KNOW WE HAD CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS LAST WEEK, AND YOU HAD EXPRESSED YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF A PROSPECTIVE JUROR CONTAMINATING, TAINTING THE OTHER JURY PANEL. I TALK ABOUT THIS IN MY VOIR DIRE, AND I DO INVITE, IF A JUROR FEELS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME STRONG OPINIONS THAT MIGHT BE BETTER EXPRESSED PRIVATELY, I CERTAINLY GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. I THINK I SPEAK TWO OR THREE TIMES IN MY VOIR DIRE ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR A PARTY TO SPEAK PRIVATELY WITH THE COURT ABOUT ANY MATTER. I'LL CERTAINLY RAISE THAT WITH THEM. AND BE WATCHFUL FOR THAT IF THERE ARE JURORS WHO FOR WHATEVER REASON ON WHATEVER TOPIC FEEL THAT THEY WANT TO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL CONVERSATION, WE'LL CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THEIR OTHER PROSPECTIVE PANEL MEMBERS. NOW, I'LL ALSO WATCH AND SEE --
COURT CLERK: I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, YOUR HONOR.
(DISCUSSION WITH THE JUDGE AND CLERK OFF THE RECORD.)
JUDGE DAVILA: SO I WILL, WHEN I'M SPEAKING WITH THE JURORS, I WILL BE MINDFUL I WILL START TO -- IF I THINK THE CONVERSATION IS STARTING TO VENTURE SOMEWHERE THAT GETS INTO THAT TERRITORY, I CERTAINLY WILL POLICE THAT, IF YOU WILL. AND IF COUNSEL FEEL -- I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE AWKWARD TO INTERRUPT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR IN YOUR SEATS, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE UNTOWARD TOWARDS THEM, BUT I MAY GLANCE YOUR WAY AND YOU'LL SEND ME A SIGN IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TOO FAR. BUT I DO -- WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD INDIVIDUALLY SPEAK WITH EACH JUROR, AND I EXPRESSED THAT I DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS NECESSARY. I THOUGHT THAT THE PROTOCOLS THAT WE WERE GOING TO PLACE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. AND LET ME SAY THAT I THINK EVERYONE IS AWARE THAT THERE HAS BEEN SOME RECENT PUBLICITY ABOUT THE CASE, AND I INTEND TO ASK THE JURORS IF THEY HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO ANY READING, NEWS, ANY PUBLICITY AT ALL SINCE THE TIME THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETED THEIR QUESTIONNAIRES AND TO ASK THEM ABOUT THAT. SO WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROBE THAT. THAT MAY RAISE SOME OF THESE ISSUES, MR. DOWNEY, THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO, AND SO WE'LL -- ALL OF US WILL PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.
MR. DOWNEY: WELL, I EXPECT THAT WE MAY HAVE THAT ISSUE. OF COURSE WE CAN'T IDENTIFY THOSE PEOPLE NOW, BUT WITH RESPECT TO AT LEAST TEN JURORS IN POOL 1 THERE IS EXPOSURE TO SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE MEDIA. SOME OF THOSE JURORS THEMSELVES HAVE EXPRESSED THE CONCERN THAT THEY HAVE A BIAS. SO I THINK WE KNOW NOW THAT SOME OF THE INFORMATION, IF THEY'RE QUESTIONED ABOUT IT, WILL LEAD TO THE POTENTIAL PROBLEM. I JUST REQUEST THAT -- OBVIOUSLY WE DISAGREE WITH YOUR HONOR'S INTENDED PROCEDURE, BUT WE UNDERSTAND WHERE YOUR HONOR IS THINKING IS WITH REGARD TO IT. I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO IDENTIFY THOSE JURORS.
JUDGE DAVILA: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT FOR THE RECORD, MR. DOWNEY, YOU MAY.
MR. DOWNEY: YES. AND ALSO, AS I SAY, THERE ARE THREE INDIVIDUALS, I BELIEVE ONLY ONE OF WHOM HAVE SAID THAT EITHER THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE BEEN VICTIMS IN CRIMES THAT ARE TYPICALLY TREATED SENSITIVELY OR IN ONE CASE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS SAID THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COURT, AND I COULD IDENTIFY THOSE AS WELL.
JUDGE DAVILA: IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO. I KNOW THAT WHEN I READ THE QUESTIONNAIRES, THERE WERE AT LEAST IN THIS GROUP, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ONE, MAYBE MORE. I KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF OUR PROSPECTIVE JURORS HAVE ASKED TO SPEAK PRIVATELY ABOUT DIFFERENT QUESTIONS, SO I'VE NOTED THAT AS WELL.
MR. DOWNEY: IN THE CATEGORY OF INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE EITHER MADE THE REQUEST TO SPEAK TO YOUR HONOR INDIVIDUALLY OR THEY RAISED AN ISSUE THAT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE BETTER DISCUSSED IN PRIVATE ARE JURORS 17, 35, AND 62. I ACTUALLY HAVEN'T TRACKED IT, YOUR HONOR, SO IF ANY OF THOSE ARE A JUROR THAT DID NOT APPEAR TODAY, I DON'T KNOW. AND THE INDIVIDUAL JURORS WHO HAVE INDICATED EXPOSURE TO SUBSTANTIAL MEDIA ARE JURORS NUMBER 1, JUROR NUMBER 14, JUROR NUMBER 31, JUROR NUMBER 49, JUROR NUMBER 57, JUROR NUMBER 63, JUROR NUMBER 64, AND JUROR NUMBER 95. WE WOULD ASK, YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO ALL OF THOSE JURORS THAT THEY BE QUESTIONED INDIVIDUALLY. IT IS, IN OUR VIEW, THE PROPER PROCEDURE UNDER THE SILVERTHORNE CASE. YOUR HONOR HAS PREVIOUSLY GIVEN HIS REASONS FOR NOT DOING IT, AND WE UNDERSTAND IT, BUT WE WOULD MAKE THAT REQUEST.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: YOUR HONOR, NOTHING FURTHER ON THAT TOPIC. I DO HAVE TWO SEPARATE QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE COURT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ARE THERE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE ADVANCED INDIVIDUALLY?
MR. DOWNEY: AS TO THOSE JURORS?
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
MR. DOWNEY: I THINK WITH RESPECT TO THE CRIME VICTIMS, I CAN SAY THAT ONE OF THOSE VICTIMS -- ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS REPORTS HAVING A FAMILY MEMBER WHO WAS A VICTIM OF A SEXUAL ASSAULT. THAT'S JUROR NUMBER 35. ONE OF THOSE JURORS THEMSELVES WAS A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THAT'S 17. AND JUROR NUMBER 62 REPORTS BEING A CRIME VICTIM IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT AND HAS ASKED TO SPEAK TO YOUR HONOR, BUT THAT JUROR I BELIEVE IS A FAILURE TO APPEAR TODAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE MEDIA, IT'S HARD TO GENERALIZE THE QUESTION, BUT CERTAINLY WHAT WE WANT TO AVOID IN FRONT OF THE JURY IS ANY DISCUSSION OF WHAT THEY'VE LEARNED AND THEIR REACTIONS TO WHAT THEY'VE LEARNED, WHICH WOULD BE THE TYPICAL INQUIRY AS TO BIAS ON ANY ISSUE. SO IN EFFECT, I THINK WE'RE IMPEDED IN MAKING THE NORMAL INQUIRY INTO BIAS ISSUES BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN THAT IT WILL AFFECT THE POOL.
JUDGE DAVILA: THIS IS, AS YOU KNOW, A QUESTION THAT COMES UP IN EVERY TRIAL. THERE MIGHT BE -- THE CONCERN AS TO WHETHER ONE RESPONDS MIGHT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON A FELLOW PROSPECTIVE JUROR'S ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AND WHETHER IT WILL CHANGE THEIR THOUGHTS IN SOME WAY. I RECOGNIZE THAT. I THINK OUR QUESTIONNAIRE CAPTURES THIS AREA. AND IS IT QUESTIONS 36 THROUGH 42 PERHAPS, THAT RANGE? I THINK IT ASKS THESE MEDIA TYPE QUESTIONS. QUESTION 39 IS THE ONE THAT IS PERHAPS MORE INFORMATIVE ON THIS ISSUE. IT ASKED WHETHER OR NOT AS A RESULT OF ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE READ, LISTENED TO, SEEN, OR HEARD OF, WHETHER OR NOT THAT WILL -- I'M PARAPHRASING -- WILL IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT I THINK WE LOOK AT. IN SOME OF THESE RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT IT MAY AND THEY STATE THE REASONS. OTHERS HAVE SAID NO WITH A CHECK BOX. SO THAT'S PROBABLY AN AREA OF PROBING, MAYBE, THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING TO IN THAT CATEGORY OF QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT'S.
MR. DOWNEY: I THINK IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE, YOUR HONOR. AS YOUR HONOR SAYS, QUESTION 39 ASKS ALL OF THE JURORS IF THEY ARE LIMITED IN THEIR ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL, UNBIASSED, AND OBJECTIVE. SEVERAL JURORS HAVE SAID THAT THEY'RE EITHER UNCERTAIN OR THEY PROBABLY CANNOT BE BASED ON THEIR EXPOSURE TO MEDIA. WHEN THEY ARE ASKED THE QUESTION WHY IS THAT? MANY JURORS WILL BEGIN TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THEIR EXPERIENCE OF WATCHING OR READING THAT MEDIA HAS BEEN.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I THINK YOUR CONCERN -- PARDON ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU -- BUT YOUR CONCERN MIGHT BE THAT THEY REPEAT, WROTE WHAT THEY'VE HEARD, WHAT THEY'VE SEEN, IF ANYTHING, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS AS OPPOSED TO SAYING I SAW SOMETHING THAT AFFECTED ME, I SAW A RED -- I HEARD SOMETHING THAT AFFECTED ME, AND IT MADE ME -- CAUSED ME TO THINK JUST WHAT I HEARD WITHOUT IDENTIFYING OR QUOTING, I SUPPOSE, FROM THE MATERIAL. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PROBE THE EXACT QUOTE. WE DON'T NEED SOMEONE TO COME AND GIVE US A REPORT ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE READ, WHAT THEY'VE SEEN.
MR. DOWNEY: WELL, YOUR HONOR -- I'M SORRY.
JUDGE DAVILA: NO, NO. GO AHEAD.
MR. DOWNEY: I THINK THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY WHY, WHY DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU MIGHT NOT BE IMPARTIAL? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT A JUROR WILL SAY IN RESPONSE TO THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE DON'T. THEY MAY SAY BECAUSE I BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT I SEE ON TELEVISION. WE JUST DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE. IT'S NOT LOST ON ME. I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE WON'T DO INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONING. IT MAY BE A TIME WHEN -- A TIME WILL COME BASED ON THEIR RESPONSES THAT THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I WILL BE MINDFUL OF THAT, SIR, AND WE'LL DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN.
MR. DOWNEY: I APPRECIATE THAT YOUR HONOR HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE EXTENSIVELY. I BELIEVE THIS IS THE THIRD OR FOURTH DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE HAD ABOUT IT, AND I JUST WANTED TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD OUR POSITION.
JUDGE DAVILA: OF COURSE. MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: YOUR HONOR, I'M WONDERING WHAT THE LAST JUROR NUMBER IS THAT WE'LL DEAL WITH TODAY. SOME OF THE JURORS THAT MR. DOWNEY READ OFF TO THE COURT TODAY WENT UP INTO THE 90'S, AND I JUST WANT TO KNOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: LET'S SEE. I THINK THE LAST JUROR THAT I HAD TODAY WAS 95. IS THAT CORRECT, MS. KRATZMANN?
COURT CLERK: JUROR NUMBER 93.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOW, MS. KRATZMANN HANDED ME A NOTE WHILE WE WERE TALKING, AND JUROR NUMBER 214 IS DOWNSTAIRS NOW. SHE CAME TO OUR COMMISSIONER AND APPARENTLY IS SCHEDULED FOR TOMORROW, AND SHE APPARENTLY HAS BROUGHT TO THE COURT PROOF OF THAT. SHOULD WE EXCUSE JUROR 214.
MR. DOWNEY: IF THE COURT HAS REVIEWED IT AND HAS PROOF, WE HAVE NO OBJECTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: I HAVE NOT READ IT. SHE'S DOWNSTAIRS IN THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, AND I'M INFORMED SHE HAS PROOF AND OUR COMMISSIONER --
MR. DOWNEY: I'M CERTAIN WE WILL IF WE CAN JUST TAKE A LOOK.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. MS. KRATZMANN, CAN YOU HAVE THAT PROOF BROUGHT UP.
COURT CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. SCHENK.
MR. SCHENK: THIS JUROR MENTIONED THE SURGERY IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND IT WAS THE THIRD JURY, AND SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN MOVED UP AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: SHOULD WE WAIT TO BRING THIS UP, MR. DOWNEY? DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE -- WHATEVER SHE BROUGHT?
MR. DOWNEY: I THINK IT'S FINE TO EXCUSE HER, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WE WILL EXCUSE HER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH. 214 IS EXCUSED FOR MEDICAL.
COURT CLERK: YOUR HONOR, YES. WE GO UP TO 95 TODAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT.
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, JUST ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION ABOUT A JUROR.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE.
MR. DOWNEY: I THINK THE COURT INDICATED TO US THAT JUROR 119 WAS TO APPEAR TODAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: MS. KRATZMANN.
COURT CLERK: LET ME CONFIRM THAT.
MR. SCHENK: YOUR HONOR, WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT, I THINK AT SOME POINT I'D BE HAPPY TO MAKE A RECORD FOR THE JURORS THAT WERE EXCUSED. BASED UPON THE AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES AFTER REVIEWING COMMUNICATION FROM THE COURT YESTERDAY, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT WANTS TO DO THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY NOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE CAN DO THAT NOW, SURE. WE HAVE SOME TIME.
COURT CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR. JUROR 119 IS HERE TODAY, SO HE WILL FOLLOW JUROR 95.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: WE EXCUSED JUROR NUMBER 30 FOR TRAVEL. WE EXCUSED JUROR NUMBER 32. THIS JUROR KNOWS YOUR HONOR. WE EXCUSED JUROR 36 FOR CHILD CARE NEEDS. WE EXCUSED 53 FOR HEALTH. WE EXCUSED 98 FOR PARENT CARE RESPONSIBILITIES. WE EXCUSED JUROR 115 FOR CHILD CARE AND HEALTH. WE EXCUSED JUROR 140 FOR HEALTH. WE EXCUSED 144 FOR A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. WE EXCUSED 151 FOR HEALTH. WE EXCUSED 152 FOR HEALTH. WE EXCUSED 170 FOR TRAVEL. WE EXCUSED 176 FOR HEALTH OF A FAMILY MEMBER. WE EXCUSED 193 AND 194 FOR BIAS. AND THEN ON A SECOND LIST WE EXCUSED 39 FOR SCHOOL, A UNIVERSITY STUDENT. WE EXCUSED JUROR 40 FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. WE EXCUSED JUROR 100 FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AND HEALTH. WE EXCUSED JUROR 101 FOR WORK OBLIGATIONS AND SCHOOL. JUROR 103 FOR HEALTH. 109 FOR HEALTH AND FINANCIAL. 125 FOR SCHOOL. I BELIEVE WE KEPT 127. I BELIEVE WE DID NOT EXCUSE 127.
MR. DOWNEY: THAT'S CORRECT.
MR. SCHENK: THAT'S MY NOTES, YES. 158 WE EXCUSED FOR SCHOOL COMMITMENTS. 168 WE EXCUSED FOR HEALTH AND THE COMMUTE. WE EXCUSED 183 FOR TRAVEL. WE EXCUSED 212 FOR COMMUTE CHALLENGES. 222 WE EXCUSED FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP. 233 ALSO FOR FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
MR. DOWNEY: WE CONCUR THAT THOSE JURORS HAVE BEEN AGREED EXCUSALS, YOUR HONOR, AND FOR THE REASONS ARTICULATED BY MR. SCHENK.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE TIME LOOKING AT THOSE. I APPRECIATE THAT. IT SAVES US SOME TIME, AND OF COURSE IT ALLOWED FOR LESS INCONVENIENCE OF THESE PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I THINK THAT ACCOMPLISHES EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO NOW. WE JUST NEED TO GET OUR FOLKS UP HERE AND THEN WE'LL START THE VOIR DIRE PROCESS. THAT WILL TAKE A FEW MINUTES. AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT LIMITED ELEVATORS HERE TO BRING UP THE -- HOW MANY WILL THERE BE, MS. KRATZMANN, TOTAL, TODAY?
COURT CLERK: LET ME CONFIRM.
JUDGE DAVILA: THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS --
COURT CLERK: ORIGINALLY IT WAS 38.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT'S LESS THAN 40, FEWER THAN 40.
MR. DOWNEY: ACTUALLY, YOUR HONOR, ONE MORE QUESTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE.
MR. DOWNEY: WHERE WOULD YOU PREFER WHERE WE ARE WHEN WE PARTICIPATE IN VOIR DIRE?
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, WHERE SHOULD YOU STAND?
COURT CLERK: WHEN THEY PRESENT THEIR QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR?
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK WE'LL HAVE A LECTERN. WE'LL HAVE THE LECTERN HERE. WE'LL HAVE A LECTERN THAT WE'LL ROLL OUT.
COURT CLERK: IT'S THE BLACK ONE (INDICATING).
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. IT'S NOT IDEAL. YOU SEE THE SEATS WITH THE SIGNS, LETTERS BEHIND YOU, AND THAT'S WHERE THE PROSPECTIVE, BALANCE OF THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WILL BE. IT'S AWKWARD TO SPEAK OVER YOUR COLLEAGUE OPPOSITE'S TABLE THERE, BUT THAT'S THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO AS FAR AS A LECTERN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PARTIES -- HOW THE PARTIES FEEL ABOUT -- WELL, THERE'S NO WAY TO DO IT THAT IS EFFICIENT. IF YOU STAND BY THE MICROPHONE THERE, THEN YOU'RE FAR AWAY FROM OUR JURY BOX AND YOU'RE SPEAKING OVER, ONCE AGAIN, COUNSEL TABLE. WE THOUGHT HAVING THE LECTERN THERE AND PERHAPS IN THE ANGLE THAT WE HAVE THERE AND FOCUSSING TO THE AUDIENCE IS ABOUT THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO.
MR. DOWNEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEMS. WE'LL DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN. IF MORE IDEAS OCCUR TO US, WE'LL LET YOU KNOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. WE'LL SEE YOU IN A FEW MINUTES. THANK YOU.
COURT CLERK: COURT IS IN RECESS.
(RECESS FROM 9:29 A.M. UNTIL 10:04 A.M.)
(PROSPECTIVE JURORS IN AT 10:04 A.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY. GOOD MORNING EVERYONE. MS. KRATZMANN, I WONDER IF YOU WOULD PLEASE ADMINISTER THE OATH, PLEASE, TO OUR PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE SEATED IN OUR PROSPECTIVE JURY SEATS WITH THE LETTERS, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS, PLEASE, OUR COURTROOM DEPUTY HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.
(PROSPECTIVE JURORS WERE GIVEN THE OATH.)
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING AGAIN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY THIS MORNING. BUT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU HAVE BEEN SUMMONED BY THIS COURT FOR JURY SERVICE IN A CRIMINAL CASE ENTITLED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VERSUS ELIZABETH HOLMES. IN THIS CASE THE DEFENDANT ELIZABETH HOLMES IS CHARGED WITH WIRE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD. THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT MS. HOLMES WAS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OR CEO, OF THERANOS INCORPORATED WHICH WAS IN THE BLOOD TESTING BUSINESS. THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANT AND RAMESH "SUNNY" BALWANI, THERANOS'S CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, OR COO, AND PRESIDENT, KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY DEVISED A SCHEME OR PLAN TO DEFRAUD INVESTORS IN THERANOS AND PAYING CUSTOMERS OF THERANOS. THE CHARGES ARE ONLY ALLEGATIONS AND ARE NOT EVIDENCE. THE DEFENDANT HAS ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT GUILTY TO ALL OF THE CHARGES AND IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT.
IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE TRIAL TO PROVE THESE CHARGES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES IN COUNTS ONE AND TWO THAT MS. HOLMES VIOLATED 18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1349, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD. AND IN COUNTS THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN, ELEVEN, AND TWELVE, WITH WIRE FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1343. NOW, THE INDICTMENT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND. IT IS THE CHARGING DOCUMENT THAT IS FILED IN THIS CASE. TO THESE CHARGES MS. HOLMES HAS PLEADED NOT GUILTY, AND THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DENIAL OF THE CHARGES. IT WILL BE THE PURPOSE OF THIS TRIAL FOR YOU TO DETERMINE IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS MET THEIR BURDEN IN PRESENTING THEIR CASE TO YOU. NOW, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I WANT TO TALK WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JURY SERVICE. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND AGAIN, I WELCOME YOU TO THE COURT AND I THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE. NOW, I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN AND DESCRIBE FOR YOU HOW THE TRIAL WILL GO AND BE CONDUCTED, AND WHAT YOU, AND I, AND THE LAWYERS WILL BE DOING. NOW, FIRST OF ALL, WHEN I REFER TO THE GOVERNMENT, I MEAN MR. ROBERT LEACH, MS. KELLY VOLKAR, MR. JOHN BOSTIC, AND MR. JEFF SCHENK WHO ARE THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS PROSECUTING THIS CASE. MR. LEACH, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOUR TEAM, PLEASE?
MR. LEACH: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR, YES. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS ROBERT LEACH. WITH ME IS JOHN BOSTIC, JEFF SCHENK, KELLY VOLKAR. TO MY RIGHT IS SPECIAL AGENT ADDY HERNANDEZ WITH THE FBI, AND SEATED AT THE TABLE HERE IS MADDI WACHS, WHO IS A PARALEGAL IN MY OFFICE. GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WHEN I REFER TO DEFENSE COUNSEL I MEAN MR. KEVIN DOWNEY, MR. LANCE WADE, MS. AMY SAHARIA, WHO I DON'T BELIEVE IS WITH US TODAY, MS. KATHERINE TREFZ, WHO ARE THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING MS. HOLMES. WOULD YOU PLEASE INTRODUCE YOUR TEAM, MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS KEVIN DOWNEY AND I REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT IN THIS CASE, ELIZABETH HOLMES, WHO IS SEATED AT COUNSEL TABLE. AS YOUR HONOR SAYS, THERE ARE A FEW COUNSEL ASSISTING IN THAT EFFORT. THIS IS MR. LANCE WADE, THIS IS MS. KATHERINE TREFZ, AND THIS IS MR. JOHN CLINE WHO SERVES WITH US AS COCOUNSEL IN THE CASE. SEATED AT THE TABLE IS MS. ELIZABETH HOLMES, WHO YOU WILL BE HEARING ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, MR. DOWNEY. I APOLOGIZE, MR. CLINE. I DIDN'T SEE YOU HIDDEN IN THE CORNER THERE. I'M SORRY, SIR. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I THINK YOU'VE RECEIVED A SCHEDULE, AND THIS CASE IS EXPECTED TO TAKE APPROXIMATELY 13 WEEKS OF EVIDENCE IN COURT. IT COULD BE A BIT LONGER. THIS MORNING WE WILL BEGIN SELECTING JURORS WHO WILL SIT TO HEAR THIS CASE. THIS PROCESS INVOLVES INTERVIEWING SEPARATE PANELS OF POTENTIAL JURORS OVER THE COURSE OF TODAY AND PERHAPS TOMORROW. AFTER OUR SESSION TODAY, YOU WILL BE PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE COURTHOUSE. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT WHETHER AND WHEN YOU SHOULD RETURN TO THE COURTHOUSE. WE'LL THEN RETURN TO COMPLETE THIS PROCESS AND WE WILL THEN BEGIN THE TRIAL ONCE WE HAVE A JURY. YOU SEE THE SCHEDULES ON YOUR SEATS, AND ACCORDING TO THIS SCHEDULE, JURY DELIBERATIONS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BEGIN THE FIRST OR SECOND WEEK OF DECEMBER. IT COULD BE SOONER. THESE ARE ALL APPROXIMATIONS.
THIS MAY CHANGE, AND, OF COURSE, I'LL KEEP YOU INFORMED AS TO OUR SCHEDULE. NOW, AS YOU SAW IN THE QUESTIONNAIRES THAT YOU FILLED OUT -- AND LET ME THANK YOU FOR COMING IN AND FILLING OUT THOSE QUESTIONNAIRES. THEY'RE VERY HELPFUL TO US. OUR PROPOSED DAYS IN COURT WILL BE ON TUESDAYS, WEDNESDAYS, AND FRIDAYS, POTENTIALLY FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M. NOW, IT MAY BE THAT WE CHANGE THAT SCHEDULE TO ADD SOME TIME AND CHANGE DAYS AND I, OF COURSE, WILL DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU IN ADVANCE OF ANY CHANGE. I ANTICIPATE, ACCORDING TO THIS SCHEDULE NOW, THAT WE'LL TAKE ONE BREAK OF PERHAPS 30 TO 45 MINUTES, AND WE MAY TAKE SHORTER BREAKS IF APPROPRIATE AND AS NEEDED. NOW, BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF OUR TRIAL, THIS SCHEDULE HOPES TO ACCOMPLISH THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE IN THE TRIAL AND AVOID THE STRESS AND FATIGUE THAT MIGHT ARISE FROM AN ALL-DAY EVERY DAY SCHEDULE. THAT IS THE NORM FOR SHORTER TRIALS.
NOW, WE ARE CONDUCTING OUR CASE IN THE MIDST OF THE COVID CRISIS, AND I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I SHORTENED THE SCHEDULE TO ALLOW FOR US -- AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT -- TO ALLOW FOR US TO HAVE AS LIMITED TIME AS WE CAN, BUT YET TO EFFICIENTLY PROGRESS WITH THE COURT AND THE TRIAL. NOW, I ALSO REALIZE THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHEN SOMEONE MAY NEED TO TAKE AN UNSCHEDULED BREAK FOR SOME REASON. IF YOU'RE SEATED AS A JUROR IN THIS CASE AND IF YOU OR ANYONE NEEDS TO TAKE A BREAK FOR WHATEVER REASON, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT WITH A RECESS. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AS TO THE TRIAL, THE FIRST STEP IN THE TRIAL FOLLOWING THE SELECTION OF THE JURY IS THE GOVERNMENT'S OPENING STATEMENT. THE DEFENSE MAY CHOOSE TO GIVE AN OPENING STATEMENT FOLLOWING THE GOVERNMENT OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DEFENSE CASE. THE PURPOSE OF AN OPENING STATEMENT IS TO GIVE YOU AND PROVIDE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE ATTORNEYS EXPECT THE EVIDENCE WILL SHOW.
NEXT, THE GOVERNMENT WILL OFFER THEIR EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE USUALLY INCLUDES WITNESSES' TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS. AFTER THE GOVERNMENT PRESENTS THEIR EVIDENCE, THE DEFENSE MAY ALSO PRESENT EVIDENCE, BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO. BECAUSE MS. HOLMES IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT SHE IS NOT GUILTY. NOW, YOU'VE SEEN ON YOUR CHARTS AND YOUR QUESTIONNAIRES A LIST OF WITNESSES. COUNSEL, CAN I GET AGREEMENT FROM YOU THAT I NEED NOT READ THE ENTIRETY OF THE WITNESS LIST ON THE RECORD NOW, BUT I CAN REFER AND ASK THE JURORS TO LOOK AT THAT LIST?
MR. DOWNEY: THE DEFENSE AGREES, YOUR HONOR.
MR. SCHENK: SO AGREED.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IN CASES -- IN TRIALS IT'S QUITE NORMAL FOR ME TO READ THE WITNESS LIST OUT. AS YOU SEE IN THE INFORMATION YOU HAVE, THE WITNESS, THE PROPOSED WITNESS LIST IS QUITE LONG. I DO WANT YOU TO LOOK AT IT AND TO REFER TO IT, AND I KNOW YOU DID THIS WHEN YOU FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ANSWERED ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ASKED IF YOU KNEW OR WERE FAMILIAR WITH ANYONE ON THAT LIST. BUT PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REVIEW THAT LIST NOW, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT REQUIRED AND MIGHT NOT WISH TO CALL ALL OF THESE WITNESSES AND THEY MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO CALL OTHER WITNESSES. NOW, IT MAY OCCUR THAT THE PARTIES STIPULATE TO A WITNESS'S TESTIMONY OR AN EXHIBIT. THIS MEANS THAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE STATEMENT, THE TESTIMONY, OR THE EXHIBIT MAY BE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE.
AFTER THE JURY HAS HEARD ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND AFTER THE ATTORNEYS HAVE GIVEN THEIR FINAL ARGUMENTS, I WILL THEN INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW THAT APPLIES TO THE CASE. AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND THE INSTRUCTIONS, YOU WILL THEN RETIRE TO THE JURY ROOM TO DELIBERATE THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND THEN TO RETURN WITH YOUR FINDINGS. NOW, JURY SERVICE IS AN OBLIGATION. IT MAY BE INCONVENIENT TO YOU, BUT I HOPE YOU VIEW IT AS A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY AND TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE. WE ALL KNOW AND WE'RE SENSITIVE TO THE FACT THAT NONE OF YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO WITH YOUR TIME, OR PERHAPS THAT YOU VOLUNTEERED FOR JURY DUTY OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF YOUR HEARTS. I RECOGNIZE THAT JURY SERVICE IS AN IMPOSITION ON EACH OF YOU. THIS SERVICE TAKES YOU FROM THOSE WHO NEED YOU AND RELY ON YOU AT YOUR WORKPLACES AND AT YOUR HOMES.
FOR MANY OF US WORKING IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TRYING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF JUSTICE WHILE MAINTAINING FAIRNESS ACROSS THE BOARD IS A CHALLENGE. IT'S A CHALLENGE TO DELIVER ON THE PROMISE OF A JURY OF ONE'S PEERS, A TRUE CROSS-SECTION OF OUR COMMUNITY, TO EVERYONE, EXCUSE ME, WHO ENTERS OUR COURTS. IT'S A PROMISE THAT WE ENDEAVOR TO FULFILL AS WE RECOGNIZE WE OURSELVES WOULD RELY ON THAT PROMISE IF WE WERE EVER TO COME INTO THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A PARTY. OUR CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR ALL OF OUR OBLIGATIONS, YOURS AS WELL AS MINE, TO SERVE AS JURORS. I SHOULD LET YOU KNOW I GET CALLED AS A JUROR. I WAS SUMMONED ABOUT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO TO SERVE AS A JUROR IN A CASE IN MY COMMUNITY. SO JUDGES ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM THE SERVICE. YOU KNOW, FOR SOME REASON, REGRETTABLY I HAVE NEVER BEEN SELECTED AS A JUROR. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: BUT MAYBE ONE DAY. AND LET'S REFLECT FOR JUST A MOMENT. IT IS SIGNIFICANT NOW TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR SERVICE SO OUR COMMUNITY, OUR COUNTRY, AND REALLY THE WORLD CAN OBSERVE THAT EVEN DURING THE CHALLENGE OF A PANDEMIC OUR COURTS ARE OPEN AND OUR SYSTEM, YOUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE ENDURES. NOW, I WANT TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT. I'VE TALKED ABOUT THE COVID PROTOCOLS. I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU, AND I HOPE THIS GIVES YOU SOME COMFORT. FIRST OF ALL, WE WILL STRIVE TO ENSURE YOUR PROTECTION, SAFETY, AND GOOD HEALTH. WE WILL ENGAGE DISTANCING AND FACE MASKS AS YOU HAVE SEEN. NOW, IF YOU ARE VACCINATED, OUR MEDICAL INFORMATION INFORMS THAT THAT FACT SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCES YOUR SAFETY. NOW, PARTIES IN COURT WILL WEAR MASKS. WITNESSES AND PARTIES MAY BE ABLE TO REMOVE THEIR MASKS OR WEAR A CLEAR FACE SHIELD WHEN THEY'RE TESTIFYING HERE. YOU HAVE SEEN THE PLEXIGLASS THAT WE'VE ALSO ENGAGED.
WE WILL HAVE AIR PURIFIERS, THERE'S ONE AT THE WITNESS STAND NOW, AND WE'LL HAVE ONE AT EACH COUNSEL TABLE. THOSE HAVEN'T ARRIVED YET, BUT WE EXPECT TO HAVE THOSE SOON. WE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ANOTHER AIR PURIFIER SHOULD THE NEED BE REQUESTED NEAR THE JURY BOX, SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR BUILDING HERE. THIS COURTHOUSE IS QUITE OLD. HISTORICALLY WE THOUGHT WE WOULD GET A NEW COURTHOUSE ABOUT 15, 18 YEARS AGO. UNFORTUNATELY THOSE EFFORTS FELL SHORT. CONGRESS, HOWEVER, DID PROVIDE THE COURT WITH SOME MONEY TO PURCHASE A LAND SITE, SITE ACQUISITION MONEY. IT WAS ABOUT $10 MILLION AT THAT TIME. UNFORTUNATELY, CONGRESS DECIDED THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD A NEW COURTHOUSE HERE IN SAN JOSE, BUT THEY DID ALLOW US TO KEEP THE MONEY. I SHOULD TELL YOU ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO, I THINK ABOUT 7 OR 8 MILLION OF THOSE DOLLARS WERE SPENT ON THE COURTHOUSE.
SOME OF IT WAS SPENT ON OUR ENTRYWAY, PUTTING NEW GLASS IN, THAT NICE WOOD PANELING THAT YOU SAW AND ENJOYED ON YOUR WAY IN, SOME OF THE MONEY WAS SPENT THERE. BUT I HAVE TO BE HONEST, THE MAJORITY OF THE MONEY WAS SPENT ON SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT SEE. IT'S ON OUR ROOF. WE HAVE A NEW HVAC SYSTEM. AND I'M TOLD YOU'RE THE TAXPAYERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SPENDING $7 MILLION ON OUR HVAC SYSTEM, AND IT SITS ABOVE US NOW AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE UPGRADED THIS SYSTEM TO MERV 14 FILTRATION. NOW, THE CURRENT GUIDANCE TELLS THAT WE SHOULD INSTALL A NEW CONSTRUCTION MERV 13 OR BETTER, SO WE HAVE MERV 14 FILTRATION IN THIS COURTHOUSE. THIS SYSTEM IS ALSO -- UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE EXPERIENCE NOW, THE SMOKE FROM WILD FIRES, THIS SYSTEM IS EXCELLENT AT FILTERING THOSE -- AIR THAT COME FROM THOSE FIRES.
NOW, I MADE AN INQUIRY ABOUT CIRCULATION IN MY COURTROOM, THIS COURTROOM THAT YOU'RE IN, AND I'M INFORMED THAT THE AIR IN THIS COURTROOM CIRCULATES AT A RATE OF -- IT'S CALLED ACH -- ACH 6.3, WHICH IS AIR CHANGES PER HOUR. NOW, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THE AIR IS COMPLETELY CIRCULATED IN THIS COURTROOM APPROXIMATELY EVERY TEN MINUTES. IT'S A GOOD SYSTEM. SO OUR AIR CIRCULATES, IT GOES THROUGH OUR MERV 14 FILTERS, AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS AS SAFE AS WE CAN ACCOMPLISH IT WITH OUR HVAC SYSTEM. I HOPE THAT PROVIDES YOU SOME COMFORT. THE SYSTEM RUNS TWO HOURS PRE AND POST OCCUPANCY. THAT MEANS WE START IT UP ABOUT 5:00 A.M. TO GET THE AIR CIRCULATED, AND IT SHUTS DOWN ABOUT TWO HOURS AFTER CLOSING TIME, THAT IS ABOUT 7:00 P.M.
NOW, GSA, THE GENERAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATION, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR BUILDING AND THEY HAVE ADOPTED CLEANING GUIDELINES FROM THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL, THE CDC, AND THESE INCLUDE ROUTINE CLEANING AND DISINFECTION OF HIGH TOUCH SERVICES AND COMMON AND HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS. WE HAVE FACE MASKS AND SANITIZERS TO PROVIDE YOU AS NEEDED, SO PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REQUEST THAT FROM STAFF SHOULD YOU NEED SOMETHING. NOW, THE SCHEDULE I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT, OUR SCHEDULE SEEKS TO KEEP THE TIME IN COURT SPACE SO AS NOT TO SIT MORE THAN TWO HOURS A TIME, AT LEAST INITIALLY. WE'LL TRY TO SPACE BREAKS WITH AS MUCH FREQUENCY AS POSSIBLE WHILE ENSURING THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY TRIAL PROCESS TO PROCEED. NOW, THE JURY ROOM FOR DELIBERATING JURORS AND DURING BREAKS, YOU WILL HAVE, AS JURORS, THE ENTIRETY OF MY COLLEAGUE'S COURTROOM NEXT DOOR, NOT JUST THE SMALL JURY ROOM, BUT THE ENTIRE COURTROOM WILL BE AVAILABLE TO YOU FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS, AND THIS WILL ALLOW DISTANCING DURING YOUR MEETING AND DELIBERATIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'VE ALSO ARRANGED FOR SOME LIGHT BREAKFAST ITEMS, FRUIT, ROLLS, AND OTHER LIGHT BREAKFAST ITEMS, AND I THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THOSE AT LEAST AT A MINIMUM ONE DAY A WEEK TO SPAN THOSE THREE DAYS. I'M TOLD THAT THE SERVICE WE USE IS QUITE GENEROUS, AND OTHER JURORS HAVE REALLY ENJOYED THE BAGELS I'M TOLD, SO YOU CAN LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. NOW, LET ME TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HARDSHIPS. LET ME ASK FIRST, IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PANEL WHO HAS ANY SPECIAL DISABILITY OR PROBLEM THAT WOULD MAKE SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THIS JURY DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE? LET ME SAY SOMETHING. WE HAVE ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES, HEADPHONES. IF SOMEONE NEEDS A HEADPHONE, YOU SHOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE CAN GET THAT TO YOU. THERE MAY BE SOME INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE OTHER HEALTH ISSUES, BACK ISSUES, SEATING ISSUES THAT WE CAN PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR THAT. WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST WITH PILLOWS AND CUSHIONS AND OTHER THINGS. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PANEL WHO HAS ANY SPECIAL DISABILITY OR PROBLEM THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO RAISE NOW? I SEE NO HANDS. OH, I SEE A HAND. YES, SIR. COULD YOU JUST TELL US WHAT SEAT YOU'RE IN?
JUROR: JUROR SEAT 49.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHAT SEAT ARE YOU IN?
JUROR: I'M IN U.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHAT SEAT?
COURT CLERK: U.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, MR. BURGE. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO KNOW?
JUROR: I HAVE A HEARING ISSUE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: YOU RAISED THAT YOU HAVE HEADPHONES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: I'M ACTUALLY HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU SOMETHING RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. BURGE, I'M GOING TO LET YOU PUT THOSE ON AND SEE IF THEY'RE OPERATING APPROPRIATELY.
COURT CLERK: THE LETTER HAS TO FACE OUT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK IT'S BETTER IF YOU PLACE IT UNDER YOUR CHIN. I KNOW IT'S COUNTERINTUITIVE TO DO THAT. RIGHT. I THINK THAT WORKS BETTER. GREAT. I SAW YOU GIVE A THUMBS UP. MR. BURGE, LET ME KNOW IF THAT FAILS TO FUNCTION OR YOU NEED SOME ATTENTION TO THAT AND WE'LL REPLACE THAT FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT, SIR?
JUROR: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYBODY ELSE? WHY DON'T YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
JUROR: 73.
COURT CLERK: HE'S IN SEAT DD, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. YES, SIR.
JUROR: SO THESE DAYS I'M HAVING ISSUES.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? YOU CAN KEEP YOUR MASK ON, JUST SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
JUROR: SO I HAVE SOME CHRONIC ISSUES, AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN USUAL THESE DAYS. ONE SYMPTOM IS THAT SITTING FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME CAUSES MY FACE, MY HANDS, AND MY FEET TO SWELL.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN A PLEASANT EXPERIENCE FOR ME. IT CAUSES A LOT OF DISTRACTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. IF WE, IF WE WERE TO AFFORD -- IF YOU WERE SEATED AS A JUROR, SIR, AND YOU WERE PROVIDED BREAKS AND YOU WERE PERMITTED TO STAND, WOULD THAT BE OF SOME ASSISTANCE?
JUROR: I THINK SO. I'M NOT REALLY SURE, BUT I THINK SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION. WE HAVE HAD JURORS WITH SIMILAR ISSUES, AND WHAT WE CAN IS ARRANGE SEATING SUCH THAT YOU CAN STAND OR STRETCH OR -- AND WE'LL TRY TO TAKE BREAKS AS NEEDED. WOULD THAT BE OF ASSISTANCE TO YOU?
JUROR: I THINK SO. YES, IT COULD.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WITH AN ISSUE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO MY ATTENTION?
JUROR: IS THIS FOR LIKE PHYSICAL ISSUES OR SHOULD I BRING UP A CIRCUMSTANTIAL ISSUE?
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M SORRY. YOU'RE MS. WALLWORK?
JUROR: I AM.
JUDGE DAVILA: I WAS ASKING WITH ABOUT PHYSICAL THINGS NOW. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO KNOW ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS MY WINDOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I THINK I CAN ANTICIPATE SOMETHING HERE, BUT WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. THANK YOU. NO, NO, I DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE YOU FROM RAISING ANYTHING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE NOW COME TO THAT PORTION -- ANYONE ELSE? I SEE NO HANDS. WE NOW COME TO THAT PORTION OF THE TRIAL WHERE I WILL ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR QUALIFICATIONS TO SIT AS JURORS IN THIS CASE. COUNSEL WILL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS AS WELL. NOW, THIS PROCESS IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE COURT AND THE PARTIES WANT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JURORS, JURORS WHO ARE FREE FROM ANY PRECONCEIVED IDEA, BELIEF, ATTITUDE, OR BIAS, OR PREJUDICE ABOUT THE OFFENSES CHARGED OR THE ACCUSED, AND JURORS WHO WILL DECIDE THIS CASE ONLY AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS COURTROOM, THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, THE LAW GIVEN TO YOU BY THE COURT, AND THEN ONLY AFTER DELIBERATING WITH YOUR FELLOW JURORS BY THE OATH THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO ANSWER ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY AND COMPLETELY.
YOU WILL HELP THE PROCESS BY VOLUNTEERING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES, FEELINGS, OR BIASES, IF ANY, EVEN THOUGH YOU BELIEVE YOU CAN PUT ASIDE THOSE EXPERIENCES, FEELINGS, OR BIASES AND SERVE AS A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUROR. IF YOU ARE SENSITIVE ABOUT ANSWERING ANY QUESTION, PLEASE TELL ME AND WE CAN DISCUSS THE MATTER PRIVATELY WITH COUNSEL BEING PRESENT. WHAT WE'LL DO IS THAT WE WILL GO INTO THE JURY ROOM BEHIND THIS DOOR HERE WITH OUR COURT REPORTER, AND WE WILL HAVE ABSOLUTE PRIVACY SO YOU CAN SPEAK ABOUT ANY ISSUE IF YOU FEEL THAT'S APPROPRIATE. JUST LET ME KNOW, AND DON'T BE SHY ABOUT THAT, PLEASE. THIS PROCESS, THIS QUESTIONING PROCESS BY THE COURT AND BY THE LAWYERS SEEKS TO IDENTIFY ANY MATTER, INCLUDING THOSE THAT MIGHT BE CONTROVERSIAL, THAT RAISE AN ISSUE OF BIAS OR INABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL.
NOW, IF ANY JUROR FEELS LIKE AN ISSUE HAS ARISEN AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO, OR YOU THINK IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO SPEAK IN PRIVATE WITH THE COURT AND COUNSEL, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND WE CAN DO THAT. NOW, FOLKS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU EXPRESS THESE ISSUES WITH THE PARTIES, THE LAWYERS, AND MYSELF. WE CAN AND WE WILL MEET PRIVATELY TO ALLOW ANY JUROR TO BE FRANK AND OPEN, AND TO NOT ALLOW ANYTHING SAID TO NEGATIVELY INFLUENCE OR AFFECT ANY OTHER JUROR. THIS IS IMPORTANT. WHILE WE ALL WANT TO HEAR YOUR CANDID THOUGHTS ON TOPICS, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EXPRESSIONS ARE HEARTFELT, DO NOT TAINT OR NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE FAIRNESS OF THE PANEL. SO IF YOU FEEL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THAT YOU HAVE AN ISSUE THAT YOU THINK IS IMPORTANT TO YOU, I WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. THESE LAWYERS WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
IF YOU FEEL AND YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT SPEAKING ABOUT THIS OR THAT, GEE, IF I SAY WHAT I REALLY FEEL, I MIGHT, I MIGHT SOMEHOW BE STATING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT INAPPROPRIATELY AFFECT ANOTHER JUROR, A STRONG OPINION -- AND LET ME BE CANDID, A STRONG OPINION ABOUT A CASE, THIS HAPPENS IN ALL CASES, SOMETIMES PEOPLE TAKE A POSITION BECAUSE SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE HEARD, READ, OR SEEN THAT CAUSES THEM TO FORM AN OPINION, AND THEY MIGHT WANT TO EXPRESS THAT IN SOME WAY. WE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THAT. BUT WHAT I WANT TO AVOID IS SOMEBODY EXPRESSING A STRONG OPINION THAT MIGHT AFFECT OR OTHERWISE TAINT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE JURY. IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT SOMETHING REGARDING THIS CASE OR ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE HEARD, SEEN, OR READ, OR YOU THINK YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PRIVATELY, WE CAN DO THAT, AND I ABSOLUTELY INVITE YOU TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND TELL ME, "I THINK I SHOULD TALK ABOUT THIS PRIVATELY, JUDGE." DON'T BE SHY ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN DO THAT.
NOW, IN SELECTING A JURY, EACH SIDE IS PERMITTED A CERTAIN NUMBER OF WHAT ARE CALLED PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS. THE ATTORNEY MAY EXCUSE A JUROR BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT THIS JUST IS NOT THE RIGHT CASE FOR THAT JUROR. THERE ARE CHALLENGES FOR CAUSE, AND THESE ARE CHALLENGES WHERE THE PARTY OR THE COURT FEELS THAT A PROSPECTIVE JUROR CANNOT SIT ON A CASE BECAUSE OF A BIAS, INTEREST, OR OTHER INABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL. AND THE COURT WILL DECIDE, I WILL DECIDE IF A JUROR SHOULD BE EXCUSED FOR CAUSE. THE QUESTIONS OF THE COURT AND COUNSEL AND THE ANSWERS OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS ASSIST THE ATTORNEYS IN THEIR DECISIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOW, FOLLOWING MY QUESTIONS AND THE QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL, THE LAWYERS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS AS TO ANY CHALLENGES THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE. WE WILL TAKE THESE UP AFTER WE HAVE MET WITH ALL OF THE PANELS THAT HAVE BEEN SUMMONED IN THIS CASE AND YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT WHETHER AND WHEN YOU ARE TO RETURN TO COURT. WE WILL ALSO SELECT FIVE ALTERNATE JURORS WHO WILL SIT DURING THE TRIAL. SHOULD A MEMBER OF THE SEATED 12 JURORS BE UNABLE TO CONTINUE TO SIT AS A JUROR, THE ALTERNATE JUROR WILL REPLACE THAT SITTING JUROR AND WILL JOIN THE OTHER JURORS IN DELIBERATION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE. IF THERE IS NO NEED FOR A SUBSTITUTION OF A SITTING JUROR, THE ALTERNATE JURORS WILL NOT JOIN THE DELIBERATING JURORS OF THE SITTING JURORS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, BUT WILL BE ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE COURTHOUSE SUBJECT TO BEING RECALLED TO REPLACE A DELIBERATING JUROR SHOULD THAT NEED ARISE.
NOW, YOU HAVE COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRES LAST WEEK AND THESE HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US IN PREPARATION FOR THIS PROCESS. SOME OF MY QUESTIONS MIGHT BE REPRESENTATIVE OR SIMILAR TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, AND I WILL HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR EACH OF YOU. SO I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND, AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT YOUR QUESTIONNAIRES. NOW, PLEASE DO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED AND THE ANSWERS OF PROSPECTIVE JURORS. DOING SO MAY ASSIST YOU IN THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR RESPONSE MIGHT BE. NOW, LET ME START WITH THIS. DO ANY OF YOU KNOW THE ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OR ANY OF THE DEFENSE COUNSEL OR ANY OF THEIR TEAMS? ANYBODY HERE KNOW THESE LAWYERS OR THEIR TEAMS? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE ANY OF YOU HAD ANY BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THE ATTORNEYS OR BEEN REPRESENTED BY THEM OR THEIR FIRMS? I SEE NO HANDS. DO ANY OF YOU KNOW THE DEFENDANT, MS. HOLMES? DOES ANYONE HERE KNOW MS. HOLMES? I SEE NO HANDS. DO ANY OF YOU KNOW ANY OF THE WITNESSES ON THE WITNESS LIST THAT YOU'VE REVIEWED? ANYONE HAVE FAMILIARITY OR KNOWLEDGE OR KNOW ANY OF THOSE FOLKS? YES, I SEE A HAND IN THE BACK. MAYBE I WOULD ASK YOU TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE, TO THE MICROPHONE. CAN THAT MICROPHONE MOVE.
COURT CLERK: I CAN CONFIRM I TURNED IT ON, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN WE MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE RAIL THERE?
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
JUROR: YOUR HONOR, I HAVE MET CHANNING ROBERTSON IN A PROFESSIONAL SETTING.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I'M SORRY, CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF?
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 90, SANDRA RAMER.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, MS. RAMER. TELL ME ABOUT, YOU'VE MET THIS PERSON IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY?
JUROR: HE IS, OR WAS, A CONSULTANT FOR THE COMPANY THAT I WORK FOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. YOU MET HIM. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO WORK WITH HIM ON WHATEVER IT WAS?
JUROR: NO, NOT DIRECTLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: WAS THIS A BRIEF INTRODUCTION AS HE CAME TO YOUR COMPANY OR -- MAYBE YOU CAN TELL US BRIEFLY WHAT THAT WAS.
JUROR: I WORK FOR A BIOTECH, AN INDUSTRIAL BIOTECH COMPANY AND CHANNING ROBERTSON WAS A CONSULTANT ON SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE WORK ON.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: SO MY COMPANY IS VERY CLOSE TO STANFORD, SO HE AND SOME MEMBERS OF HIS LAB OCCASIONALLY VISIT AND CONSULT WITH US.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WERE YOU -- THESE CONSULTATIONS, WERE YOU PART OF THEM?
JUROR: NOT DIRECTLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M IMAGINING A CONFERENCE ROOM WHERE THERE'S A PRESENTATION OR DISCUSSION.
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WERE YOU IN THAT ROOM?
JUROR: YES, YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DID YOU POSE QUESTIONS TO THIS PERSON AT ALL?
JUROR: YEAH, PROBABLY I DID.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND IT WAS IN A PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WERE YOU INVOLVED AT ALL WITH HIRING OR THE CONTRACTING OF HIM?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: WERE YOU INVOLVED AT ALL IN REVIEWING ANY OF HIS WORK WITH HIM?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OTHER THAN IN THESE CONFERENCES?
JUROR: RIGHT. YES. NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND CAN YOU TELL US, DID YOU HAVE ANY ONE-ON-ONE TIME WITH HIM, FIRST OF ALL?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND WHAT WAS THE DURATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR FIRM?
JUROR: IT SPANNED SEVERAL YEARS.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND HOW MANY -- CAN YOU TELL US, APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU HAVE OCCASIONS TO MEET WITH HIM AS YOU'VE TOLD US YOU'VE DONE?
JUROR: THREE OR FOUR PROBABLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. WERE THERE OTHER OCCASIONS THAT YOU MET WITH HIM OUTSIDE OF THE WORK ARENA?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: THERE WERE NEVER DINNER MEETINGS WITH OTHERS, OR BREAKFAST MEETINGS?
JUROR: NO. BUT SOME OF THOSE INTERACTIONS MIGHT HAVE HAD A RECEPTION, OR SOMETIMES WE WOULD HAVE MEETINGS, POSTER SESSIONS WITH THE CONSULTANTS AND COLLABORATORS.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: SO THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME SOCIAL INTERACTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU THINK -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT DO YOU THINK IF YOU WERE WALKING DOWN THE STREET OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE AND HE WAS WALKING TOWARDS YOU, DO YOU THINK HE WOULD REMEMBER YOU?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES ON THE WITNESS LIST? I SEE NO HANDS. AS I TOLD YOU, THIS CASE RELATES TO MS. HOLMES AND THE ALLEGATIONS OF WIRE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD AS INDICATED IN THE INDICTMENT. NOW, LET ME ASK YOU, HAS ANYONE READ OR HEARD OF ANY NEWS COVERAGE OF THIS CASE? WELL, I SEE A COUPLE OF HANDS. WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. LET ME START WITH THE JURY BOX HERE. I JUST WANT FOLKS TO KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AT 11:00 O'CLOCK FOR ABOUT 10 OR 15 MINUTES. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. SO LET'S SEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION OF HAS ANYBODY HEARD ABOUT COVERAGE OF THIS CASE, LET ME TELL YOU THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE, WHAT WAS THE MEDIA THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT? WAS IT THE MEDIA NEWS, RADIO, INTERNET? I'M CURIOUS IF YOU READ, LISTENED, HEARD THE ENTIRETY OF A STORY, AN ARTICLE. I'M ALSO CURIOUS IF YOU DISCUSSED WITH WHAT YOU READ, LISTENED TO, OR HEARD WITH ANYONE ELSE. I'M ALSO CURIOUS IF WHAT YOU -- WHEN YOU HEARD THIS, THAT IS, THE MOST RECENT, YOUR MOST RECENT CONTACTS WITH THIS INFORMATION. ALSO WHETHER THIS CONTACT OCCURRED AFTER YOU COMPLETED YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE AND WHETHER AS A RESULT OF THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED, IF THAT WAS ACCURATE, THAT IS, YOU RECEIVED IT AFTER YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, WHETHER THAT INFORMATION WOULD CAUSE YOU TO CHANGE ANY ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON THAT QUESTIONNAIRE. THAT'S A LOT, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO EXPLORE WITH THOSE OF YOU WHO RAISED YOUR HAND. SO LET'S START -- LET'S SEE IF I CAN -- IS THAT MR. MORENO?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO KNOW, SIR?
JUROR: WHEN I WAS READING THE QUESTIONNAIRE I DID RECOGNIZE THE NAME OF THE COMPANY, THERANOS. ASIDE FROM THAT, I DIDN'T REALLY LOOK INTO IT. IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT INTERESTED ME. SO JUST THE NAME ITSELF WAS FAMILIAR, BUT NOTHING ELSE BESIDES THAT REALLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I SEE. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT THAT YOU THINK WOULD IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOTHING. THANK YOU. LET ME SEE. IN THE JURY BOX. MR. BETTS -- LET'S SEE. IS THAT MR. BETTS?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, SIR.
JUROR: I HEARD BRIEF OVERVIEWS OF THE CASE AND THE THERANOS ISSUES A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN WE ENGAGE A SPEAKER HERE OR A MICROPHONE, MS. KRATZMANN?
COURT CLERK: I DON'T HAVE A MOVEABLE ONE, YOUR HONOR. BUT HE CAN COME TO THIS PODIUM IF HE WOULD LIKE, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. BETTS, HOW ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO JUST A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE INVOLVING THERANOS THROUGH NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO OR BBC.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ANYTHING SINCE THAT THAT YOU THINK YOU HAVE SEEN OR READ?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: HAS THAT, WHAT YOU'VE HEARD ON NPR AND READ ABOUT, DO YOU STILL HAVE THAT FRESH IN YOUR MIND?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD OR READ THAT WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: THERE IS NOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. AND MR. SCHULTZE.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHY DON'T YOU STEP TO THAT LECTERN AS WELL.
JUROR: SO I BELIEVE IN SCHOOL ABOUT MAYBE IN MARCH OR FEBRUARY THERE -- I WATCHED A TED TALK IN CLASS THAT I THINK MENTIONED A NAME AND THE NAME OF THE COMPANY THAT HAVE -- I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH MEMORY OF THAT, BUT I HAVE SEEN ALSO ARTICLES ON THE INTERNET, ON REDDIT, ON R/INVESTING, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE. BUT I'VE ALSO SEEN JUST THE HEADLINE POP UP ABOUT JURY SELECTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. YOU TOLD US THAT, I THINK, IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. YOU SAID YOU MAY HAVE WATCHED A TED TALK, BUT YOU DON'T REMEMBER MUCH ABOUT IT; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT, SIR?
JUROR: I BELIEVE IT WAS IN MY SENIOR YEAR ENGINEERING ETHICS CLASS. PROBABLY MAYBE MARCH. IT WAS SPRING 2020, I BELIEVE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND THEN YOU TOLD ME YOU SAW SOME RECENT PUBLICITY ABOUT THE CASE.
JUROR: I THINK MAYBE A FEW MONTHS AGO I SAW A POSTING ON THE INTERNET.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. IS THAT HOW YOU GET MOST OF YOUR NEWS OR HOW YOU OBTAIN YOUR NEWS, ON THE INTERNET?
JUROR: YES, MOSTLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO NEWSPAPERS OR READ NEWSPAPERS?
JUROR: I DON'T SUBSCRIBE REALLY TO ANY PHYSICAL NEWSPAPERS. I JUST SEE APPLE NEWS APP OR REDDIT NEWS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ON THE INTERNET?
JUROR: ON THE INTERNET.
JUDGE DAVILA: THERE ARE SOME OF MY VINTAGE, SIR, WHO REALLY ENJOY READING HARD COPY OF NEWSPAPERS. IT'S A -- WE DON'T SEEM TO SEE THAT AS MUCH ANYMORE. YOU HAVE NOT READ ANY NEWS ARTICLES IN A NEWSPAPER LIKE THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOUR INFORMATION IS INTERNET AND THAT?
JUROR: THAT'S CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING RECENTLY?
JUROR: I SAW JUST THE HEADLINE POP UP ABOUT JURY SELECTION FOR THIS CASE, BUT I DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND WAS THAT BECAUSE YOU KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO BE A POTENTIAL JUROR IN THE CASE?
JUROR: I JUST HAVE THE YAHOO FINANCE APP ON MY PHONE AND IT JUST MAYBE POPPED UP YESTERDAY, BUT I JUST SAW THE HEADLINE.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. I SEE. AND YOU DIDN'T DO ANY OTHER RESEARCH ON THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I SEE. I DO WANT TO PROBE ONE OTHER AREA WITH YOU, IF I MAY. I THINK YOU TOLD US ALSO IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT YOU'RE TAKING ETHICS, SOME ETHICS CLASSES AND YOU TALKED ABOUT WHISTLEBLOWERS AND THINGS AND YOU SAID YOU REALLY SUPPORT THEM I THINK. IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: THAT'S CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND IF A CASE WERE TO INVOLVE SOMETHING CALLED A WHISTLEBLOWER OR SOMEBODY WHO YOU THOUGHT MIGHT FIT THAT DEFINITION, WOULD THAT -- HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL AS A JUROR IN A CASE, IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: SO JUST IN MY CLASSES WE'VE HAD TO SEE SOME CASES, I GUESS, AND DECIDE WHETHER THE WHISTLEBLOWER OR THE COMPANY IS CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT'S A -- THAT'S PART OF YOUR EDUCATION. THAT'S PART OF THAT CLASS?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU KNOW, LAWYERS TAKES ETHICS CLASSES AS WELL AND THEY LOOK AT CASES AND THEY DISCUSS, WAS THIS THE RIGHT THING TO DO OR THE WRONG THING? ETHICS GIVE GUIDANCE. THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING?
JUROR: PRETTY SIMILAR. IT WAS FOR MORE, LIKE, ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING AND IT IMPACTS OR IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH IT, SHOULD YOU TELL SOMEBODY?
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU THINK THAT WHAT YOU LEARNED AND DISCUSSED IN THAT CLASS WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE TO BOTH SIDES?
JUROR: I BELIEVE WHAT I LEARNED IS YOU HAVE TO BE UNBIASSED FOR YOUR DECISIONS, AND IT'S A CASE-TO-CASE BASIS.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. WE'RE TRYING TO PROBE AND SEE IF YOU AND YOUR FELLOW PROSPECTIVE JURORS -- YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAVE -- WE KNOW WHAT BIAS IS. WE ALL HAVE IT. I SEE THAT YOU'RE WEARING A SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS SHIRT THERE, AND YOU'RE PROUD TO SAY THEY'RE THE WORLD CHAMPIONS, NOT FOR AWHILE, BUT MAYBE THIS YEAR. THEY'VE GOT A GOOD TEAM.
JUROR: THEY'VE GOT A GOOD TEAM.
JUDGE DAVILA: YEAH, THEY HAVE A GOOD TEAM. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER -- FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME LACK OF JUDGMENT, LET'S SAY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND SUPPORT A TEAM CALLED THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THERE'S SOME BIAS BUILT IN THERE. I'M USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE. I THINK YOU SHOOK YOUR HEAD FROM LEFT TO RIGHT WHEN I MENTIONED THAT NAME. SO PEOPLE BRING THESE BIASES IN. WE ALL HAVE THEM. WE ALSO HAVE IMPLICIT BIAS. THOSE ARE MORE DIFFICULT THINGS TO LOOK AT, AND WE TRY TO FERRET THOSE ISSUES OUT IF WE CAN. BEING A JUROR IS A VERY IMPORTANT JOB. IT'S AN IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY. AND WHAT WE ASK YOU TO DO IN MY EXAMPLE OF BASEBALL WAS THAT WE ASK YOU TO PUT ASIDE THOSE BIASES ABOUT THE DODGERS. I WILL CONCEDE THIS: THEY HAVE, IN MY OPINION, THE BEST HOME UNIFORMS IN THE LEAGUE. THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL, AREN'T THEY? THE RED, THE BLUE, THE WHITE. THEY HAVE THE BEST UNIFORMS. I HAVE TO CONFESS THAT. BUT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, YOU MIGHT BE A DIEHARD GIANTS FAN AND THE CASE MIGHT BE ABOUT THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS, AND YOU CAN'T LET THAT BIAS ABOUT THE LOS ANGELES DODGERS AFFECT YOUR DECISION. I'M SORRY TO BE SO BASIC HERE.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK YOU COULD DO?
JUROR: YEAH, I THINK SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE CALLED UPON AS JURORS. I'M SPEAKING TO YOU, BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING HERE BECAUSE I'M SPEAKING TO ALL OF YOUR COLLEAGUES BEHIND YOU AND NEXT TO YOU. WHAT WE ASK YOU TO DO, WHAT WE ASK JURORS TO DO IS TO -- OF COURSE YOU BRING THOSE BIASES THAT PEOPLE HAVE. WE CAN'T ASK YOU TO THROW THEM OUT THE WINDOW. BUT YOU HAVE TO, YOU MUST PUT THOSE BIASES ASIDE AS A JUROR WHEN YOU DECIDE THE CASE. AND YOUR DECISION, YOUR DECISION MUST BE BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU RECEIVE IN THIS COURTROOM, THE UNIVERSE OF THIS COURTROOM, NOT ANYTHING OUTSIDE, NOT ANYTHING THAT SOMEBODY TELLS YOU, NOT ANYTHING THAT YOU READ OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM, ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS INTRODUCED BY THESE LAWYERS, THAT'S IT, AND THE LAW THAT I GIVE YOU. I WILL GIVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS AT THE END OF THE CASE THAT WILL GUIDE YOUR DELIBERATIONS. YOU SEE, JURORS ARE ACTUALLY JUDGES. YOU'RE JUDGES OF THE FACTS. YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENED OR WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. YOU GET TO DECIDE THAT. BUT YOU MUST, AND YOU WILL AS A JUROR, APPLY THE LAW THAT I GIVE TO YOU TO THE FACTS AS YOU DECIDE THEM. BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT JOB, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IT'S CRITICAL THAT EVERY JUROR WHO SITS ON THE CASE DECIDE THIS CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE HERE AND NOT ON ANY OTHER MATERIAL THAT THEY MAY HAVE READ, LISTENED TO, SEEN, OR BEEN EXPOSED TO. FAMILY MEMBERS MIGHT HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT THINGS. THAT HAS TO STAY OUT OF YOUR DECISION FOR THIS CASE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO. THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. THANK YOU FOR BEING ABLE TO STAND UP HERE. IT'S NICE TO SEE ANOTHER GIANTS FAN, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS WITH YOU. SO AS TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER, YOU'VE LEARNED ABOUT THAT IN YOUR ENGINEERING CLASS. YOU'VE LEARNED THOSE THINGS?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I'M SURE YOU SCORED HIGHLY ON THAT EXAM WHEN YOU WROTE YOUR EXAM. BUT HERE I WILL GIVE YOU, I WILL GIVE YOU THE LAW THAT YOU APPLY TO THE FACTS AS YOU FIND THEM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU DO THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: WITHOUT ANY BIAS? WITHOUT ANY THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU LEARNED IN YOUR CLASS, THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR PROFESSOR TAUGHT YOU, BUT FOCUSSED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE HERE?
JUROR: I BELIEVE SO, YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WELL, YOU HAVE GOOD JUDGMENT. YOU HAVE GOOD JUDGMENT. YOU'RE SUPPORTING A GOOD BASEBALL TEAM, SO THAT'S IMPRESSIVE ALREADY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT US TO KNOW ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: THAT'S ALL.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
JUROR: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: WERE THERE OTHER HANDS IN THE JURY BOX? YES. IS THIS MR. LIU?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU WANT TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE?
JUROR: YES. I'M JUROR NUMBER 20.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, THANK YOU.
JUROR: I DIDN'T RAISE MY HAND EARLIER, BUT I HEARD ABOUT THIS CASE YEARS AGO, JUST HIGH LEVEL BASICALLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: HIGH LEVEL. AND TELL US THE MOST RECENT TIMING OF THE MOST RECENT INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED.
JUROR: JUST THE LATEST NEWS BECAUSE OF THE TRIAL AND IT'S GOING TO BE STARTING PRETTY SOON, AND LAST WEEK WHEN I CAME HERE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT. SO, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: FROM THE MEDIA, YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT FROM THE MEDIA?
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHAT WAS THE LAST THING -- THE TIMING, WHEN DID YOU MOST RECENTLY HEAR THE LAST THING? WAS IT IN THE PAPER YESTERDAY? WAS IT THIS MORNING OR A WEEK AGO?
JUROR: IT WAS ABOUT A WEEK AGO. IT WAS IN THE NEWS THAT THE TRIAL IS COMING UP.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DID YOU SEE THAT AFTER YOU COMPLETED THE QUESTIONNAIRE OR BEFORE?
JUROR: BEFORE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING THAT YOU READ OR HEARD OR SAW? ANYTHING ABOUT THAT? I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO TELL ME WHAT IT WAS.
JUROR: YEAH, JUST REFRESH AND BRING BACK MY MEMORY OF SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN THIS CASE FIRST CAME OUT, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. WELL, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW, HEARD, OR READ THAT YOU THINK WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR IN THIS TRIAL TODAY?
JUROR: YEAH, I WILL BE FAIR. IT WON'T AFFECT MY DECISION.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. NOTHING THAT YOU HEARD, READ, OR SAW WILL AFFECT YOUR DECISION?
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION -- IF YOU'RE SELECTED AS A JUROR IN THIS CASE, CAN YOU MAKE THAT DECISION BASED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU GET IN THIS COURTROOM?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOT ON ANYTHING OUTSIDE?
JUROR: THAT'S CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. THERE WAS MR. CHUANG; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YES. I'VE READ NEWS ARTICLES ON THE INTERNET ABOUT THIS CASE, AND I ALSO WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARY ON THIS CASE. SO I MAY HAVE SOME PREDISPOSED OR BIAS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: BUT THAT WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. THAT'S WHAT MY NEXT QUESTION WAS, WHEN DID YOU SEE THAT?
JUROR: A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING SINCE OR READ ANYTHING SINCE?
JUROR: NO. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY FOLLOW UP.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO DO YOU REMEMBER TODAY, I'M NOT ASKING WHAT YOU SAW, BUT DO YOU REMEMBER IT?
JUROR: BITS AND PIECES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. WELL, YOU HEARD ME TALKING TO MR. SCHULTZE ABOUT THE DECISION THAT A JUROR MAKES ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU DO THAT?
JUROR: I CAN TRY TO PUT MY BIAS ASIDE AND ONLY LOOK AT THE FACTS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. SO DO YOU THINK -- YOU SAID YOU COULD PUT YOUR BIAS ASIDE. DO YOU HAVE A BIAS IN THIS CASE RIGHT NOW?
JUROR: WELL, THE DOCUMENTARY KIND OF PAINTED --
JUDGE DAVILA: PARDON ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU. SO YOU SAW A DOCUMENTARY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WAS PERSUASIVE IN SOME WAY TO YOU?
JUROR: I THINK IT WAS PAINTED --
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, I'M NOT ASKING YOU EXACTLY -- I DON'T WANT YOU TO REPEAT THE DOCUMENTARY. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE EFFECT OF THAT DOCUMENTARY ON YOUR THINKING ABOUT A JUROR, BEING A FAIR JUROR. DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION?
JUROR: I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT?
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. I'M SORRY. THAT WASN'T VERY ARTFUL. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO TELL US WHAT YOU SAW, WHAT THEY SAID.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M MORE INTERESTED IN HOW THAT AFFECTED YOU AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S CREATED A BIAS IN YOU THAT PREVENTS YOU FROM BEING FAIR -- AND LET ME BE CANDID -- BEING FAIR TO MS. HOLMES. HAVE YOU, BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU READ, BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU SAW, HAS THAT PUT YOU IN A POSITION TODAY TO MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE I CAN'T BE FAIR TO MS. HOLMES BECAUSE I'VE SEEN SOMETHING THAT BOTHERS ME? OR MAYBE IT'S NOT MS. HOLMES. MAYBE IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE. MAYBE YOU CAN'T BE FAIR TO THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE SEEN OR HEARD.
JUROR: YEAH, I HAVE SOME BIASSED OPINION.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ABOUT THE DEFENSE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'VE SEEN?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN PUT THAT ASIDE?
JUROR: YES, I CAN LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK NOW. I TOLD YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE WOULD TAKE A BREAK AT THE TOP OF THE HOUR FOR A MOMENT. I THINK WE'LL TAKE ABOUT -- LET'S TAKE -- WELL, IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO GET YOU UP HERE, SO LET'S TAKE 15 MINUTES, PLEASE. MR. CHUANG, WHY DON'T YOU -- CAN I ASK YOU TO STAY, AND I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT WITH THESE LAWYERS.
JUROR: SURE.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. CHUANG, YOU'RE NOT IN TROUBLE. LET ME SAY THAT, YOU'RE NOT IN TROUBLE.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: SO LET'S TAKE A 15 MINUTES BREAK, FOLKS. MR. CHUANG WILL REMAIN. WE'LL REMAIN ON THE RECORD.
(JURY OUT AT 10:58 A.M.).
JUDGE DAVILA: WHY DON'T WE HAVE A SEAT. LET ME SAY THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE JURORS HAVE LEFT THE COURTROOM. COULD I ASK YOU TO STEP OUTSIDE?
JUROR: OH, I'M SORRY.
JUDGE DAVILA: NO. THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT.
(JURY OUT AT 10:58 A.M.)
(ONLY PROSPECTIVE JUROR CHUANG PRESENT.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT WE HAVE TAKEN A RECESS. OUR JURY PANEL HAS LEFT, SAVE FOR MR. CHUANG. I WANTED TO TALK TO MR. CHUANG OUTSIDE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE JURORS. YOU'RE NOT IN TROUBLE. YOU HEARD ME TALK ABOUT WHAT THIS PROCESS IS ABOUT. WE'RE TRYING TO SEE IF PEOPLE CAN BE FAIR JURORS IN THE CASE, AND MY CONCERN, I HOPE YOU APPRECIATE -- AND THESE LAWYERS ARE ALSO CONCERNED -- THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY SOMETHING THAT MIGHT AFFECT SOMEONE ELSE'S OPINIONS. YOU'RE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINIONS AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO EXPLORE RIGHT NOW. YOU'VE TOLD US THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THESE DOCUMENTARIES, I THINK YOU SAID -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT YOU SAID YOU MIGHT BE BIASSED. WHY DON'T YOU TELL US ABOUT THAT? MAYBE YOU CAN COME UP TO THIS MICROPHONE. WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT WITH YOU, SIR?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: SO THE DOCUMENTARY WAS PAINTING A PICTURE THAT MS. HOLMES IS -- LIKE, A NEGATIVE PICTURE ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS DOING AND HOW THE COMPANY WAS, LIKE --
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU KNOW, MR. CHUANG, DON'T HESITATE. JUST TELL US.
JUROR: THE DOCUMENTARY SAID SHE KNOWS ABOUT THESE FRAUDS AND SHE CONTINUES TO DO THESE FRAUDS, I GUESS.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE, UH-HUH.
JUROR: SO THAT MIGHT HAVE AFFECT MY OPINION.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. FROM WHAT YOU HEARD AND WHAT YOU SAW?
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DO YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD PUT THAT ASIDE AND BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE, OR DO YOU THINK YOU'LL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?
JUROR: I THINK I COULD TRY TO PUT THAT BIAS ASIDE AND I CAN JUST LOOK AT THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THIS SOMETIMES HAPPENS IN TRIAL. THIS WILL BE A LONG TRIAL I TOLD YOU. BUT YOU MIGHT HEAR TESTIMONY AND YOU MIGHT THINK, OH, I THINK I SAW THAT. I REMEMBER THIS, WHATEVER IT WAS, DOCUMENTARY SPEAKING ABOUT THIS. BUT IN THE DOCUMENTARY, THEY SAID THIS. BUT NOW I'M HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT. DO YOU THINK YOU -- YOU MIGHT FIND YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION, AND WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD DO?
JUROR: I WILL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED ONLY IN THIS COURTHOUSE. TO BE HONEST, I DON'T REMEMBER MUCH ABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY, ONLY, LIKE, BITS AND PIECES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. BUT IT DID AFFECT YOU SOMEHOW?
JUROR: YES, IT DID.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HONEST. YOU TOLD US THAT IN QUESTIONS 38. QUESTION 39 YOU SAID, I MAY HAVE WATCHED IT AND IT MAY AFFECT ME TO HAVE A BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW. DO YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO, OR CAN YOU PUT ASIDE ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE SAID -- OR EXCUSE ME -- YOU'VE READ OR YOU'VE SEEN, CAN YOU PUT THAT ASIDE?
JUROR: YES, I CAN.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DO YOU HAVE CERTAINTY ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I'M GOING TO LET THESE LAWYERS ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, OR TWO. THEY MAY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WHY DON'T YOU -- I WANT YOU TO BE COMFORTABLE. WHY DON'T YOU JUST SIT IN THAT CHAIR RIGHT THERE.
JUROR: THIS ONE (INDICATING)?
JUDGE DAVILA: YEAH, THAT'S FINE. AND I'LL ASK MR. LEACH OR MR. SCHENK, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
MR. SCHENK: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
MR. DOWNEY: I DO, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE.
MR. DOWNEY: LET ME REPEAT WHAT HIS HONOR SAID, WE APPRECIATE YOUR HONESTY AND DON'T WANT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE IN COURT OR THAT I REPRESENT MS. HOLMES TO LIMIT WHAT YOU SAY AS TO ANY OPINIONS OR BIASES OR VIEWS ABOUT THE CASE THAT YOU HOLD. JUDGE DAVILA POINTED YOU A MOMENT AGO TO AN ANSWER THAT YOU GAVE IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE WHERE YOU SAID, "THE DOCUMENTARY THAT I HAVE WATCHED MAY HAVE AFFECTED ME TO HAVE BIAS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT." I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU, WHEN YOU WROTE THAT, WHAT WAS IN YOUR MIND ABOUT MS. HOLMES FROM THE DOCUMENTARY?
JUROR: WELL, THE DOCUMENTARY WAS -- YOU MEAN LIKE A NEGATIVE PICTURE ABOUT THE DEFENDANT? THAT SHE WAS KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY COMMITTING THE FRAUD?
JUDGE DAVILA: HANG ON JUST A SECOND, SIR. WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU A MICROPHONE. I'M SORRY, MR. DOWNEY. I APOLOGIZE. MR. DOWNEY, IS THE TIMING ALL RIGHT TO CONTINUE WITH YOUR EXAMINATION?
MR. DOWNEY: I THINK. MAY I JUST CHECK WITH ONE ISSUE, YOUR HONOR?
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, WHAT TIME WERE YOU THINKING OF BREAKING FOR LUNCH?
JUDGE DAVILA: I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT BREAKING, MR. DOWNEY.
MR. DOWNEY: WE JUST HAD MENTIONED TO YOUR HONOR --
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M TEASING YOU. I'M TEASING YOU. I THOUGHT WE WOULD BREAK AT NOON. IF WE STARTED AT 9:00, I THOUGHT WE WOULD BREAK AT NOON. WE GOT A LATE START TODAY, AND I'M NOT SURPRISED ABOUT THAT. I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN BREAK IN 50 MINUTES AT NOON.
MR. DOWNEY: OKAY. WHY DON'T WE CONTINUE THEN.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNEY: YOU WERE EXPLAINING TO ME, SIR, WHY YOU GAVE THE ANSWER WHERE YOU INDICATED THAT WHAT YOU WATCHED IN THE DOCUMENTARY MAY HAVE AFFECTED YOU TO HAVE BIAS AGAINST MS. HOLMES. TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
JUROR: SO THE DOCUMENTARY WAS GIVING, LIKE, A NEGATIVE PICTURE ABOUT THE DEFENDANT AND I THOUGHT THAT -- YOU KNOW, I WAS GETTING, LIKE, A NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THE DEFENDANT FROM THE DOCUMENTARY, AND THAT'S WHY I PUT THAT ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE THAT I RECOGNIZE THAT I HAVE SOME BIAS. BUT, YOU KNOW, I CAN TRY TO, LIKE, PUT THAT ASIDE.
MR. DOWNEY: TELL US ABOUT THAT WHEN YOU SAY "PUT ASIDE." THIS WAS A DOCUMENTARY THAT YOU WATCHED HOW MANY YEARS AGO?
JUROR: I THINK IT WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT TIME.
MR. DOWNEY: OKAY. AND THE DOCUMENTARY STUCK WITH YOU ENOUGH THAT YOU REMEMBERED THE REACTION THAT YOU HAD TO IT; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: RIGHT -- I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT INFORMATION, BUT I DO REMEMBER, LIKE, I WAS GETTING A NEGATIVE VIBE FROM THAT DOCUMENTARY.
MR. DOWNEY: AND DO YOU THINK IF YOU WERE SELECTED AS A JUROR HERE THAT AS DEFENSE COUNSEL WE MIGHT BE STARTING --
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M SORRY, MR. CHUANG. YOU CAN CONTINUE.
JUROR: I CAN TRY TO PUT ASIDE THE BIAS AS I SAID AND ONLY LOOK AT THE FACTS.
MR. DOWNEY: DO YOU THINK WHEN WE START THE TRIAL OR THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE THAT, JUST AS MS. HOLMES'S COUNSEL, THAT WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BEHIND BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE A VIEW OF OUR CLIENT FROM THAT DOCUMENTARY?
JUROR: NO. I WILL GIVE THE TRIAL LIKE A FAIR GROUND, A FAIR SHOT FROM BOTH SIDES.
MR. DOWNEY: WE WANT YOUR HONEST VIEW OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT TO US IN MAKING DECISIONS AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO JUDGE DAVILA. SO DO YOU THINK IF THE PERSON INVOLVED HERE WERE NOT MS. HOLMES, BUT SOMEBODY WHO WAS CLOSE TO YOU, THAT YOU'RE SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE PROCEEDING WITHOUT ANY BIAS AS A JUROR? WOULD YOU WANT SOMEONE WITH YOUR MINDSET TO BE A JUROR?
JUROR: NO. I WANT A FAIR JUROR.
MR. DOWNEY: TELL ME WHY THAT IS.
JUROR: WELL, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANY BIAS OR OPINION TO AFFECT THE FAIRNESS OF THE TRIAL, SO I WOULD WANT SOMEBODY, LIKE, WITH UNBIASSED OPINION TO COME IN AS A JUROR.
MR. DOWNEY: I APPRECIATE YOUR HONESTY, SIR, AND OPENNESS WITH US. I KNOW IT'S NOT EASY TO COME TO THIS FORUM, SO I APPRECIATE IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO, MR. CHUANG, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HONEST WITH US. SO WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY A MOMENT AGO TO MR. DOWNEY'S QUESTION, I'M NOT SURE -- I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD HIS QUESTION. I THINK HIS QUESTION WAS, IF YOU HAD A FAMILY MEMBER WHO WAS IN A SITUATION AND THEY WERE IN A TRIAL AND THEY HAD A JUROR WHO HAD YOUR MINDSET ABOUT THE CASE, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE HAVING THAT PERSON ON THE JURY? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION? DID YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? I THINK WHAT HE WAS ASKING YOU IN ESSENCE IS, IS YOUR BIAS SUCH THAT -- AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG, GOOD, BAD, ANYTHING, BUT DO YOU HOLD A BIAS? DO YOU HOLD STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS CASE SUCH THAT YOU THINK YOU CAN'T BE FAIR?
JUROR: I DON'T HAVE A STRONG FEELING ABOUT THIS CASE. I DON'T FEEL A STRONG FEELING ABOUT THIS CASE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. YOU HAVE SHARED WITH US WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN AND WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD IN THAT SHOW. YOU SAID THAT THEY SAID SOME THINGS THERE THAT MADE AN IMPRESSION ON YOU. LET ME JUST ASK YOU, CAN YOU BE FAIR TO MS. HOLMES? DO YOU THINK YOU COULD BE FAIR TO HER?
JUROR: YEAH, I THINK I CAN BE FAIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. CAN YOU PUT ASIDE ALL THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN THAT SHOW BEFORE AND LISTEN TO THIS CASE AND HEAR THIS EVIDENCE WITHOUT, WITHOUT LETTING ANY OF THAT COME IN AND AFFECT YOUR JUDGMENT ON THIS CASE?
JUROR: YES, I BELIEVE I CAN.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT ANSWER? IT'S -- IT'S -- I'M JUST SAYING, IT MIGHT BE A DIFFICULT THING TO DO IF YOU'VE SEEN THIS, SEEN SOMETHING, EVEN IF IT'S A COUPLE YEARS AGO, AND THEN IN THIS CASE IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT YOU'LL HEAR INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SAW ON THAT DOCUMENTARY, AND IT MAY CAUSE YOU TO THINK, WAIT A MINUTE, I REMEMBER READING THIS OR SEEING THIS, WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT? BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR JOB HERE IS. YOUR JOB IS JUST TO DECIDE THE CASE ON WHAT YOU HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM. I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. I'VE SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES. BUT I SAY IT SEVERAL TIMES BECAUSE IT'S CRITICAL. IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN DO THAT. AND IF YOU CAN'T, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S FINE. IF YOU CAN, THAT'S FINE, TOO. THAT'S JUST A QUESTION THAT THESE LAWYERS AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW.
JUROR: YEAH, I BELIEVE I CAN DO THAT, I CAN BE FAIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION ABOUT -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS A LONG TRIAL. MAYBE SIX WEEKS FROM NOW YOU MIGHT THINK, OH, I REMEMBER THIS, OH, MAYBE I BETTER THINK DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE WHAT I SAW IN THAT SHOW IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAPPENED HERE IN THE COURTROOM. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK COULD HAPPEN? I KNOW YOU CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE, BUT, YEAH, THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
JUROR: WELL, THAT WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO SO I DON'T HAVE, LIKE, VERY FRESH MEMORIES OF THEM.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. OKAY. MR. DOWNEY, ANY FOLLOWUP?
MR. DOWNEY: LET ME JUST ASK YOU, SINCE YOU WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARY, HAVE YOU EXPRESSED VIEWS ABOUT MS. HOLMES OR THERANOS TO ANYONE?
JUROR: NO.
MR. DOWNEY: YOU'VE NEVER DISCUSSED WATCHING THE DOCUMENTARY WITH ANYONE?
JUROR: NO.
MR. DOWNEY: WHEN YOU SAY YOU THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PUT IT ASIDE AND BE FAIR, DO YOU HAVE IN MIND HOW YOU'LL DO THAT?
JUROR: WELL, I WILL LOOK AT THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED AND DECIDE BASED ON THOSE ONLY.
MR. DOWNEY: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE THAT.
JUROR: YOU'RE WELCOME.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO FOLLOWUP, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. MR. CHUANG, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US. JUST LEAVE THE MICROPHONE. WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND TAKE YOUR BREAK, AND WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE FOLKS COME BACK IN ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK FOR ABOUT SEVEN MINUTES? YEAH.
COURT CLERK: COURT IS IN RECESS.
(RECESS FROM 11:13 A.M. UNTIL 11:23 A.M.)
(JURY IN AT 11:23 A.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES PREVIOUSLY PRESENT ARE PRESENT ONCE AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR THE BREAK, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LET'S CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT. I SAW SOME OTHER HANDS IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION ABOUT NEWS COVERAGE. LET'S GO BACK TO THE BOX HERE. WERE THERE ANY OTHER HANDS HERE IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION ABOUT NEWS COVERAGE? I SEE NO HANDS. I BEG YOUR PARDON. IS THAT MR. RAO?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHY DON'T YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, SIR.
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 26.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: I DID SEE A DOCUMENTARY A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK, AND SINCE THEN I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE CASE, BUT JUST THAT IT PIQUED MY INTEREST AND I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THE MAIN HEADLINES, BUT NOT THE CASE DETAILS AND SUCH. YEAH. I KNOW THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON THERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. AND CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THE MOST RECENT THING THAT YOU SAW OR HEARD OR --
JUROR: YEAH. SO MORE RECENTLY -- I'M NOT AN AVID FOLLOWER, SO I HAVEN'T LOOKED UP ANY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORTS ON THE INTERNET FOR THIS. I HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY AT WORK. SO SUBSEQUENTLY I GOT THE CALL TO COME TO JURY DUTY FOR THIS CASE, SO I HAVEN'T DONE ANY RESEARCH SINCE THEN.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. SO THAT WAS THE -- THE LAST THING THAT YOU SAW WAS WHAT YOU TOLD US ABOUT IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE?
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS A --
JUROR: A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK I THINK THERE WAS A DOCUMENTARY ON "20/20," I THINK.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, ABC "20/20"?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. AND YOU WATCHED THAT ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU REMEMBER TODAY ANYTHING WITH GREAT CLARITY -- I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU WHAT IT WAS, BUT DO YOU HAVE RECALL OF THAT?
JUROR: I DO HAVE RECALL. I THINK THE THING THAT STRUCK ME WAS THE COMPANY --
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: -- SHE WAS SO YOUNG AND IT WAS AN INSPIRATION OF HOW THE COMPANY EVOLVED AND WHAT CASES WERE PART OF THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW AND WHAT YOU RECALL THAT YOU THINK, MR. RAO, WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES HERE?
JUROR: NO, IT WILL NOT IMPAIR MY JUDGMENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU CAN BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU WILL DECIDE THE CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU CAN DO THAT NOT WITH ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. I THINK IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NUMBER 39, YOU TOLD US THAT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR, AND QUESTION 65 YOU SAID YOU COULD BE FAIR?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. YOU CAN BE SEATED. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S SEE. WERE THERE OTHER HANDS HERE? LET'S STAY IN OUR FRONT ROW HERE. MR. WITHERSPOON?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHY DON'T YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU.
JUROR: I'M JUROR 29.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, SIR, THANK YOU.
JUROR: LIKE THE OTHERS, I SAW STUFF ONLINE AND HEADLINES, AND I THINK I KNOW SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE CASE EITHER FROM A TED TALK OR SOMETHING. IT WAS SOMETHING ON YOUTUBE, RIGHT, AND I DON'T THINK I WATCHED IT ALL OF THE WAY THROUGH. I KNOW SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE CASE, BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE CURRENT, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, MR. WITHERSPOON. WHEN YOU SAY YOU KNOW THE DETAILS OF THE CASE, IS THAT FROM WHAT YOU'VE SEEN?
JUROR: JUST SORT OF THE GENERAL TIMELINE AND WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN ANY OF THOSE. BUT I DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH RECOLLECTION OF IT. THERE WASN'T --
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. SO THE SOURCE OF YOUR INFORMATION IS FROM THOSE SHOWS THAT YOU'VE SEEN, THE YOUTUBE AND THAT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
JUROR: YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND HOW LONG -- WHAT IS THE MOST RECENT EXPOSURE, THE MOST RECENT THING THAT YOU HAVE SEEN?
JUROR: JUST THE NEWS AROUND THE CASE UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW, JUST THE HEADLINES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND TELL ME THE MOST RECENT THING THAT YOU'VE READ, JUST THE DATE AND TIME STAMP THAT.
JUROR: OH, MY GOSH. THIS WEEK I SAW A HEADLINE, BUT I SORT OF AVOIDED IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT WAS AT A TIME BEFORE YOU FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE OR AFTER?
JUROR: IT WAS AFTER.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE -- I'M CURIOUS IF YOU REMEMBER THE QUESTIONNAIRE TELLING YOU, I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS HAD A LONG STATEMENT ABOUT JURORS NOT LETTING OUTSIDE INFORMATION AFFECT THEM, AND HAVING READ THAT, IS THAT WHY YOU DIDN'T FINISH THAT ARTICLE?
JUROR: YES, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR FIDELITY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS AND TO THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE JURORS. SO, MR. WITHERSPOON, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ON YOUTUBE OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU THINK WILL AFFECT IN ANY WAY YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES HERE?
JUROR: I DON'T THINK IT WILL AFFECT MY ABILITY TO BE IMPARTIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE GREAT CLARITY AND ASSURANCE OF THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT, IF YOU SIT AS A JUROR IN THIS CASE AND SOME EVIDENCE COMES UP, THAT IT MIGHT TRIGGER A RECALL FROM SOMETHING YOU'VE SEEN IN THAT VIDEO, DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE BALANCING WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ON THE YOUTUBE VIS-A-VIS WHAT YOU'VE HEARD IN THE COURTROOM? WOULD THAT BE AN ISSUE FOR YOU?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SEPARATE THOSE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK AT GREAT LENGTH ABOUT THE NEED TO DECIDE THE CASE, IF YOU'RE A JUROR, ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE IN THIS COURTROOM. TO DO THAT, YOU'RE FAIR TO THE GOVERNMENT AND YOU'RE FAIR TO MS. HOLMES. CAN YOU DO THAT, SIR?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. ANY QUESTION ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE OTHER HANDS IN THE FRONT ROW? LET ME SEE, IS THAT MS. GROGAN? I'M SORRY.
JUROR: I'M SORRY, I'M JUROR NUMBER 31.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: SO I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT AT WORK I PARTICIPATE IN SOCIAL CHANNELS VIA OUR CHAT PROGRAM SLACK, AND THERE WAS AN ARTICLE SHARED SINCE THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS FILLED OUT. I DID NOT READ IT, HOWEVER. I DID SEE THE TITLE, AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I SAY THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT. YOU SAW THE HEADLINE, BUT YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE, AND THIS WAS SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE?
JUROR: CORRECT. IT WAS AFTER.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. I SEE. AND YOU RECOGNIZED YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT?
JUROR: CORRECT, YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. IS THAT THE ONLY EXPOSURE THAT YOU'VE HAD?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPOSURE THAT WILL IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL?
JUROR: NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYTHING AT ALL THAT YOU THINK RAISES A QUESTION OF BIAS IN YOUR MIND AS TOWARDS OR AGAINST EITHER OF THE PARTIES IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: I DO BELIEVE THAT MY -- I MEAN, I MENTIONED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS WELL THAT I'VE CONSUMED SOME MATERIAL ABOUT THIS CASE, SO I DO BELIEVE THAT BEFORE BEING CALLED TO JURY DUTY, YOU KNOW, I HAD SOME AWARENESS OF IT. HOWEVER, I DO STILL ALSO BELIEVE THAT I AM CAPABLE OF PUTTING THOSE BIASES ASIDE, CRITICALLY THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS ACTUALLY PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO I THINK YOU READ A BOOK ABOUT THIS CASE?
JUROR: I DID, YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. RIGHT. AND HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?
JUROR: AT LEAST A YEAR AGO. PROBABLY MORE. BEFORE THE PANDEMIC.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: WHATEVER TIME WAS BEFORE THEN.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A LONG TIME AGO, DOESN'T IT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. AND I READ THAT IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR. THE QUESTION IT RAISES FOR ME, AND I'M SURE THESE LAWYERS, TOO, YOU KNOW, MS. GROGAN HAS READ A BOOK THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED TOWARDS AT LEAST THE FACTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THIS CASE.
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHAT AND HOW WILL THAT IMPACT HER AS TO SIT AS A -- YOU HEARD ME TALK AS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS FAIR AND UNBIASSED JURORS. OF COURSE WE CAN'T ASK YOU TO UNREAD THE BOOK.
JUROR: YEAH, I DON'T THINK I COULD DO THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO THEN THE NEXT STEP IS, WELL, HOW CAN YOU -- HAVING READ THE BOOK, HOW CAN YOU, HOW CAN YOU PUT THAT ASIDE, WHAT YOU'VE READ, AND BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUROR IN THIS CASE.
JUROR: I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. I BELIEVE IT HAS TO DO WITH ACKNOWLEDGING WHERE KNOWLEDGE COMES FROM AND BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT AND SAY THIS IS THE KNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE FROM THIS PERIOD. IT'S NOT PART OF MY DECISION MAKING. I THINK I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT THOSE THINGS ASIDE AND I HAVE CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS. HOWEVER, THAT IS MY BELIEF AND I ATTEST TO THAT I WILL DO WHAT I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THE CASE. YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING, AND I'M NOT PUTTING WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, JUDGE, I'M GOING TO DO THE BEST THAT I CAN.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHAT HAPPENS IF -- DO I HAVE TO BE CONCERNED THAT MS. GROGAN IS DOING THE BEST THAT SHE CAN, BUT AT ONE POINT SHE'S GOING TO REMEMBER CHAPTER, WHATEVER, 15 OR SOMETHING AND NOW WE'RE OFF TO THE RACES BECAUSE THAT HAS INFECTED HER --
JUROR: ABILITY?
JUDGE DAVILA: -- THOUGHT PROCESS. RIGHT, RIGHT.
JUROR: BUT I THINK MY CORRECT APPROACH WOULD BE TO LET YOU ALL KNOW AND EXCUSE MYSELF FOR SOME OTHER KIND OF INFORMATION. IS THAT CORRECT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, THIS ISN'T A TEST, I PROMISE YOU. YOU'RE AFFILIATED WITH SLACK.
JUROR: I'M SORRY?
JUDGE DAVILA: ARE YOU AFFILIATED WITH SLACK?
JUROR: NO. THAT WAS THE CHAT PROGRAM THAT I WAS DESCRIBING EARLIER.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. THERE'S NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS HERE. THERE REALLY ISN'T.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'RE PROBING FOR FAIRNESS. WE REALLY ARE. I HOPE YOU APPRECIATE THAT.
JUROR: THAT'S FAIR. YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I'M SURE THESE LAWYERS HAVE, I HAVE, AS TO IT WILL BE A LONG TRIAL AND DOWN THE ROAD, OKAY, HERE COMES CHAPTER 15, I CAN NO LONGER BE FAIR. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO PREDICT, I SUPPOSE, TODAY. CAN YOU BE FAIR TODAY AND CAN YOU BE FAIR THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE TRIAL? CAN YOU KEEP THAT SPIRIT OF FAIRNESS, THAT FIDELITY TO FAIRNESS TO BOTH SIDES HERE? THAT'S WHAT WE ASK OF YOU. THAT'S WHAT WE ASK OF JURORS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO DO. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
JUROR: AS I MENTIONED IN MY QUESTIONNAIRE, I DO BELIEVE THAT I HAVE THE CAPACITY TO, AGAIN, CRITICALLY THINK ABOUT INFORMATION PRESENTED TO ME. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY HUMAN ON THE PLANET IS CAPABLE OF HAVING ABSOLUTELY NO BIASES, BUT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT THEY CAN ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECOGNIZE THAT THEY HAVE THEM. THAT SAID, I AM ACTUALLY, LIKE, MAYBE A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT CONSIDERING MY CONSUMPTION OF MEDIA I'M EVEN HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I -- I DON'T KNOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M SORRY. MAYBE YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.
JUROR: YEAH. I KIND OF LIKE ASSUMED THAT THE FACT THAT I MENTIONED THAT I READ SOMETHING OR I EVEN SAW SOMETHING, THAT THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, LIKE DISMISS ME IMMEDIATELY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT I COULD SAY THAT I WOULD PUT THAT ASIDE.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. I SEE. WELL, WE ASK JURORS TO BE CANDID ABOUT THEMSELVES, AND YOU HAVE BEEN, AND YOUR COLLEAGUES HAVE BEEN, AND YOU'VE READ THE BOOK, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROBING, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU'VE READ THE BOOK. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T BE FAIR? IS THAT WHAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? OR --
JUROR: I AM NOT SAYING THAT, NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. YOU'RE SAYING YOU'VE READ THE BOOK, YOU UNDERSTAND THE JOB DESCRIPTION FOR A JUROR, AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT YOU CAN ADHERE TO THE JOB DESCRIPTION OF A JUROR TO DECIDE THIS CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE HERE AND PUT ASIDE ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO? CAN YOU DO THAT?
JUROR: CORRECT. YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK MR. SCHENK IF HE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS TOPIC.
MR. SCHENK: NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: MS. GROGAN, YOU READ THE BOOK "BAD BLOOD;" CORRECT?
JUROR: CORRECT.
MR. DOWNEY: HOW LONG DID IT TAKE YOU TO READ THAT?
JUROR: OH, I DON'T KNOW.
MR. DOWNEY: DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE?
JUROR: PROBABLY OVER A WEEK OR MORE, YEAH.
MR. DOWNEY: OKAY. AND WHILE YOU WERE READING IT, DID YOU DISCUSS IT WITH ANYONE?
JUROR: YES, MY PARTNER.
MR. DOWNEY: AND DID YOU EXPRESS ANY VIEWS ABOUT THERANOS OR MS. HOLMES WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING IT?
JUROR: YES.
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, I WONDER IF WE MIGHT --
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU WANT TO PASS --
MR. DOWNEY: -- PASS ON THAT ISSUE FOR RIGHT NOW AND MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION RELATED TO THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU WANT TO ASK NOW, MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: YEAH. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT YOUR STATEMENTS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AS TO BIAS. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE BEEN EXPOSED TO A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THERANOS?
JUROR: I WOULD PROBABLY ASK YOU TO DEFINE "A LOT."
MR. DOWNEY: WELL, THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION. DID YOU FEEL LIKE YOU LEARNED AT LEAST A BASIC STORY AS TO WHAT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT HAPPENED AT THERANOS?
JUROR: I BELIEVE I LEARNED A BASIC STORY, YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT IT IS, HAS THAT GIVEN YOU ANY VIEW ON MS. HOLMES ONE WAY OR ANOTHER?
JUROR: NOT NECESSARILY, NO.
MR. DOWNEY: OKAY. SO YOU'VE BEEN ABLE TO ABSORB THAT WITHOUT HAVING A VIEW AS TO MS. HOLMES?
JUROR: CORRECT.
MR. DOWNEY: OKAY. WE CAN HAVE THE DISCUSSION I THINK RELATED TO THE REST OF IT LATER.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'LL SEE IF WE HAVE A DISCUSSION. MS. GROGAN. THANK YOU. ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION MAYBE OUT OF CURIOSITY.
JUROR: SURE.
MR. DOWNEY: YOU SAID YOU WERE SURPRISED TO BE HERE --
JUROR: YES.
MR. DOWNEY: -- SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU READ THE BOOK.
JUROR: RIGHT.
MR. DOWNEY: AND TELL ME, WHAT ASSUMPTION WERE YOU HAVING WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE SURPRISED TO BE HERE?
JUROR: I SORT OF HAVE BEEN OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT IF ANYONE HAS CONSUMED ANYTHING ABOUT A GIVEN CASE, THAT THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE UNABLE TO SERVE ON A JURY. SO THE FACT THAT I CONSUMED ANY INFORMATION AT ALL SEEMED LIKE A DISQUALIFYING FACTOR, BUT MAYBE THAT WAS AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION ON MY PART.
MR. DOWNEY: TELL ME WHY YOU THOUGHT PEOPLE KNOWING ABOUT SOMETHING ABOUT A CASE IN ADVANCE MIGHT DISQUALIFY THEM.
JUROR: PROBABLY LIKE T.V. SHOWS, JUST LIKE A POOR UNDERSTANDING OF THE COURTROOM.
MR. DOWNEY: YOU'RE TELLING US EXACTLY WHY AND YOU'RE BEING VERY HONEST. I THINK THAT'S ALL FOR RIGHT NOW, YOUR HONOR.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT.
JUROR: ANYTHING ELSE?
JUDGE DAVILA: OH, DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, MS. GROGAN. THERE WAS ANOTHER HAND IN YOUR ROW, WASN'T THERE, MS. GROGAN? YES, LET'S SEE. MR. WONG, WHY DON'T YOU COME FORWARD. THANK YOU, SIR. AND WHAT JUROR NUMBER ARE YOU, MR. WONG?
JUROR: 46.
JUDGE DAVILA: 46.
JUROR: SO THERE WAS A "60 MINUTES" SEGMENT A FEW YEARS AGO, SO I WATCHED THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: AND TALKED WITH MY FRIENDS. ACTUALLY THEY KNOW A LOT MORE THAN I DO. THEY WATCHED THE DOCUMENTARY, READ THE BOOK, AND WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT INVESTMENTS IN GENERAL. SO THAT WAS MY EXPOSURE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPOSURE THAT YOU THINK WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOTHING ABOUT THAT. I THINK YOU TOLD US IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION 39 THAT YOU CAN BE FAIR, AND IN QUESTION 62 AND 65.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. ANY CHANGE ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU CAN BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT IN YOUR MIND?
JUROR: NO DOUBT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
JUROR: I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION THAT OVER THE WEEKEND THERE WAS AN NPR ARTICLE THAT CAME UP OVER THE WEEKEND.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: AND I READ IT, I FINISHED THE ARTICLE AND THEN I REALIZED I SHOULDN'T BE READING THAT, SO I'M SORRY.
JUDGE DAVILA: NO. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR. I APPRECIATE THAT. DID THAT AFFECT -- WHAT YOU READ, WILL THAT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HERE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND CAN YOU PUT WHATEVER YOU READ IN THAT MOST RECENT ARTICLE ASIDE AND DECIDE THIS CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE HERE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT THAT YOU CAN DO THAT?
JUROR: NO DOUBT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT, SIR?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ROW, WHERE THERE HANDS IN THE NEXT ROW BEHIND? YES, I SEE A HAND THERE. IS THAT MR. ROBBINS?
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: JUROR NUMBER 50.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, SIR. WHAT IS IT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO KNOW?
JUROR: I THINK I SAID IT IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT THE NAME RECOGNITION OF THE COMPANY WAS A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN THE SCANDAL JUST BROKE ON THE NEWS, SO I JUST PRETTY MUCH JUST READ HEADLINES. I DIDN'T REALLY FOLLOW THE STORY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: THIS MORNING THERE WAS A BLURB ON NPR ABOUT IT, BUT I LEFT THE ROOM FOR THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. IS THAT THE MOST RECENT EXPOSURE YOU'VE HAD?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: THIS MORNING?
JUROR: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYTHING OVER THE WEEKEND OR LAST WEEK?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE EXPERIENCES THAT YOU THINK WILL AFFECT IN ANY WAY YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES HERE IF YOU'RE SELECTED AS A JUROR?
JUROR: YEAH. I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY FOLLOW THE STORY, SO --
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. SO YOUR ANSWER?
JUROR: I BELIEVE I CAN BE IMPARTIAL, YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. CAN YOU BE FAIR TO THE GOVERNMENT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU BE FAIR TO MS. HOLMES?
JUROR: I BELIEVE SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. LET'S SEE. IN THE ROW NEXT THERE'S A HAND. I SEE -- YES. IS THAT MR. BURGE?
JUROR: YES, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, WHY DON'T YOU COME FORWARD. AND YOU'RE JUROR NUMBER?
JUROR: JUROR NUMBER 49.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. YES, SIR.
JUROR: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. BEFORE THE CURRENT ALLEGATIONS HIT, MY WIFE AND I WATCHED A PROGRAM ABOUT THE COMPANY AND MS. HOLMES BECAUSE I WAS INTERESTED IN IT. MY LINE OF WORK IS THAT I ACTUALLY WORK FOR A LAW FIRM AND I DO E-DISCOVERY, AND I WAS DOING AN ITC CASE WITH BLOOD STRIPS, AND I'VE ALSO DONE SOME WORK WITH THE FDA AND THEIR ANDA'S, AND SO I WAS INTERESTED IN THE COMPANY. SO WE WATCHED THAT. AND AFTER THE ALLEGATIONS, I'VE SEEN PROGRAMS ABOUT IT. SO I'VE SEEN BOTH SIDES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING -- TELL US THE MOST RECENT EXPOSURE TO MEDIA THAT YOU'VE HAD.
JUROR: WELL, I SAW A HEADLINE FLASH THIS LAST WEEK. ONLY BECAUSE I'M HERE, BUT I DIDN'T READ IT. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT IT HADN'T EVEN HAPPENED YET, SO I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I WALKED IN HERE TO FIND OUT THIS WAS THE CASE.
JUDGE DAVILA: TO FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE YOU MEAN?
JUROR: YEAH. I'VE KIND OF BEEN BURIED IN THE PANDEMIC WITH MY PARENTS AND THE KIDS AND STUFF, SO HAVEN'T REALLY BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW WITH YOUR WIFE, THE SHOW, ANYTHING ABOUT THAT THAT IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES HERE, TO THE GOVERNMENT AND TO MS. HOLMES?
JUROR: NO. ONE OF THE SHOWS IS VERY FAVORABLE, BECAUSE AT THE TIME IT WAS WHAT THEIR TEST STRIPS DID WITHOUT -- YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO -- WITHOUT DRAWING BLOOD.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU BE FAIR TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: YES, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU BE FAIR?
JUROR: I THINK I CAN TAKE BOTH SIDES' INFORMATION AND WEIGH IT EVENLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU CAN BE FAIR TO MS. HOLMES?
JUROR: YES, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND IF YOU'RE SEATED AS A JUROR, WILL YOU DECIDE THE CASE AND MAKE YOUR DECISION ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM AND NOT ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE THAT YOU READ OR WERE EXPOSED TO OR ARE EXPOSED TO? CAN YOU DO THAT, SIR?
JUROR: THAT IS CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, HOW CRITICAL THIS IS FOR JURORS? I HOPE YOU RESPECT THAT.
JUROR: I DO.
JUDGE DAVILA: GREAT. WELL, THANK YOU.
JUROR: I'VE BEEN TO MANY TRIALS, SO I KNOW HOW HARD IT IS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO KNOW IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION?
JUROR: NO, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.
JUROR: ALL RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYONE ELSE IN THAT ROW, MR. BURGE'S ROW? IF NOT, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ROW BEHIND. LET'S START -- IS THAT MR. TEJADA?
JUROR: YES. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. I'M JUROR NUMBER 56.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO KNOW IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION, SIR?
JUROR: SO SINCE FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I'VE SEEN NEWSPAPER ARTICLES AND ONLINE ARTICLES ABOUT THE CASE, INCLUDING AN NPR PUSH ARTICLE ABOUT THIS HEARING IN GENERAL. I HAVEN'T READ ANY OF THEM. I JUST READ THE HEADLINES, AND ONE OF THE HEADLINES WAS JURY SELECTION STARTS TODAY. AND MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS, YEAH, YEAH, I KNOW. THAT ARTICLE IS ALSO HOW MY COWORKERS FIGURED OUT WHICH CASE I WAS CALLED ON JURY DUTY ON.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU DIDN'T SHARE THAT WITH YOUR COWORKERS?
JUROR: NO, I DIDN'T SHARE IT. THEY JUST FIGURED IT OUT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, THEY'RE SMART LAWYERS, AREN'T THEY?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I THINK YOU WORK IN LEGAL AID.
JUROR: YES, I WORK IN LEGAL AID.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT IS HOUSING?
JUROR: IT'S MORE ACCURATE TO SAY I AM THE ORGANIZATION'S HOUSING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I DO THE HOUSING LAW.
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK I READ THAT IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU. SO GETTING BACK TO THE EXPOSURE, I'LL CALL IT MEDIA EXPOSURE -- AND I DON'T MEAN THAT PEJORATIVE, BUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN OR HEARD OR READ, MR. TEJADA, WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: THERE SHOULDN'T BE. I BARELY DO NOT REMEMBER SOME OF THE THINGS I'VE READ BECAUSE IT WAS SO LONG AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ABOUT THIS CASE?
JUROR: RIGHT, ABOUT THIS CASE.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU COME IN AS A CLEAN SLATE?
JUROR: FOR THE MOST PART. THE ONLY FACT I REMEMBER IS DEFENDANT'S PREFERENCE FOR TURTLENECKS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OH, OKAY. OTHER THAN THAT, ARE YOU A CLEAN SLATE FOR THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: I BELIEVE SO. ALL I REMEMBER IS THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT MEDICAL DEVICES, BUT SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS ALONG HE'S SAYING THAT I'VE HEARD, AND MAYBE I'M CONFLATING IT WITH SOMETHING ELSE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. SO YOU'RE A TRAINED LAWYER. YOU KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF A FAIR TRIAL?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU KNOW THAT A JUROR'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE THEIR DECISION WHEN THEY DECIDE A CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT IS PRESENTED IN THE COURTROOM?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU RESPECT THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: IF YOU'RE SELECTED AS A JUROR, MR. TEJADA, CAN DO YOU THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU CAN ASSURE THE GOVERNMENT THAT YOU'LL BE FAIR TO THEM?
JUROR: YES. IF THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME, THEN THAT'S IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU CAN ASSURE MS. HOLMES THAT YOU'LL BE FAIR TO HER?
JUROR: YES. IF ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS IS NOT PROVEN, THEN THERE'S NO CRIME.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.
JUROR: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE WELCOME. IN YOUR ROW, MR. TEJADA'S ROW. MR. TEJADA, MAYBE YOU'LL LET THESE OTHER PEOPLE PASS YOU. IS THAT MR. KEW? YES. GOOD MORNING. YOU'RE JUROR NUMBER?
JUROR: 58.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, SIR.
JUROR: I SAW THE "60 MINUTES" SPECIAL A FEW YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ANYTHING ABOUT THAT THAT YOU THINK WILL IMPAIR YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. DO YOU REMEMBER -- I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU WHAT, BUT DO YOU REMEMBER ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT STAYS IN YOUR MIND?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU SEEN ANY PUBLICITY RECENTLY ABOUT THIS CASE?
JUROR: I SAW THE HEADLINES OVER THE WEEKEND, BUT I DIDN'T READ THOSE, NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. YOU KNEW YOU WERE BEING SUMMONED FOR THIS CASE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU FILLED OUT THAT QUESTIONNAIRE.
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND, SIR, THAT YOU CAN BE A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUROR IN THIS CASE TO THE GOVERNMENT?
JUROR: NO DOUBT.
JUDGE DAVILA: TO MS. HOLMES?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'LL DECIDE THE CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR HERE, THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL, AND THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT I GIVE YOU? CAN YOU DO THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S SEE. WHO IS NEXT IN MR. KEW'S ROW? IS THAT MS. GALANTE? YES, THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
JUROR: GOOD MORNING.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE JUROR NUMBER?
JUROR: 60.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: SO AS I WAS READING THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I SAW SOME NAMES THAT KIND OF SOUNDED FAMILIAR, AND THEN WHEN IT MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS SOME BLOOD TESTING DEVICE THAT WAS INVOLVED, THEN I MADE THE CONNECTION. WELL, I THOUGHT I DID. I WASN'T 100 PERCENT. THEN AFTER FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, A DAY OR SO LATER I SAW A HEADLINE AS I WAS OPENING UP MY BROWSER AND I SAW THE PICTURE AND I THOUGHT, OKAY, THAT'S WHEN I CONFIRMED IN MY MIND THAT THAT'S WHAT THE CASE WAS GOING TO BE ABOUT. AND THE LATEST EXPOSURE WAS THIS MORNING ON MY YAHOO FINANCE ALERT, BUT I HAVE NOT READ ANY ARTICLES SINCE THEN BECAUSE I KNEW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CHANCE THAT I WOULD BE SELECTED. SO -- BUT THAT WAS IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
JUROR: SO WHEN I MADE THE CONNECTION, I REALIZED THAT I HAD SEEN I THINK IT WAS "FIRST BLOOD," SOMEBODY MENTIONED THAT, SO THAT RAISED A BELL THAT I HAD SEEN THAT, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE OR TEN YEARS AGO, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A LENGTHY AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT WAS ON T.V.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. SO YOU HEARD ME ASK YOUR COLLEAGUES PREVIOUSLY WHO HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCE WHETHER OR NOT THEY REMEMBER ANYTHING ABOUT THAT AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY FEEL THAT THAT WILL IMPAIR THEIR ABILITY IN ANY WAY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES HERE. LET ME POSE THAT QUESTION TO YOU, MS. GALANTE.
JUROR: I WATCHED THE EPISODES SEVERAL YEARS AGO AND I DON'T REMEMBER ANY DETAILS THAT HAD FORMULATED AN OPINION IN MY MIND.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU THINK THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL HUMAN, IF YOU'RE SEATED AS A JUROR IN THIS CASE AND YOU'RE HEARING THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, THAT SOMETHING MIGHT COME UP AND YOU THINK YOU SAW THAT IN WHATEVER IT WAS THAT YOU WATCHED OR YOU LISTENED TO, IT MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT YOU'LL HANDLE THAT SITUATION SHOULD THAT ARISE?
JUROR: I DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH RECALL -- I MEAN, I DO HAVE SOME. I KNEW IT WAS REGARDING SOME TESTING DEVICES OF BLOOD. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T REALLY RECALL MANY OF THE DETAILS, SO I'M KIND OF STARTING AT A CLEAN SLATE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. IS THAT WHAT YOU CAN TELL MS. HOLMES, SHE STARTS AT A CLEAN SLATE WITH YOU?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THAT WHAT YOU TELL THE GOVERNMENT?
JUROR: ABSOLUTELY.
JUDGE DAVILA: THAT YOU CAN ASSURE THE COURT THAT YOU'LL MAKE ANY DECISION AS A JUROR, IF YOU'RE SELECTED, ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEAR IN THIS COURTROOM AND NOT ON ANY EXTRANEOUS OR ANYTHING OUTSIDE, NOT ON FRIENDS, ANYTHING ELSE?
JUROR: YES, ABSOLUTELY.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. YOU'RE THAT KIND OF A PERSON? YOU'RE FIRM AND YOU CAN DO THAT?
JUROR: I'VE SERVED ON JURIES BEFORE AND I KNOW THE PROCEDURE THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE VERY OPEN MINDED AND JUST TAKE IN INFORMATION AS IT COMES IN FROM BOTH PARTIES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU'VE HEARD JUDGES SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THIS VERY TOPIC, NOT THE CASE, BUT I MEAN A JUROR'S RESPONSIBILITY? AND WHEN THOSE JUDGES HAVE TOLD YOU THOSE THINGS, THEY'VE BEEN VERY EARNEST?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU'VE TAKEN THAT TO HEART?
JUROR: I HAVE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND, MS. GALANTE, THAT YOU CANNOT BE FAIR? CAN YOU BE FAIR? LET ME ASK IT NOT IN A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, BUT LET ME ASK IT AGAIN. YOU HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU CAN BE FAIR IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: NO DOUBT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN MS. GALANTE'S ROW? MR. RISHI? IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 63.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, SIR.
JUROR: I THINK I SUBSCRIBE TO "THE WALL STREET JOURNAL," SO I REMEMBER WHEN THE STORY BROKE READING ABOUT IT AND IT PIQUED MY INTEREST.
JUDGE DAVILA: HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?
JUROR: DEFINITELY PREPANDEMIC. IT WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: BUT I DO REMEMBER FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THE SERIES OF ARTICLES THAT CAME, AND I DO REMEMBER THEN ALSO SEEING THE DOCUMENTARY RELATED TO THAT AND HAVING SOME DISCUSSIONS AT HOME BECAUSE MY WIFE WAS -- STILL WORKS IN THE HEALTH CARE SIDE OF THINGS AND IT SEEMS LIKE INFORMATION THAT WAS PERTINENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK YOU READ A BOOK.
JUROR: THAT'S RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT.
JUROR: SO DURING THAT SAME -- ACTUALLY, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE SAME EXACT TIMELINE, BUT I DID END UP CONSUMING A LOT OF INFORMATION AT THAT POINT IN TIME. OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS I HAVEN'T REALLY DONE MUCH, BUT I DID SEE OBVIOUSLY, LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, HEADLINES, ET CETERA, POP UP RECENTLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WHAT IS THE MOST RECENT, I'LL CALL IT EXPOSURE TO MEDIA THAT YOU'VE SEEN ABOUT THIS CASE?
JUROR: I THINK I SAW THINGS POP UP AS RECENTLY AS YESTERDAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DID YOU READ THE ARTICLES?
JUROR: I HAVE NOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WELL, TELL US -- YOU KNOW, MY QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M PROBING, SIR, BASED ON WHAT -- YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE INFORMATION IN THIS CASE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT, ANYTHING ABOUT THAT THAT YOU THINK WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES HERE?
JUROR: NO. I THINK I CAN -- I KNOW WHAT'S -- I KNOW THE ANSWERS IN TERMS OF WHAT I PUT OUT THERE. I JUST -- I'M CONSCIOUS OF WHAT I KNOW AND WHAT I DON'T KNOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THE QUESTION IS, YOU'VE CONSUMED A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE ALREADY.
JUROR: THAT'S RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I SUPPOSE WE ASK JURORS TO DO A HERCULEAN TASK, TO PUT THAT ASIDE AND TAKE THAT OUT OF YOUR MIND IF YOU'RE SELECTED AS A JUROR HERE AND TO, AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES, AND WILL CONTINUE, TO DECIDE THE CASE ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE HERE. CAN YOU DO THAT, SIR? ARE YOU THAT TYPE OF PERSON THAT YOU CAN SEPARATE YOUR EXPOSURE AND KEEP THAT OUT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE TRIAL? CAN YOU DO THAT?
JUROR: YES. I THINK SOMEBODY MENTIONED ABOUT INFORMATION ATTRIBUTION. I THINK I CAN DO THAT, AND I'VE DONE IT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS IN THE PAST.
JUDGE DAVILA: BY YOUR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL TRAINING THAT YOU'VE, YOU'VE GAINED THAT EXPERTISE TO PARSE OUT INFORMATION AND FOCUS ONLY ON THE DETAILS OF THE JOB AT HAND? IS THAT YOUR TRAINING?
JUROR: YEAH. I'M NOT SURE I HAVE EXPERTISE, BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THAT FOR SURE.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US, SIR, ABOUT THIS?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: I NOTE THAT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS, QUESTION 39, 62, AND 65, YOU DID INDICATE THAT YOU CAN BE FAIR.
JUROR: THAT'S CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND ABOUT THOSE QUESTIONS?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OR YOUR ANSWERS?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. WELL, WE'RE A LITTLE PAST THE NOON HOUR. MAYBE WE'LL TAKE OUR NOON BREAK NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE'LL TAKE OUR NOON RECESS. LET'S -- CAN WE TRY TO BE -- MS. KRATZMANN, THE JURORS WILL COLLECT THEMSELVES IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM; IS THAT RIGHT?
COURT CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR. IF THEY CAN GO TO THE SECOND FLOOR JURY SELECTION ROOM WHERE THEY GATHERED THIS MORNING.
JUDGE DAVILA: LET ME DO THAT. THE HANDS OF PEOPLE REMAINING, OKAY. THERE'S JUST A FEW OF YOU. WE'LL GET TO YOU -- WE'LL FINISH -- WE'LL START, PARDON ME, WITH MR. NIZENKOFF.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'LL START WITH YOU WHEN WE COME BACK, SIR, AND THEN WE'LL GET THE REST OF THE ANSWERS. I HAVE MANY MORE QUESTIONS, SO WE'LL GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET ME SAY THIS, THOUGH, BEFORE WE BREAK HERE, I DO -- YOU'RE NOT THE JURY YET. WE'RE IN THAT PROCESS. BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU DURING THIS BREAK, AND ALL YOUR BREAKS, TO NOT READ, LOOK AT, DISCUSS, OR IN ANY WAY TALK ABOUT THIS CASE OR YOUR POTENTIAL SERVICE FOR IT. PLEASE AVOID READING ANYTHING. I MAY AT SOME POINT -- YOU KNOW, I'M AN OLD-FASHIONED PERSON. I LIKE THE NEWSPAPER IN MY HAND. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE DEVICES. I'M ALSO INFORMED THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO TURN OFF THESE ALERTS, I GUESS THEY'RE CALLED NEWS ALERTS, AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. YOUNGER PEOPLE THAN ME TELL ME THAT'S POSSIBLE. SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO EXPLORE THAT FOR THE NEXT DAY OR SO TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OF ASSISTANCE IN PREVENTING YOUR EXPOSURE. IN MY HOUSEHOLD I JUST WON'T PICK UP THE NEWSPAPER ON THE STOOP WHEN IT COMES, BUT THAT'S EASY TO DO. BUT THIS OTHER TECHNOLOGY, YOU'LL DEAL WITH THAT. SO HAVE A GOOD LUNCH. DON'T DISCUSS ANYTHING, PLEASE. YOU'LL COLLECT YOURSELVES ON THE SECOND FLOOR IN THE JURY ROOM AND MS. KRATZMANN OR SOMEONE WILL THEN BRING YOU UP. PLEASE REMEMBER WHERE YOU'RE SEATED, AND IF YOU WOULD TAKE THOSE SEATS AGAIN I WOULD BE GRATEFUL. THANK YOU.
COURT CLERK: WHAT TIME?
JUDGE DAVILA: I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE SEATED AGAIN BY 1:15 IF POSSIBLE. I'D LIKE COUNSEL TO REMAIN IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
(JURY OUT AT 12:03 P.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT THAT OUR PROSPECTIVE PANEL LEFT THE COURTROOM AND COUNSEL IS PRESENT AND MS. HOLMES IS PRESENT. SO WE'LL START UP AFTER THE BREAK WITH MR. NIZENKOFF. I THINK I SAW PERHAPS FOUR MORE HANDS, MAYBE FIVE, AND I HOPE TO GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THEM IN THAT SAME MANNER. AND THEN I HOPE IS I CAN GET THROUGH MY QUESTIONS. I MIGHT -- MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN FINISH THIS PANEL IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF HOURS. I THINK WE CAN. I DO THINK THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE. THIS AREA PROBABLY WILL TAKE SOME TIME, AS IT HAS. THERE'S ANOTHER AREA THAT I WAS GOING TO GO INTO. THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I TALKED ABOUT, MS. VOLKAR, AND I DO HAVE AN AREA THAT I'M GOING TO GO INTO THERE. I DON'T KNOW, WE'LL SEE WHAT EXPERIENCES OUR PROSPECTIVE PANEL HAS IN THAT REGARD. ANY COMMENT BEFORE WE BREAK FOR LUNCH?
MR. DOWNEY: ONE COMMENT, NOT BECAUSE IT IS ALL THAT SIGNIFICANT, BUT IT'S A LOGISTICAL PROBLEM I THINK. YOUR HONOR HAD ASKED A NUMBER OF JURORS WHAT THEIR EXPOSURE HAD BEEN SINCE THE QUESTIONNAIRE HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THEY REPEATED ACROSS SEVERAL JURORS, "I'VE SEEN HEADLINES." AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, WE HAD REQUESTED THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT BE MADE PUBLIC UNTIL AFTER THOSE HEADLINES HAD BEEN SEEN. I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONTENT OF THE HEADLINE IS THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE SEEN IN THAT IT MAY HAVE ANTICIPATED THE DEFENSE THEMES AND THE DEFENSE CASE AND ALL OF THAT WHERE NONE IS REQUIRED. AND SO THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE JURORS, I THINK, IF NOT MORE, WHO REPORTED THAT EXPERIENCE. SO I RAISE IT BECAUSE I THINK JUST LOGISTICALLY WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THEM. OF COURSE IF THEY HAVE SEEN HEADLINES THAT RELATE TO POTENTIAL DEFENSE STRATEGIES, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT WHICH WE'LL PRESENT. BUT I THINK, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE CONTENT OF THOSE HEADLINES ARE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. SCHENK, ANY COMMENT ABOUT ANYTHING?
MR. SCHENK: NO. NOTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AS I SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN BY 1:15 WITH THE JURORS SEATED IN THE BOX SO THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY GET THROUGH THIS PANEL TODAY. ALL RIGHT. HAVE A GOOD LUNCH. WE'LL SEE YOU THEN. THANK YOU.
(LUNCH RECESS TAKEN AT 12:06 P.M.) AFTERNOON SESSION
(COURT CONVENED AT 1:19 P.M.)
(JURY IN AT 1:19 P.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES PREVIOUSLY PRESENT ARE PRESENT ONCE AGAIN. OUR PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL IS PRESENT. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. WE'LL CONTINUE WITH THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS. LET'S SEE, I THINK, MR. NIZENKOFF, DO YOU WANT TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. WHILE YOU WERE DOING THAT, MR. NIZENKOFF, I DID WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING ABOUT COVID. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I DO WANT TO TELL YOU THAT AS FAR AS I KNOW ALL OF OUR PROSPECTIVE JURORS HAVE BEEN VACCINATED, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT ALL OF -- I'VE GOT PERMISSION TO TELL YOU THAT ALL OF OUR COURT STAFF HAVE BEEN VACCINATED. SO I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU, AND HOPEFULLY THAT BRINGS YOU SOME COMFORT AND REASSURANCE. THANK YOU. MR. NIZENKOFF?
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 64.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: I SAW ONE OF THE T.V. SHOWS A COUPLE YEARS AGO, I DON'T RECALL WHICH ONE. I KIND OF GOT THE GIST OF WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT THE DETAILS I DON'T REMEMBER.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: I'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF HEADLINES POP UP ON MY NEWS FEED, AND I'VE IGNORED THEM AND TRY TO HIDE THEM AND I'VE HEARD THE TOPIC COME UP ON THE RADIO THIS MORNING AND I SWITCHED THE STATION QUICKLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU TELL US -- DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOLLECTION OF WHAT THE HEADLINES WERE?
JUROR: ONE WAS ABOUT JURY SELECTION, AND I DON'T RECALL THE OTHER ONE, THE NAME HAS POPPED UP.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. NIZENKOFF, SINCE I HAVE YOU AT AN ADVANTAGE HERE AND YOU SEEM TO HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF PHONES, IS IT POSSIBLE TO TURN OFF THESE NOTIFICATIONS FROM NEWS FEED AND THINGS?
JUROR: ON MY GOOGLE FEED I CAN HIT "NOT INTERESTED," AND SO I HOPEFULLY I CAN TURN UP --
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SEEING THIS DOCUMENTARY THAT YOU SAW A COUPLE YEARS AGO I THINK YOU SAID.
JUROR: WHENEVER IT HIT THE NEWS.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU SAW THAT STICKS WITH YOU THAT YOU THINK AFFECTS YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO EACH SIDE HERE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU BE FAIR TO THE GOVERNMENT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU BE FAIR TO MS. HOLMES?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU OBVIOUSLY SAW THIS SHOW, AND YOU HEARD ME TALK TO MS. GROGAN, HOW DO YOU UNREAD SOMETHING? IN THE LAW WE CALL IT UNRINGING THE BELL.
JUROR: A LOT OF THE SHOWS ARE FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO GET ALL OF THEIR FACTS TRUE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU THINK YOU'LL HAVE ANY PROBLEM SEPARATING, KEEPING THAT, PARSING THAT OUT FROM YOUR MIND AS YOU SIT AS A DELIBERATIVE JUROR IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: NO, I WON'T.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY DOUBT AT ALL?
JUROR: NO DOUBT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE ON THE NEXT ROW. NEXT. LET ME SEE, IS THAT MR. PENUMUDY, IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YES.
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 73.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: OVER THE YEARS I'VE READ A FEW ARTICLES ABOUT THE COMPANY OF THERANOS, ABOUT THE RISE AND FALL OF ITS FORTUNES, AND MOST SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE I CAME ACROSS TWO ARTICLES IN THE INTERNET IN MY APPLE NEWS FEED. ONE WAS ABOUT THE TRIAL ABOUT TO START FOR THIS CASE. I ONLY SKIMMED PART OF THE SUMMARY. I DIDN'T GO THROUGH ALL OF IT. THE SECOND HEADLINE IS -- MY MEMORY MIGHT NOT SERVE ME RIGHT -- BUT IT SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING ABOUT SOME FRICTION BETWEEN THERANOS AND THE OTHER DEFENDANT, MR. BALWANI.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: SO THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY RECOLLECTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, SIR. WHEN DID YOU SEE THOSE ARTICLES, SIR?
JUROR: I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST WEEK.
JUDGE DAVILA: LAST WEEK. I'M SORRY. DID YOU READ THEM IN THEIR ENTIRETY?
JUROR: NO, I DID NOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU READ THE HEADLINES?
JUROR: FOR THE ONE THAT WAS ANNOUNCING THE TRIAL, I JUST SKIMMED PART OF THE SUMMARY. THE OTHER ONE, ONLY THE HEADLINE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT, SIR. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT INFORMATION THAT YOU THINK WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR TO BOTH SIDES IN THIS CASE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AND ANYONE ELSE IN THAT ROW? YES. IS THAT MR. ROCCAFORTE.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: I'M NUMBER 78.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
JUROR: SO I'M A PRODUCER AT A NEWS RADIO STATION AND A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I FIRST CAME ACROSS THIS STORY. I KIND OF FORGOT ABOUT IT, AND THEN DURING THE QUESTIONNAIRE WHEN THEY WERE LAYING IT OUT FOR ME, IT STARTED TO SLOWLY COME BACK TO ME AND THEN I WAS LIKE, I THINK I MAY HAVE HEARD OF THIS. SO I'VE BEEN BASICALLY AVOIDING THE TOPIC SINCE THEN, BUT YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS AT WORK IN ANTICIPATION OF JURY SELECTION, THEY WERE RUNNING STORIES AT MY STATION, AND I WASN'T AWARE OF THIS BECAUSE I HAD BEEN AVOIDING THE TOPIC. I ACCIDENTALLY OVERHEARD DETAILS OF THE STORY BECAUSE I WOULD WALK IN AND THE STORY WOULD BE PLAYING AND I'D BE LIKE, WHAT IS THIS? AND THEN THEY WOULD, THEN THEY WOULD NAME ALL OF THE RELEVANT PARTIES AND I WAS LIKE, OH. I TRIED TO AVOID IT, BUT BECAUSE I'M WORKING IN A RADIO STATION, AUDIO IS ALL AROUND ME, AND BECAUSE IT'S LIVE, I CAN'T JUST LIKE COMPLETELY LEAVE AND REMOVE MYSELF FROM THE SITUATION. SO I TRIED TO TUNE IT OUT AS BEST AS I COULD, BUT I STILL DID OVERHEAR SOME DETAILS.
JUDGE DAVILA: HOW LONG WAS THE PIECE THAT YOU HEARD, THE PORTIONS THAT YOU HEARD? WHAT WAS THE DURATION?
JUROR: I WOULD SAY THAT I HEARD ABOUT 30 SECONDS TO A MINUTE OF MATERIAL. PROBABLY ABOUT MAYBE A MINUTE AND A HALF OR TWO MINUTES TOTAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND IT TALKED ABOUT THE CASE, IT TALKED ABOUT THE PARTIES OF THE CASE? DID IT TALK ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS?
JUROR: ONE THING IT DID DISCUSS WAS THE DEFENSE STRATEGY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. IT TALKED ABOUT AT LEAST WHAT, WHOEVER THE PRESENTER WAS IN THIS ARTICLE, THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT A DEFENSE STRATEGY MIGHT BE?
JUROR: I BELIEVE SO. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS PHRASED AS WHAT THEY THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE OR WHAT IT WILL BE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. IN THEIR OPINION?
JUROR: I DON'T KNOW THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OPINION OR IF IT WAS -- IF THEY HAD SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGE OR WHAT THE SITUATION WAS THERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN JUST SPECULATION OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN FACT. I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE ABOUT THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND SO TELL US ABOUT HAVING HEARD THAT AND LISTENED TO THAT FOR 30 SECONDS, A MINUTE, HOW WILL THAT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES HERE IN THIS TRIAL?
JUROR: I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT I'LL BE ABLE TO REMAIN UNBIASSED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THIS TRIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU HEARD?
JUROR: YEAH, AND JUST BECAUSE OF THE CULMINATION OF WHAT I HAVE HEARD OVERALL.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, YOU TOLD US IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, I BELIEVE, THAT A FRIEND OF YOURS TOLD YOU ABOUT THE HBO PROGRAM, BUT IT WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD ACTUALLY WATCHED IT.
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: DID YOU WATCH IT?
JUROR: I DID NOT. BUT THE QUESTION, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, DO I KNOW OF OR HAVE SEEN, AND SO I JUST CIRCLED IT BECAUSE IT WAS KNOW OF. BUT I KNEW THE -- SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE CASE AS LAID OUT IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE BECAUSE I THINK THEY JUST -- AS I WAS FILLING IT OUT, I JUST STARTED TO KIND OF REMEMBER A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MORE ABOUT THE DEFENDANT IN THE CASE OVERALL.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THAT INFORMATION?
JUROR: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ARTICLE ABOUT A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WELL, TELL ME ABOUT THAT. THAT WAS AN ONLINE ARTICLE?
JUROR: IT WAS.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DO YOU REMEMBER THE SOURCE OF IT?
JUROR: NO, I DON'T RECALL, BUT I -- I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE, NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND HOW MANY? CAN YOU TELL US, HOW MANY ARTICLES DO YOU THINK YOU'VE READ LIKE THAT ONE THAT YOU JUST TOLD US ABOUT? HOW MANY DO YOU THINK THAT YOU'VE READ OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS?
JUROR: RIGHT. SO I THINK I'VE READ LIKE THE INITIAL ONE AND MAYBE ANOTHER FOLLOWUP BECAUSE THERE WAS ONE -- BECAUSE IT'S SOMEWHAT LOCAL, I WAS SOMEWHAT INTERESTED AND LOOKED INTO IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, AND THEN KIND OF FORGOT ABOUT IT FOR A FEW MONTHS.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. YOU KNOW, THE SCHEDULE THAT I'VE IMPOSED HERE, OR I'D LIKE TO ADVANCE, PARDON ME, ALLOWS, ALLOWS FOLKS TO, IF THEY WANT, THEY CAN RETURN TO WORK, I SUPPOSE, FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS IF THEY'RE ABLE TO. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WORK REMOTE OR NOT. YOU WORK IN A RADIO STATION?
JUROR: I DO.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND IT SOUNDS LIKE LIVE FEED IS GOING ALL OF THE TIME FOR YOU TO HEAR.
JUROR: YES, IT IS. AND WE POST UP ONLINE AND I'M LOOKING AT MY COMPUTER INTERFACE AND I'M SEEING THERANOS, THERANOS, THERANOS, THERANOS. IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO AVOID AND THERE'S GOING TO BE SITUATIONS THAT I WOULD IMAGINE ARISE WHERE I HAVE TO MAYBE HANDLE ONE OF THESE PIECES OF AUDIO THAT IS ABOUT IT, OR A PIECE OF WRITING THAT IS ABOUT IT, AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW I APPROACH THAT BECAUSE I'M SUPPOSED TO REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL AS A JUROR.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT I HAD. I SAW YOU WORKED IN RADIO, AND I WAS CURIOUS WHAT THAT IS LIKE. IS IT A NEWS STATION, A MUSIC STATION?
JUROR: IT'S NEWS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OH, IT IS. OKAY. HOW WOULD YOU PORTION YOURSELF OUT IN THE STATION? HOW COULD YOU DO THAT?
JUROR: I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE. LIKE I SAID, WHEN IT CAME UP YESTERDAY, YOU KNOW, IT WAS HARD TO AVOID.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE.
JUROR: I CAN'T JUST REALLY, LIKE, GET UP AND WALK OUT BECAUSE WHAT WE DO IS ALL LIVE.
JUDGE DAVILA: TELL US AGAIN WHAT YOUR JOB TITLE IS.
JUROR: PRODUCER.
JUDGE DAVILA: PRODUCER. SO YOU PUT PROGRAMS TOGETHER, NEWS STORIES TOGETHER?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU CAN TELL YOUR BOSS, I CAN'T WORK ON ANY STORIES, PARTICULARLY ONES ABOUT THIS CASE, THAT'S EASY ENOUGH TO DO?
JUROR: I SUPPOSE, BUT IS THAT ALLOWED?
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO QUIT YOUR JOB, SIR. I CAN'T DO THAT. BUT, NO, I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR HERE. I'M PROBING THIS JUST TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THIS MAY NOT BE THE RIGHT CASE FOR YOU MR. ROCCAFORTE, IT MAY NOT BE. IT MAY BE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF -- I THINK YOU'RE A GOOD PERSON. WE'VE JUST MET. YOU SEEM LIKE A FINE PERSON TO ME. I THINK YOU WOULD GIVE YOUR BEST EFFORTS TO TRY TO SEPARATE YOURSELF. YOU WORK FOR A NEWS RADIO STATION AND YOU ARE, HOW SHOULD I SAY, SURROUNDED BY NEWS ALL DAY. YOU JUST TOLD US ABOUT WHAT YOUR COMPUTER SCREEN SHOWS. I MAY NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS WITNESS. LET ME ASK, MR. SCHENK, ANYTHING FURTHER?
MR. SCHENK: NOTHING FROM THE GOVERNMENT, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. MR. ROCCAFORTE, WOULD IT BREAK YOUR HEART SEVERELY IF I EXCUSED YOU FROM THIS JURY?
JUROR: THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: RESTRAIN YOUR ENTHUSIASM, MR. ROCCAFORTE. THANKS VERY MUCH, SIR, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CANDOR. WE APPRECIATE IT. WE ALL APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR. I JUST THINK BASED ON YOUR EMPLOYMENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT YOU'VE TOLD US, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, FOR YOU TO CARRY ON THE TASK THAT I'VE ASKED OF ALL OF THE OTHER JURORS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. BE WELL, BE HEALTHY. YOU CAN GO DOWNSTAIRS, IF YOU WOULD, TO THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. WOULD YOU LEAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION BACK ON THE CHAIR THERE?
JUROR: I WILL, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUROR: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYONE ELSE IN THAT ROW, BACK THERE IN MR. ROCCAFORTE'S ROW? I DON'T SEE ANYONE IN THE BEHIND. ALL RIGHT. MS. RAMER, I THINK WE TALKED EARLIER, BUT PLEASE COME FORWARD.
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 90.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. THANK YOU.
JUROR: I GUESS I'VE BEEN AWARE OF THERANOS FOR QUITE SOME TIME BECAUSE OF MY WORK IN THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY. IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL COMMUNITY IN THE BAY AREA, AND THERANOS'S BUILDING WAS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM MY BUILDING AND I'VE BEEN INTERESTED IN SORT OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHALLENGE. I GUESS I'VE BEEN FAMILIAR AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S QUITE A BIT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THE COMPANY AND PROSPECTS.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. TELL US THE MOST RECENT THING. I THINK I ASKED YOU THIS. I'M SORRY. WHAT IS THE MOST RECENT MEDIA OR RADIO?
JUROR: SAME AS WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS SAYING, HEADLINES ON NEWS FEEDS THAT I'VE IGNORED.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU REMEMBER IN DETAIL ANY HEADLINES OR NEWS FEED OTHER THAN THE NAME THERANOS?
JUROR: NO. THAT THE CASE WAS STARTING, AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF MORE VAGUE ONES ABOUT WHAT TO EXPECT, WHICH I DIDN'T PURSUE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. YOU DIDN'T READ THAT?
JUROR: I DID NOT READ THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. WELL, SAME QUESTION THAT I ASKED YOU EARLIER THIS MORNING. DO YOU THINK ANY OF THIS WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL, "THIS" MEANING YOU'RE IN THE INDUSTRY. YOU KNOW THE TECHNOLOGY, OR YOU'RE AT LEAST TRAINED IN IT?
JUROR: I DON'T THINK IT WILL.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M SORRY?
JUROR: I'M A SCIENTIST. WHAT I'M TRAINED TO DO IS TO EVALUATE FACTS AND MAKE FACT-BASED DECISIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT.
JUROR: I FEEL LIKE I COULD BE COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS SO MUCH. WAS IT MR. BORLIK? DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP, SIR?
JUROR: YEP. I THINK I'M NUMBER 93.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: SO I WROTE IT ON MY QUESTIONNAIRE. I THINK IT WAS, LIKE, THE HBO DOCUMENTARY THAT I SAW PROBABLY OVER A YEAR AGO. I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER WHEN. AND THEN THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC DETAILS THAT I REMEMBER FROM IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THAT YOU RECALL TODAY?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WELL, YOU HEARD MY QUESTIONS. WE ALL WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT INFORMATION WOULD EITHER STAY WITH YOU OR THAT YOU WOULD CALL UPON IT AS A JUROR TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS CASE.
JUROR: I CAN SAY THAT I CAN MAKE AN EFFORT TO PUT IT OUT OF MY MIND, BUT I CAN'T SAY THAT IT WOULD MAKE ME UNBIASSED.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. TELL ME ABOUT THAT.
JUROR: UM, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT I KNOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE IN THE TECH FIELD, THIS TECH, YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY?
JUROR: YEAH. I'M AWARE OF WHAT THEY WERE WORKING ON, AND I AM AWARE OF SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS AND THE REASON THAT THE CASE CAME ABOUT. IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO SAY ABOUT BIAS, RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DO KNOW. AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT I CAN PUT IT ALL OUT OF MY MIND FOR THE REASON OF MAKING A DECISION.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. WE TALK ABOUT BIAS AND WE TALK ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S A PEJORATIVE THING OR A BAD THING TO BE BIASED. BUT MAYBE ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IN YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE IS THAT YOU HAVE INTIMATE -- IT'S WHAT YOU DO -- YOU HAVE INTIMACY WITH THIS TECHNOLOGY. YOU KNOW ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY. YOU KNOW ABOUT AND YOU'VE TOLD US YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS BLOOD TESTING TECHNOLOGY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW ABOUT. WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY IS THAT IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT KNOWLEDGE THAT IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO FAIRLY JUDGE THE EVIDENCE. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
JUROR: IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS. BUT FOR THE -- IN TERMS OF THE DOCUMENTARY, RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE BIAS WOULD BE FROM.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. FROM WHAT YOU SAW?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THE INFLUENCE THAT THAT HAD ON YOU?
JUROR: (NODS HEAD UP AND DOWN.)
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD AFFECT ANY DECISION THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE AS YOU EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE AS A SEATED JUROR?
JUROR: I CAN SAY NO, BUT I HAVE A DOUBT ABOUT THAT ANSWER.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, I'M ASKING YOU TO BE HONEST. I WANT YOU TO BE HONEST. THERE'S NO PENALTY. THERE'S NO PENALTY FOR BEING HONEST. NONE AT ALL. SO YOU CAN TRY YOU SAID?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: BUT DO I HEAR YOU SAYING, I CAN TRY, JUDGE, BUT I CAN'T PROMISE THAT IT WON'T?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I'M NOT TRYING TO -- I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, I DON'T. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I HEAR.
JUROR: THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. SCHENK, ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. SCHENK: NO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. MR. BORLIK, I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU -- MR. BORLIK? OH.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. BORLIK IS JUROR NUMBER 93. MR. BORLIK, I'M GOING TO EXCUSE YOU. THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME ABOUT THE CHALLENGE YOU WOULD FACE. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWNSTAIRS TO CHECK OUT. I'M TOLD THAT YOU CAN JUST LEAVE THE COURTHOUSE IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I SEE NO HANDS. ALL RIGHT. LET ME CONTINUE WITH MY QUESTIONS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. AS I TOLD YOU, THIS WILL BE A LENGTHY TRIAL. YOU KNOW THAT. OH, I'M SORRY. I PROMISED I WOULD GET BACK TO --
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, JUROR 3 HAS BEEN RAISING HER HAND.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, I JUST MENTIONED THAT. I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO, IS IT WALLWORK.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: SHOULD I GO TO THE MIKE?
JUDGE DAVILA: WHY DON'T YOU?
JUROR: ALL RIGHT. COOL. IT SOUNDS LIKE FUN.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHAT IS YOUR JUROR NUMBER, MS. WALLWORK?
JUROR: NUMBER 3.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: HI. SO I SPOKE TO SOMEONE DOWNSTAIRS AND THEY SAID I SHOULD JUST LIKE BRING THIS UP ANY TIME I COULD BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW THIS AT THE TIME OF FILLING OUT THE ORIGINAL QUESTIONNAIRE, BUT I WOULD NOT BE FINANCIALLY ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL FOR, LIKE, THE ALLOTTED 13 WEEKS. AT THE TIME OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE I WAS AWARE THAT MY EMPLOYER OFFERS LIKE -- BASICALLY THEY COVER JURY DUTY TIME. BUT WHAT I WAS TOLD JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO IS THAT THEY OFFER FIVE DAYS OF JURY DUTY TIME. SO THAT OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T COVER 3 DAYS A WEEK FOR 13 WEEKS, SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TRIAL UNFORTUNATELY.
JUDGE DAVILA: BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES?
JUROR: YEAH, I WOULDN'T BE AFFORDING MY APARTMENT AT THAT POINT GIVEN THE SCHEDULE, AND IT DOES LINE UP A LITTLE BIT WITH MY TYPICAL DAYS OFF, SO I WOULD BE MISSING LIKE FOUR DAYS PER PAY PERIOD.
JUDGE DAVILA: WE'RE GOING THREE DAYS A WEEK, AS I TOLD YOU, AND THAT GIVES TWO OTHER FULL DAYS AND I HOPE WE CAN BREAK BY 2:00 O'CLOCK EVERY DAY AND THAT'S MY GOAL AND IT MIGHT EXTEND. DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY SOLACE OR HELP YOU IN ANY WAY?
JUROR: NOT REALLY. MY APARTMENT IS KIND OF EXPENSIVE FOR THE KIND OF INCOME I GET DEFINITELY.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I THINK YOU'RE A BETA TESTER, IS THAT WHAT YOU DO?
JUROR: IT'S A FANCY NAME FOR ESSENTIALLY AN IN-STORE RETAIL SALESPERSON.
JUDGE DAVILA: THEY HAVE BETA TESTERS.
JUROR: IT'S FUN.
JUDGE DAVILA: GREAT.
JUROR: IT'S A GOOD JOB.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU'VE BEEN THERE THREE MONTHS?
JUROR: YEAH, ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME I'VE BEEN IN THE APARTMENT.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. SCHENK, ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. SCHENK: NO.
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, MS. WALLWORK. THANK YOU FOR SPENDING THE DAY WITH US TODAY. I'M SORRY I DID NOT CALL UPON YOU EARLIER, BUT I HOPE YOU FOUND THIS EDUCATIONAL FOR JURY SERVICE AND YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM, AND IT MAY THAT BE YOU'LL BE SUMMONED AGAIN EITHER IN THIS COURT OR A STATE COURT DOWN THE ROAD TO, AGAIN, ASSIST YOUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. SO I'LL EXCUSE YOU. WHY DON'T YOU LEAVE THE PAPERWORK WHEN YOU COLLECT YOUR THINGS IF YOU WOULD, MS. WALLWORK. YES?
JUROR: I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN TO WHAT SHE HAS, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THIS WAS THE RIGHT TIME.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. SCHULTZE?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: WHY DON'T YOU COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE HERE.
JUROR: SO I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN TO HER. I DIDN'T -- WHEN I FILLED OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE, I DIDN'T KNOW HOW MANY DAYS MY EMPLOYER COVERED, BUT THEY ONLY COVER SEVEN DAYS. I SPLIT AN APARTMENT, BUT IF IT WAS $50 OR $60 A DAY, I COULDN'T COVER THE RENT FOR IT, LET ALONE THE UTILITIES AND FOOD AND EXPENSES LIKE THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: DOES THE SCHEDULE THAT I'VE OFFERED HERE HELP YOU IN SOME WAY?
JUROR: WHERE I WORK I'M BASICALLY LIKE, I THINK I PUT AN APPLICATION ENGINEER. I'M JUST A FANCY MACHINIST FOR SILICON WAFERS. WE'RE ONLY OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, LIKE, 9:0 TO 4:00 AND SO IT'S KIND OF THREE OF MY FIVE DAYS WHERE I COULD WORK.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. SCHENK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. SCHENK: NO. THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. SCHULTZE. I'LL EXCUSE YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.
JUROR: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT. LET ME CONTINUE WITH MY QUESTIONS. I HOPE YOU CAN STILL ATTEND SOME GIANTS GAMES, SIR.
JUROR: I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT MEDIA AND EXPOSURE, AND JURORS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO NOT READ, LISTEN TO MEDIA COVERAGE ABOUT THE CASE, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT, AS YOU'VE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT ALL DAY. A JUROR'S DECISION ON THE CASE MUST BE FORMED ONLY BY THE EVIDENCE ADMITTED AND RECEIVED IN THE COURTROOM AND NOT ON ANY INFORMATION RECEIVED OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE. A JUROR WHO IS EXPOSED TO ANY OUTSIDE INFORMATION MUST REPORT THE EXPOSURE TO THE COURT. THAT MEANS TO ME VIA MY COURTROOM DEPUTY. NOW, THIS MAY BE DIFFICULT. IT'S GOING TO BE CHALLENGING. I'VE TALKED ABOUT TURNING YOUR NOTIFICATION DEVICES AND THOSE THINGS OFF. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS ANYTHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE OTHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT? I SEE NO HANDS.
IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE CHARGE RELATES TO ALLEGATIONS OF WIRE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD THAT WILL AFFECT ANYONE'S ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? THIS IS JUST THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES THAT YOU THINK WILL CAUSE DIFFICULTY TO BE FAIR? I SEE NO HANDS. NOW, LET ME INQUIRE ABOUT PRIOR JURY SERVICE. I KNOW SOME OF YOU HAVE ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SERVED ON JURIES PREVIOUSLY? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK YOU TOLD US YOU ANSWERED THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE ABOUT YOUR JURY SERVICE. LET ME ASK YOU COLLECTIVELY, THOSE OF YOU WHO RAISED YOUR HANDS, SOME OF YOU HAVE SERVED IN CIVIL CASES AND SOME OF YOU SERVED IN CRIMINAL CASES AS JURORS IN THE PAST. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR PRIOR JURY SERVICE THAT YOU THINK WILL AGAIN AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS TRIAL? ANYONE HAVE ANY OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN ACCUSED OF WIRE FRAUD OR ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FRAUDULENT CONDUCT? ANYONE HAVE OR KNOW OF ANYONE IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? I SEE NO HANDS. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WANT TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC -- OH, I SEE A HAND. YES. I BEG YOUR PARDON. YES, MR. PENUMUDY, YES.
JUROR: YES, SO I JUST FOUND OUT THAT A FRIEND OF MINE -- WE WENT TO COLLEGE TOGETHER -- HE HAS BEEN SENTENCED ON A WIRE FRAUD CHARGE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT, SIR?
JUROR: SO I THINK THE CASE WAS BROUGHT AGAINST HIM ABOUT SIX MONTHS BACK AND THE SENTENCING HAPPENED I THINK TWO WEEKS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: WAS THAT IN THIS COURTHOUSE, IN A FEDERAL COURTHOUSE?
JUROR: NO. IT'S A FEDERAL COURTHOUSE, BUT I THINK IT'S IN SEATTLE.
JUDGE DAVILA: SEATTLE?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DID YOU PARTICIPATE AT ALL IN THOSE PROCEEDINGS, SIR?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU DIDN'T TESTIFY AS A WITNESS?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: DID YOU WRITE A LETTER TO THE COURT IN SUPPORT OF EITHER SIDE IN THAT CASE?
JUROR: NO, I DID NOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU WEREN'T A WITNESS IN THE CASE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT'S JUST A FRIEND THAT YOU KNEW THIS HAPPENED TO?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DO YOU KNOW ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT SITUATION THAT HE HAD?
JUROR: I AM AWARE OF SOME OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE I FOLLOWED THAT CASE IN THE SENSE OF THE CHARGES AND WHAT HAPPENED.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: I EVEN SPOKE TO THAT PERSON.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU SPOKE TO HIM?
JUROR: YES, I DID.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND DID HE SHARE WITH YOU AT LEAST -- I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO TELL US, PLEASE DON'T, BUT DID HE SHARE WITH YOU HIS THOUGHTS ABOUT HIS CASE?
JUROR: OH, A LITTLE BIT. JUST A LITTLE BIT. NOT THE DETAILS OF THE CASE, BUT MORE ABOUT HOW HE FELT ABOUT IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DO YOU KNOW IF THAT CASE WENT TO A TRIAL?
JUROR: I DON'T THINK SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. IT WAS RESOLVED IN SOME OTHER MANNER OTHER THAN A TRIAL?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. AND YOU SAY THE SENTENCING WAS TWO WEEKS AGO, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE, SIR, THAT YOU THINK AFFECTS YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL HERE?
JUROR: I DON'T THINK SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS AND WHAT THE CASE RESOLVED ABOUT, FOR.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: BUT NOT GREAT DETAIL.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUROR: ALL RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT TOPIC, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN OR EVER FELT THAT YOU OR A CLOSE FRIEND OR A RELATIVE WAS A VICTIM OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OR ABUSE, OR WHAT IS KNOWN AS DOMESTIC OR RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE? HAS ANYBODY HAD -- HAVE YOU BEEN INVOLVED OR DO YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THOSE SITUATIONS? MR. BURGE, I THINK I SAW YOUR HAND, SIR. WHY DON'T YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE? YES, SIR.
JUROR: MY WIFE, BEFORE WE MET, WAS A VICTIM OF ABUSE, AND THERE WAS ACTUALLY A CASE BROUGHT AGAINST HER BOYFRIEND AT THE TIME AND HE WAS ARRESTED AND PUT IN JAIL, AND THAT'S --
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THAT WAS BEFORE YOU MET YOUR WIFE?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOUR SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS HER, HER TALKING ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DO YOU KNOW, SIR, HOW LONG AGO THAT WAS?
JUROR: OVER 20 YEARS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOGETHER 20 YEARS NOW.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HAS SHE -- I HOPE YOU'LL PARDON ME, SIR, BUT HAVE YOU TALKED WITH YOUR WIFE ABOUT THAT SITUATION? AND I DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS, BUT I'M CURIOUS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: YEAH, IT COMES UP FROM TIME TO TIME. SHE STILL HAS ISSUES WITH WHERE HE PUNCHED HER AND GRABBED HER AND --
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: AND EMOTIONALLY SHE'S VERY SCARRED FROM IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: SO FROM TIME TO TIME IT DOES COME UP.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. DO YOU KNOW, SIR, WHETHER OR NOT -- AND IF YOU -- IF IT'S -- IF YOU'D PREFER NOT TO ANSWER, PLEASE DON'T, AND JUST TELL ME. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHETHER SHE HAS RECEIVED THERAPY, COUNSELLING, ANYTHING LIKE THAT OVER THE YEARS?
JUROR: NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND YOU, OF COURSE, WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS AT ALL.
JUROR: NO, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. HOW IS IT -- DO YOU HAVE ANY FEELINGS ABOUT THAT AREA IN GENERAL BASED ON YOUR WIFE'S EXPERIENCE?
JUROR: BESIDES HATING HIM? YEAH, I MEAN, I FEEL BAD FOR HER BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHE CAN'T SHAKE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL BE WITH HER FOREVER.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG SHE WAS IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS PERSON?
JUROR: A COUPLE YEARS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US ABOUT THAT?
JUROR: NO, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: BEFORE YOU LEAVE, I DID WANT TO ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION. THIS IS ABOUT -- YOU TOLD US YOU SAW SOME HEADLINES ABOUT THIS CASE, AND I THINK I NEGLECTED TO ASK YOU WHAT THE HEADLINES WERE, IF YOU RECALL.
JUROR: I SAW ONE FOR JURY SELECTION, AND THEN THERE WAS ONE ABOUT THE DEFENSE STRATEGY? WAS THIS IN A NEWSPAPER OR ELECTRONIC --
JUROR: THIS WAS ONLINE.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THOSE WERE WHAT THE HEADLINES WERE?
JUROR: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I THINK YOU TOLD US YOU DID NOT --
JUROR: I DID NOT READ THEM.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THE TIMING OF THIS WAS?
JUROR: WITHIN THE LAST WEEK OR SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
JUROR: UH-HUH.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYONE ELSE IN RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION? YES, IS THAT MR. --
JUROR: -- WITHERSPOON.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, MR. WITHERSPOON. YES.
JUROR: I'M JUROR NUMBER 29.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: I'M CURRENTLY UNDER SUBPOENA AND MY WIFE IS UNDER SUBPOENA FOR A LAWSUIT. I HAVE THE SUBPOENA WITH ME. IT'S INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE OF A MINOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ARE YOU WITNESSES IN THAT CASE?
JUROR: YES, SIR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ARE YOU WITNESSES FOR, IF YOU CARE TO SHARE WITH US, THE PROSECUTION IN THE CASE? THE DEFENSE?
JUROR: THE PLAINTIFF OR -- IT'S NOT A CRIMINAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT'S A CIVIL CASE?
JUROR: THE PLAINTIFF, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND IS THAT IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY OR SOME OTHER COUNTY?
JUROR: IT'S IN PLACER COUNTY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. AND THIS IS INVOLVING A CHILD CUSTODY ISSUE?
JUROR: I'M UNAWARE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THEY CAN'T REVEAL IT. THE CASE IS SEALED.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY.
JUROR: I WAS ALSO -- JUST FULL DISCLOSURE. I WAS INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT WITH THESE PEOPLE.
JUDGE DAVILA: A CIVIL LAWSUIT?
JUROR: YEAH, IN 2012.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT.
JUROR: YEP.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYONE ELSE IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION? LET ME GO TO THE JURY BOX. YES. AND IS THAT MS. CHAMBERS?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. AND IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION, LET ME SAY, IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK PRIVATELY ABOUT THIS QUESTION, WE CAN DO THAT. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. MS. CHAMBERS, THAT OF COURSE APPLIES TO YOU AS WELL.
JUROR: JUROR NUMBER 17.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: MY EX-HUSBAND WAS ABUSIVE TOWARDS ME. A FEW INSTANCES. IT WASN'T ANYTHING -- ONE TIME THE POLICE GOT CALLED BECAUSE WE WERE AT MY FRIEND'S HOUSE AND HE WAS DRUNK AND HE PULLED MY HAIR DOWN TO THE GROUND, AND SO MY FRIENDS CALLED THE POLICE. BUT HE WAS ARRESTED AND HE WAS RELEASED THE NEXT DAY. THAT WAS IN 2018. I'M NOT REALLY -- I HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED TO HIM FOR A LONG TIME. HE WAS ARRESTED FOR SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. SO I'M NOT REALLY IN CONTACT. WE HAVE TWO KIDS, I HAVE TWO KIDS. HE DOESN'T HAVE CUSTODY OF THEM OR ANYTHING.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: HE DOES GET TO SEE THEM SOMETIMES. BUT AFTER THIS RECENT ARREST, HE HAS GOT TO SEE THEM ONCE WITH HIS MOM SUPERVISING FOR A FEW HOURS JUST BECAUSE MY CHILDREN WANTED TO SEE THEIR DAD. THEY'RE ALMOST 12 AND 7, SO THEY'RE, LIKE, I FEEL OLD ENOUGH, AT LEAST THE 12-YEAR OLD TO MAKE A DECISION LIKE THAT. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S --
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. DID YOU GO TO FAMILY COURT FOR ANY OF THIS?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THIS WAS HANDLED OUTSIDE OF THE COURT SYSTEM?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND IF YOU CARE TO SHARE, HAVE YOU OR DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COUNSELLING, THERAPY, FOR YOUR EXPERIENCE?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I'M SORRY, HOW LONG AGO WAS THIS?
JUROR: 2018.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
JUROR: THREE YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
JUROR: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE WELCOME. WERE THERE ANY OTHER RESPONSES? MR. TEJADA, DID YOU HAVE A -- I THINK I SEE YOUR HAND UP. YOUR JUROR NUMBER AGAIN IS?
JUROR: JUROR NUMBER 56, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: I HAVE TWO EXAMPLES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BOTH OF THEM WERE LONG-TIME FRIENDS. ONE OF THEM A LONG TIME FRIEND OF MY MOTHER. SHE WAS IN AN ABUSIVE MARRIAGE FOR A LONG TIME. AND THE OTHER HAS A HISTORY OF ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIPS. I SHOULD PROBABLY ALSO MENTION THAT MY ORGANIZATION DOES HELP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS. WE DO HELP WITH RESTRAINING ORDERS AS WELL AS NEW VISAS. THAT'S NOT MY DEPARTMENT, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MY ORGANIZATION DOES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU EVER DONE ANY OF THAT WORK?
JUROR: NO. WELL, I'VE HAD TO LISTEN TO A COUPLE OF CASES BECAUSE I DO HAVE TO TAKE INTAKES ON OUR ORGANIZATION, BUT I DON'T SPECIFICALLY DO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WORK.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. I THINK THERE WERE OTHER HANDS THERE. MS. GROGAN.
JUROR: I KNOW SEVERAL FOLKS, TWO OF WHOM I'M RELATED TO, WHO HAVE BEEN THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WERE YOU INVOLVED AT ALL IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES? AND BY THAT I MEAN DID YOU GO TO COURT AS A WITNESS? DID YOU ASSIST? DID YOU IN ANY WAY OFFER ASSISTANCE?
JUROR: DRIVE SOMEBODY TO THE POLICE OFFICE, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: YEAH. OKAY. WERE YOU INVOLVED AT ALL IN ANY PROCEEDING, LEGAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THOSE CASES?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HOW LONG AGO WAS THIS? I'M SORRY?
JUROR: TEN YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I SEE NO HANDS. DO ANY OF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE WORK OF PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN CASES OF ABUSE OR VIOLENCE? AND I'M TALKING ABOUT PROFESSIONAL COUNSELLING, EVALUATIONS, THERAPIES, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS? ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THOSE PROFESSIONS OR THAT WORK? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE ANY OF YOU KNOWN ANYONE WHO YOU THOUGHT WAS FALSELY OR UNFAIRLY ACCUSED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR PARTNER ABUSE ALLEGATIONS? ANYONE KNOW ANYONE WHO YOU THINK OR KNOW WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF THIS TYPE OF CONDUCT? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH OR BEEN A CONTRIBUTOR TO ANY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, VICTIM SUPPORT GROUP, WOMEN'S SHELTER OR ORGANIZATION SUCH AS THOSE? YES, MR. TEJADA?
JUROR: SO AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, MY ORGANIZATION DOES A LOT OF WORK WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MY OFFICE HAS PARTNERSHIPS WITH AT LEAST ONE SHELTER. IT'S NOT MY DEPARTMENT, SO I DON'T KNOW ALL OF OUR DETAILS, BUT FOR SURE WE HAVE DONE WORK WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORGANIZATIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YES. IS THAT MR. LEE?
JUROR: NUMBER 94.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: WOULD IT BE ALL RIGHT TO SPEAK IN PRIVATE?
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, SIR. LET'S PASS THIS FOR JUST A MOMENT AND THEN WE'LL TALK IN PRIVATE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN EMPLOYED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, FBI, I.R.S., OR IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AS A DEFENSE LAWYER, PROBATION OFFICER, OR INVESTIGATOR? ANYONE HAVE ANY CONTACTS IN THOSE FIELDS? I SEE NO HANDS. WOULD ANY OF YOU GIVE GREATER OR LESSER CREDENCE TO A WITNESS WHO IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AGENT, OR GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT WITNESS IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AGENT, OR GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE? THIS QUESTION IS DESIGNED TO ASK YOU, JUST BECAUSE THE FACT OF SOMEONE'S EMPLOYMENT IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WOULD YOU GIVE THAT WITNESS'S TESTIMONY GREATER OR LESSER WEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT? ANYONE FEEL THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT? I SEE NO HANDS.
DO ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY OPINIONS ABOUT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT MIGHT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE? I SEE NO HANDS. IS ANYONE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR SUCH THAT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TO BOTH SIDES MIGHT BE IMPAIRED? ANYONE HAVE THOSE FEELINGS? I SEE NO HANDS. I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. THIS PRESUMPTION REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE EACH ELEMENT OF AN OFFENSE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IS PROOF THAT LEAVES YOU FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THE GOVERNMENT PROVE GUILT BEYOND ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT. A REASONABLE DOUBT IS A DOUBT BASED UPON REASON AND COMMON SENSE AND IS NOT BASED PURELY ON SPECULATION.
IT MAY ARISE FROM A CAREFUL AND IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE OR FROM LACK OF EVIDENCE. IF AFTER A CAREFUL AND IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE YOU ARE NOT CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF AFTER A CAREFUL AND IMPARTIAL CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU ARE CONVINCED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY, IT IS YOUR DUTY TO FIND THE DEFENDANT GUILTY. NOW, CAN YOU ALL APPLY THE LAW AS I GIVE IT TO YOU, INCLUDING THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND THE GOVERNMENT'S BURDEN OF PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT? IS THERE ANYONE WHO CANNOT DO THIS OR WILL HAVE DIFFICULTY DOING THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT BECAUSE MS. HOLMES IS PRESENT IN COURT ACCUSED OF THESE CHARGES, SHE MUST BE GUILTY? ANYONE HAVE THAT FEELING? I SEE NO HANDS. IS THERE ANYONE WHO CANNOT PRESUME MS. HOLMES INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES?
I SEE NO HANDS. YOU UNDERSTAND THEN THAT IF, AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, YOU DETERMINE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT MET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, IT WOULD BE YOUR DUTY TO FIND THE DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY. THAT'S THE LAW, AND I'LL INSTRUCT YOU ON THE LAW AT THE END OF THE CASE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE, DO YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD DO THAT, THAT IS, REACH THAT VERDICT AND STILL FACE FAMILY AND FRIENDS, OR WOULD FEAR OF CRITICISM MAKE THAT DIFFICULT FOR YOU? THIS QUESTION CALLS ON IF YOU FIND AS A JUROR THAT THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, WOULD YOU DO THAT WITHOUT FEAR FROM FAMILY, FRIENDS, OR OTHER CRITICISM? ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY COULD NOT DO THIS BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE AFRAID OF CRITICISM? I SEE NO HANDS. YOU HAVE SEEN A VIDEO THAT HAS DISCUSSED THE TOPIC OF UNCONSCIOUS BIAS, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT. WE SHOW THAT AS AN AID TO PROSPECTIVE JURORS AS THEY CONSIDER JURY SERVICE AND THE TASK AHEAD OF THEM. IT'S MEANT AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INFORM REGARDING RESEARCH AND STUDIES ON ISSUES OF BIAS AND UNCONSCIOUS BIAS. I HOPE YOU FOUND THE VIDEO INFORMATIVE AND HELPFUL. IN OUR NATION AND STATE WE HAVE CITIZENS, RESIDENTS, NONRESIDENTS, NONCITIZENS FROM DIFFERENT RACES, ETHIC AND CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS.
JUDGE DAVILA: IN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT, WE ENJOY A RICH DIVERSITY OF INDIVIDUALS AND CULTURES AND UNDER THE LAW ALL PEOPLE WHO APPEAR IN COURT, REGARDLESS OF RACE, RELIGION, ETHNIC HERITAGE, GENDER, AGE, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND WE GUARANTEE EACH PERSON THE RIGHT TO A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL. WE ARE TO JUDGE EACH INDIVIDUAL AS WE WOULD WANT TO BE JUDGED FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY. NOW, THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL IT MAY APPEAR THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE PARTIES OR ATTORNEYS OR WITNESSES COME FROM A NATIONAL, RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUP OR MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE FROM YOUR OWN. WOULD THIS IN ANY WAY AFFECT YOUR JUDGMENT OR THE WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY YOU WOULD GIVE TO THE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE? ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. TO REACH A VERDICT, THE JURY MUST BE UNANIMOUS. DO ALL OF YOU ACCEPT THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE JURY VERDICT BE UNANIMOUS? ANYONE WHO PARTS COMPANY WITH THAT? I SEE NO HANDS.
DOES ANYONE FEEL THAT BECAUSE OF PHILOSOPHICAL, MORALE OR RELIGIOUS REASONS THAT THEY CANNOT SIT AS A JUROR IN A CRIMINAL CASE OR THAT WOULD CAUSE DISCOMFORT OR INABILITY TO REACH A VERDICT IN THIS CASE? I SEE NO HANDS. AS A JUROR, YOU'RE NOT TO CONSIDER OR SPECULATE ON THE QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT. THAT QUESTION IS SOLELY IN THE PROVINCE OF THE COURT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. WILL YOU PERFORM YOUR DUTY TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND DECIDE THE CASE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES? IS THERE ANYONE WHO CANNOT DO THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. IN OUR COURTS AN ACCUSED HAS THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND NOT TESTIFY. A DEFENDANT MAY CHOOSE TO RELY ON THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE AND PRESENT NO AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE. IS THERE ANYONE WHO CANNOT ACCEPT THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO REMAIN SILENT AND THUS CHOOSE NOT TO TESTIFY IN THE CASE? ANYONE WHO HAS DIFFICULTY WITH THAT CONCEPT? I SEE NO HANDS. IF MS. HOLMES RELIES ON HER RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY, WOULD ANYONE HOLD THAT AGAINST HER? I SEE NO HANDS. WOULD ANY OF YOU FEEL THAT SHE WOULD BE HIDING SOMETHING IF SHE DID NOT TESTIFY IN THE CASE? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE ANY OF -- HAVE YOU OR ANY OF YOUR FAMILY OR CLOSE FRIENDS EVER WORKED FOR A COURT, PROSECUTION, OR A CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAW OFFICE, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATE PRACTICE? ALL RIGHT. MR. WITHERSPOON, WHY DON'T YOU COME UP.
JUROR: PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY IN MY FAMILY IS AN ATTORNEY. MY GRANDFATHER, MY DAD, MY UNCLES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: MY DAD WAS AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN HOUSTON.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I SEE. AND DID THEY DISCUSS THEIR WORK WITH YOU?
JUROR: OH, NO.
JUROR: NOT REALLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: I MEAN, THE PERIPHERY.
JUDGE DAVILA: NOT IN DETAIL.
JUROR: HE TOOK HIS JOB SERIOUSLY I GUESS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. WHO ELSE WAS IT? MR. TEJADA?
JUROR: YOUR HONOR, I'VE GOT A LOT OF FRIENDS FROM LAW SCHOOL WHO WENT INTO CRIMINAL DEFENSE. I HAD A LOT OF FRIENDS WHO WANTED TO BE A PROSECUTOR. I WANTED TO BE A PUBLIC DEFENDER. BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM DISCUSSED THEIR WORK THAT MUCH WITH ME, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WENT TO.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, YOU'RE A LAWYER, SO OF COURSE YOU WENT TO LAW SCHOOL AND PEOPLE CHOSE DIFFERENT CAREER PATHS. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SOMEONE ELSE? I THINK I SAW SOME HANDS. YES, IN THE FRONT ROW. WHY DON'T YOU COME FORWARD? IS THAT -- YOUR JUROR NUMBER?
JUROR: 38.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: MY WIFE, WHEN WE MOVED TO MICHIGAN, WE GOT MARRIED THERE. FOR A SHORT WHILE SHE DID WORK FOR THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE IN THE BERRIEN COUNTY COURTHOUSE OF SOUTHWESTERN MICHIGAN.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT.
JUROR: JUST OFF OF STUDIES AND SUCH.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MR. BURGE.
JUROR: YES. I HAVE A COLLEAGUE/FRIEND WHEN HE LEFT OUR FIRM HE WENT TO THE PROSECUTION OFFICE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: BUT WE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT HE'S BEEN DOING.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT, SIR?
JUROR: ABOUT SIX YEARS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. I SEE A HAND. IS THAT MS. NGUYEN?
JUROR: YES.
JUROR: JUROR NUMBER 71. MY NIECE IS A LAWYER PRIVATELY IN L.A.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPE OF LAW SHE PRACTICES?
JUROR: AT LEAST IT WAS A LAWYER AT SOME OFFICE, BUT THEN SHE MOVED TO BE A PRIVATE LAWYER FOR HER OWN I THINK FOR FAMILY ISSUES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OH, I SEE. FAMILY LAW. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MR. NIZENKOFF, YES.
JUROR: JUROR 64 AGAIN. MY FATHER-IN-LAW MANY YEARS AGO WAS AN ATTORNEY AND I THINK -- MY FATHER-IN-LAW WAS AN ATTORNEY AND SMALL CLAIMS COURT JUDGE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, BUT IT WAS A LITTLE BEFORE I MET HIM. MY WIFE HAS A COUPLE OF FRIENDS WHO ARE ATTORNEYS, AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF FRIENDS FROM COLLEGE WHO I AM NOT SUPER CLOSE TO ANYMORE, BUT THEY ARE PATENT LAWYERS.
JUDGE DAVILA: THERE'S NO CONNECTION TO THAT, THAT THEY'RE PATENT LAWYERS AND YOU'RE NOT CLOSE TO THEM ANY LONGER?
JUROR: NO. JUST LOST TOUCH.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. NOT THAT I HAVE ANY VIEWS ON THAT TOPIC. I JUST WANT TO --
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYONE ELSE? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH OR APPEARED AS A DEFENDANT, A VICTIM, OR A WITNESS IN ANY INVESTIGATION BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY? THIS WOULD INCLUDE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF'S OFFICES, AND FEDERAL AGENCIES. IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK PRIVATELY ABOUT AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. AND I'VE HEARD FROM -- MR. BURGE, YOU'VE TOLD US ABOUT YOUR SITUATION AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE OTHER SITUATION AND FAMILY. ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYONE MIGHT BE INVOLVED IN? I SEE NO HANDS. ALL RIGHT. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO NOW IS I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW COUNSEL SOME -- I HAVE TO CONFESS, AND I APOLOGIZE, MY QUESTIONS HAVE GONE A LITTLE LONGER THAN I THOUGHT AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE EACH OF YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, YOU HAVE THAT QUESTIONNAIRE. BUT I THINK FOR TIME, I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE LAWYERS BEGIN THEIR QUESTIONS IF THEY HAVE ANY NOW FOR YOU. SO I'M GOING TO -- WE'RE GOING TO DISPENSE WITH THE INTRODUCTION, COUNSEL. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT I DO WANT TO GET TO YOUR QUESTIONS. SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE LAWYERS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS NOW, AND WE'LL START WITH THE GOVERNMENT. MR. SCHENK?