Jury Voir Dire (Continued) — Bias, Counsel Examination, and Challenges
553 lines(PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL IN AT 2:04 P.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PREVIOUS PARTIES ARE PRESENT ONCE AGAIN AND OUR PROSPECTIVE PANEL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH MY QUESTIONS. NOW, AS I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER, YOU KNOW THE LENGTH OF THIS TRIAL, THE PROSPECTIVE LENGTH OF THIS TRIAL. IT'S LIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE CONTINUED MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL. JURORS WILL BE INSTRUCTED, AS I'VE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, NOT TO READ, LISTEN TO MEDIA COVERAGE ABOUT THE CASE, AND THIS IS IMPORTANT AS A JUROR'S DECISION ON THE CASE, AS I'VE TOLD YOU, 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. THIS MEANS TO ME THROUGH MY STAFF, MY COURTROOM DEPUTY. NOW, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, THIS MAY BE DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING, BUT LET ME ASK, IS THERE ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT THEY CANNOT, THEY CANNOT FOLLOW THIS INSTRUCTION? I SEE NO HANDS. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE CHARGES, THE CHARGE RELATES TO ALLEGATIONS OF WIRE FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT WIRE FRAUD THAT WILL AFFECT A JUROR'S ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL? THIS JUST RELATES TO THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES. IS THERE ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES THAT A JUROR FEELS THAT THEY COULD NOT BE FAIR? I SEE NO HANDS. OH, I'M SORRY. I DO SEE A HAND. LET'S CALL ON -- IS THAT MR. DELAPAZ; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE JUROR NUMBER 156. YES, SIR.
JUROR: WHEN YOU SAY "FRAUD," IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO MY MOTHER-IN-LAW BECAUSE SHE WENT TO PRISON FOR FRAUD AND EMBEZZLEMENT, AND I DON'T THINK I CAN BE FAIR CONCERNING WHAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH MY WIFE.
JUDGE DAVILA: HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT SITUATION, SIR?
JUROR: PROBABLY ABOUT 10 OR 11 OR 12 YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS, SIR, THAT COURT PROCESS?
JUROR: NO. I WENT THROUGH IT WITH MY WIFE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: I'VE SEEN WHAT SHE WENT THROUGH AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED WHILE SHE WAS INSIDE THERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: INSIDE THE COURT PROCESS YOU MEAN?
JUROR: NO. BOTH COURT AND PRISON.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I SEE. SIR, YOU ALSO INDICATED ON NUMBER 1, IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 1 THAT YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT FINANCIAL ISSUES.
JUROR: YES, IT'S A HARDSHIP. I DON'T GET PAID FOR BEING ON JURY DUTY.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MR. SCHENK, ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. SCHENK: NOTHING FURTHER, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING FURTHER.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO MY ATTENTION, MR. DELAPAZ. I'LL EXCUSE YOU FOR HARDSHIP. THANK YOU.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANYONE ELSE IN REGARDS TO THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES IS WHAT THIS QUESTION CALLED FOR? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN ACCUSED OF WIRE FRAUD OR ALLEGATIONS REGARDING FRAUDULENT CONDUCT? ANYONE HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN THAT? AGAIN, IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK PRIVATELY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE YOU BEEN OR HAVE YOU EVER FELT THAT YOU OR A CLOSE FRIEND OR RELATIVE WAS A VICTIM OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE OR ABUSE OR WHAT IS KNOWN AS DOMESTIC OR RELATIONSHIP VIOLENCE? ANYONE HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH A PERSON OR RELATIVE OR FRIEND? IF ANYONE NEEDS TO DO THAT, WE CAN DO THAT PRIVATELY. LET'S -- WHERE'S THE MICROPHONE? IT'S IN THE GALLERY. SO WHY DON'T WE KEEP IT THERE. IF YOU COULD PASS THE WIPES AS WELL, PLEASE, MR. BUI. THANK YOU. YES. JUROR NUMBER?
JUROR: 154.
JUDGE DAVILA: 154. THANK YOU, MS. KEHN. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO KNOW?
JUROR: YES. YES, I'VE BEEN A VICTIM.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT MS. KEHN?
JUROR: LET'S SEE. WE GOT DIVORCED IN 2011, AND I WAS MARRIED FOR 28 YEARS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE OCCASION TO REPORT THE ABUSE, THE SITUATION TO AUTHORITIES?
JUROR: NO. IT WASN'T PHYSICAL. IT WAS MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AND DID YOU RECEIVE -- MAY I ASK -- AND IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK PRIVATELY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COUNSELLING OR THERAPY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS A RESULT?
JUROR: YES. ONCE I GOT -- ONCE HE WAS GONE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M SORRY?
JUROR: ONCE HE LEFT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT EXPERIENCE THAT REMAINS WITH YOU TODAY?
JUROR: YEAH. ALL OF IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: TELL ME, CAN YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT WAS THE DURATION OF THAT? WAS IT THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP OR WAS IT A SEGMENT OF IT?
JUROR: HE WAS VERY CONTROLLING AND PUT ME DOWN A LOT AND CONTROLLED LIKE MY TIME AND EVERYTHING A LOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WAS THIS DURING THE ENTIRETY OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM?
JUROR: MOSTLY, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT WAS HOW LONG? I'M SORRY.
JUROR: I WAS MARRIED FOR 28 YEARS, BUT I WOULD SAY LIKE THE LAST 12 WERE LIKE THE WORST.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND YOU DIVORCED OR SEPARATED WHEN?
JUROR: 2011. HE MOVED OUT IN 2011, BUT IT WASN'T FINAL UNTIL '13.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. KEHN. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. AND THERE WAS SOMEONE ELSE? YES, LET'S PASS THAT FORWARD. THANK YOU. IS THAT MR. MURPHY?
JUROR: YES, 130.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY.
JUROR: WHEN I WAS YOUNG THERE WERE A FEW INCIDENTS I GUESS OF PHYSICAL FIGHTING BETWEEN MY PARENTS, AND I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A DISTINCT MEMORY OF WITNESSING THOSE, BUT I KNEW THAT THEY TOOK PLACE AND AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WHEN I WAS IN THE HOME.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER -- I'M SORRY, AGAIN, IF ANYONE --
JUROR: GO AHEAD.
JUDGE DAVILA: WERE LEGAL AUTHORITIES EVER INVOLVED IN ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS?
JUROR: I REMEMBER THE POLICE COMING TO THE HOUSE ONCE, BUT NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: AND IT RESOLVED WELL BEFORE THEY ARRIVED.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. HOW LONG AGO WAS THIS APPROXIMATELY?
JUROR: MANY YEARS AGO. SO 53 MINUS 6.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT TIME STAMPS IT FOR US. HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY COUNSELLING, THERAPY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR THAT, SIR?
JUROR: NOT FOR THAT BUT IN GENERAL, BUT NOT SPECIFIC TO THAT INSTANCE.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THAT JUROR NUMBER 134, LARUE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: 134?
JUROR: YES, 134.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: MY SISTER WAS SEVERELY BEATEN BY HER HUSBAND, AND WHEN I TRIED TO HELP HER HE ATTACKED ME. AND THAT WAS ABOUT 25 YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WAS THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA, MS. LARUE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WERE THE AUTHORITIES CALLED?
JUROR: YES. I CALLED WHEN HE ATTACKED ME, AND I WASN'T GOING TO LET IT HAPPEN.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. AND WERE YOU REQUIRED TO GO TO COURT FOR ANY PURPOSE?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DID YOU TESTIFY?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WAS THERE A TRIAL?
JUROR: IT WAS MORE SO SHE COULD GET A RESTRAINING ORDER, GET CUSTODY OF HER CHILD, AND SO HE WOULD STAY COMPLETELY AWAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WAS IN FAMILY COURT REGARDING DISSOLUTION PROCEEDINGS?
JUROR: YES. YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WAS A RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I SEE. AND HAVE YOU, HAVE YOU SEEN THAT INDIVIDUAL, THAT IS, THE HUSBAND IN --
JUROR: OH, HE'S NO LONGER HOME. HE IS NOWHERE AROUND.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'M SORRY. IF YOU COULD --
JUROR: I'M SORRY. HE'S NOWHERE AROUND.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COUNSELLING OR THERAPY?
JUROR: NO. TO ME IT WAS DONE AND OVER WITH.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. HOW ABOUT YOUR SISTER?
JUROR: YES. YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: SHE DID RECEIVE COUNSELLING AND THERAPY?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. ANYONE ELSE IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION? IF WE COULD PASS IT UP TO MS. MASON-BURCHELL.
JUROR: YES. SO I WENT THROUGH IT BACK ABOUT 35 YEARS AGO, 30 YEARS AGO. I WITNESSED MY MOTHER BEING ABUSED BY MY STEPFATHER.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: AND THE AUTHORITIES WERE CALLED.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WERE YOU INVOLVED AT ALL IN THOSE -- ANY PROCEEDINGS?
JUROR: NOT AT ALL. I WAS INVITED WHEN IT HAPPENED.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND DO YOU KNOW IF THERE WERE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS THAT RESULTED FROM THAT?
JUROR: THE ONLY THING I KNOW IS THE COPS WERE CALLED.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DO YOU KNOW IF ANY THERAPY WAS INVOLVED FOR ANYONE?
JUROR: I KNOW I WENT THROUGH IT WHEN I WAS YOUNGER.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. HOW LONG DID YOU SEE A THERAPIST?
JUROR: IT WAS JUST BRIEFLY TO TALK ABOUT THE SITUATION I WENT THROUGH, AND I GOT AWAY FROM IT QUICKLY SO IT REALLY DIDN'T IMPACT ME. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I OBSERVED.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? OH, YES, MS. LOCKWOOD, NUMBER 99.
JUROR: BACK IN 2012 I HAD TO LEAVE AN ABUSIVE PARTNER THAT I LIVED WITH AND AFTER THEY STOLE MY IDENTITY AND HAD ALSO OTHER THINGS THAT WERE BOTH PHYSICALLY, SEXUALLY, EMOTIONALLY ABUSIVE IN THE HOME AND OUTSIDE OF THE HOME. SO, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND WERE THERE ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AS A RESULT OF THAT CONDUCT?
JUROR: JUST ABOUT THE IDENTITY BEING STOLEN BECAUSE A LOT OF MONEY WAS INVOLVED AND IT HAD TO DO WITH HIS PAST EMPLOYMENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WERE YOU CALLED UPON TO OFFER TESTIMONY IN A PROCEEDING AT ALL?
JUROR: I WAS NOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OR DID YOU WRITE A DECLARATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
JUROR: I DID WRITE A DECLARATION.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WAS THAT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT?
JUROR: YES. I HAD DONE A STATEMENT AS WELL AS A DECLARATION.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND, MS. LOCKWOOD, DID YOU RECEIVE ANY THERAPY OR COUNSELLING FOR ANY OF THOSE?
JUROR: I DID.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND HOW LONG WAS THAT?
JUROR: I SEEKED IT OUT A FEW MONTHS AFTER THAT AND THEN FOLLOWED UP ABOUT A YEAR AFTER THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. I SAW A HAND BACK IN THE GALLERY, SO LET'S PASS THIS BACK. WE'LL SEND IT BACK. AND WE'LL START WITH MR. BROWN BACK IN THE CORNER, JUROR NUMBER 171.
JUROR: YES, YOUR HONOR. SO I GREW UP IN AN ABUSIVE HOUSEHOLD AS WELL AS A CHILD WITNESSING MY MOM AND MY STEPFATHER FIGHTING AND JUST HAVING ALTERCATIONS, AND THAT'S PROBABLY BEEN ABOUT 45 YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT, SIR. WAS LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED IN ANY OF THOSE SITUATIONS, SIR?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND DID YOU, DID YOU OR HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY COUNSELLING, THERAPY, OR TALKED TO ANYONE ABOUT THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.
JUROR: HI. IN '83 I MARRIED AN ALCOHOLIC.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHAT JUROR NUMBER ARE YOU?
JUROR: 174.
JUDGE DAVILA: 174. THANK YOU, MS. RIGGINS.
JUROR: I HAD THE COPS CALLED ON HIM A FEW TIMES AND HAD HIM HAULED AWAY TO JAIL. AFTER WE SPLIT HE CONTINUED TO HARASS ME UNTIL HE DIED AND THEN I DIDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT ANYMORE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I THINK I READ ABOUT THIS. YOU TOLD US ABOUT THIS IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE. THANK YOU. DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COUNSELLING, THERAPY FOR THIS?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: DID YOU GO TO COURT FOR ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS?
JUROR: NO, I COULDN'T AFFORD A DIVORCE. I WAS A SINGLE MOTHER AFTER THAT AND SO JUST STAYING AWAY FROM HIM.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
JUROR: UH-HUH.
JUDGE DAVILA: WAS THERE ANOTHER HAND? YES. IS THAT MS. QUINTANILLA?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: A FEW MONTHS AGO WE HAD A SITUATION IN OUR FAMILY WHERE MY BOY WAS FRIENDED BY SOMEBODY ONLINE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK YOU MENTIONED THIS IN YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, I SAW THAT.
JUROR: SO THIS GIRL OR LADY FRIENDED HIM, AND HE TOOK SOME COMPROMISING PICTURES, AND SHE THREATENED TO SEND THE PICTURES TO HIS FRIENDS, AND WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS. HE WAS REALLY -- HE SEEMED TO BE DEVASTATED, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS SCHOOL RELATED OR SOMETHING. AND WHEN HE TOLD ME ABOUT IT HE HAD -- SHE HAD HIM SEND SOME MONEY.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: SO THIS WAS SO HARD FOR HIM IN THE FAMILY, AND I WAS SO AFRAID FOR HIM THE WAY HE WAS. AND I TOLD HIM WAS TO CUT EVERYTHING, AND HE DELETED HIS SAVINGS. AND I SAID, WELL, WHAT DO WE DO? WE COULDN'T GO TO THE POLICE BECAUSE HE DIDN'T TAKE SNAPSHOTS, HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROOF. HE ONLY HAD LIKE THE WIRE OF THE MONEY, BUT THIS FRIGHTENS ME BECAUSE IT COULD AFFECT HIM AND WHAT WE ADVISING HIM WAS TO CUT ALL TIES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: AND WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER. SO THIS PERSON IS STILL HURTING OUR FAMILY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO. SO AS A MOTHER IT IS VERY HARD BECAUSE I FEEL HOPELESS OF WHAT CAN BE DONE. AND THEN WE TRY TO SEE WHAT PROTECTION WE HAVE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S VERY LITTLE BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY MIGHT BE LITTLE, BUT HOW IT IS AFFECTING THE FAMILY IS A LOT, AND IT'S VERY SCARY. AND I DID TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S VERY SCARY.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, I THINK I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ANY HANDS? I SEE NO HANDS. DO ANY OF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THE WORK OF PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN CASES OF ABUSE OR VIOLENCE, THAT IS, PROFESSIONAL EVALUATIONS, REPORTS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS? DO ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH THAT? ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THOSE? 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 HAVE ANY OF THOSE EXPERIENCES? 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 GROUPS OR WOMEN'S SHELTER OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN ABUSE TYPE ISSUES? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN EMPLOYED BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WHICH INCLUDES A DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, FBI, I.R.S., OR IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, DEFENSE LAWYER, PROBATION OFFICER, INVESTIGATOR, ANYONE HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH ANY OF THOSE EMPLOYMENTS? YES, I SEE A HAND. YOU HAVE IT. YES. AND THIS IS MR. PERALTA?
JUROR: YES. I HAVE A FRIEND WHO WORKS IN A WASHINGTON STATE DISTRICT COURT AS A PARALEGAL SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
JUROR: AND SHE TELLING ME, BECAUSE I ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS REGARDING MY SITUATION WITH MY WIFE BEFORE, AND SHE'S GIVING ME ADVICES WITH REGARDS TO THOSE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. HOW LONG AGO HAS THAT BEEN, SIR?
JUROR: ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO. BUT MY FRIEND IS STILL WORKING AT DISTRICT COURT IN WASHINGTON STATE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. THANK YOU. LET'S PASS THAT OVER, PLEASE. IS THAT MR. HALL?
JUROR: WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT US HAVING EMPLOYMENT OR US KNOWING SOMEONE EMPLOYED?
JUDGE DAVILA: BOTH HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO IS?
JUROR: MY UNCLE WAS A DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONSUMER FRAUD DEPARTMENT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS UNTIL HE RETIRED.
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK I SAW THAT. WHO WAS THAT PERSON?
JUROR: ALBERT BENDER.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. AND HE RETIRED SOME TIME AGO I THINK.
JUROR: YEAH, HE DID.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DID YOU EVER TALK TO HIM ABOUT HIS WORK?
JUROR: NOT IN ANY GREAT DETAIL. HE WROTE A BOOK, YOU KNOW, VERY HIGH LEVEL, NOT DETAILED, ABOUT JUST EXPERIENCE AS A D.A. AND AN ATTORNEY BUT IT WAS -- YOU KNOW, NOTHING HUGE DETAILS, PERSONAL STUFF SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. I SEE SOME OTHER HANDS UP. IS THAT --
JUROR: 155.
JUDGE DAVILA: -- MS. MARTINEZ?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: MY SISTER WORKED FOR THE SALINAS POLICE DEPARTMENT. SHE DID REPORTING FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU KNOW IN WHAT CAPACITY?
JUROR: SHE DID THE PAPERWORK FOR THE DIFFERENT INCIDENTS THAT HAPPENED IN THE CITY OF SALINAS --
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: -- REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. THANK YOU. DOES SHE TALK TO YOU ABOUT HER WORK?
JUROR: NO. SHE SINCE HAS PASSED ON.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE IT UP TO -- IS THAT MR. TAUSWORTHE?
JUROR: YES, 141.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: I HAVE ONE FRIEND OF THE FAMILY. SHE RUNS A CHARITY ORGANIZATION THAT DONATES CLOTHES TO CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SEXUALLY ASSAULTED.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: ANOTHER FRIEND OF THE FAMILY, SHE RUNS A SINGLE WOMEN, ESCAPED WOMEN, BATTERED WOMEN, ET CETERA, SUPPORT GROUP OVER IN DETROIT. I'D FORGOTTEN TO MENTION EARLIER, I DIDN'T REMEMBER UNTIL YOU BROUGHT IT UP, I KNOW PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THIS. SHE WAS ALSO SOMEBODY WHO I KNEW WHO EXPERIENCED ABUSE LIKE THAT. SHE HAD BEEN IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A MAN FOR A LONG TIME AND UNTIL SHE MANAGED TO ESCAPE BASICALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WORKING WITH ANOTHER GROUP TO DO THAT AND RAN OVER TO DETROIT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE.
JUROR: THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- I WAS IN FIFTH GRADE SO THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 15 -- NO, FOURTH GRADE, 15, 16 YEARS AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. MR. MURPHY?
JUROR: 130. I GUESS I WOULD CHARACTERIZE BEING PROFESSIONALLY ACQUAINTED WITH THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY AND STAFF IN THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THROUGH THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE AT THE COUNTY THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE COUNTY COUNSEL AND THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE?
JUROR: YEAH. YOU DIDN'T MENTION COUNTY COUNSEL IN YOUR LIST, BUT I WAS EMPLOYED BY COUNTY COUNSEL FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS FROM 2017 TO 2019 AND DURING MY TIME AS A MEMBER OF THE MANAGEMENT AUDIT DIVISION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS I CONDUCTED A MANAGEMENT AUDIT OF THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?
JUROR: WHEW. BETWEEN 2001 AND 2006, AND I THINK THAT ENGAGEMENT WAS PROBABLY 2003, 2004.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WAS THAT YOUR JOB TITLE WITH THE COUNTY COUNSEL?
JUROR: MY JOB TITLE WITH THE COUNTY COUNSEL, AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY --
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT.
JUROR: -- WAS WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM MANAGER.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND YOU DID INTERNAL INVESTIGATIONS THROUGH THE COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE?
JUROR: YES. I WAS MORE A PROGRAM MANAGER BUILDING THE PROGRAM. I DID SOME INVESTIGATIVE WORK, BUT IT WAS GENERALLY REFERRING COMPLAINTS TO THE APPROPRIATE PARTS TO THE COUNTY, AND THERE WERE PROGRAM STAFF UNDERNEATH ME THAT CONDUCTED MOST OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. WERE THE INVESTIGATIONS -- OR EXCUSE ME. WERE YOUR REFERRALS EVER REFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ANY FEDERAL AGENCY TO YOUR RECOLLECTION?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT.
JUROR: AND IF YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT FURTHER I WOULD ASK TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT IN PRIVATE BECAUSE THOSE MATTERS ARE CONFIDENTIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: NO, I DON'T WANT TO -- I DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF THE INVESTIGATIONS.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOUR JOB TITLE AND DUTIES WAS APPROPRIATE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION? I SEE NO HANDS. WOULD ANY OF YOU GIVE GREATER OR LESSER CREDENCE TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS AN AGENT, GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AGENT, OR REPRESENTATIVE? THIS QUESTION ASKS YOU HOW WOULD YOU WEIGH A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, AGENT, OR INVESTIGATOR TESTIMONY AS A WITNESS? WOULD YOU GIVE IT MORE WEIGHT, LESS WEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT? ANYONE FEEL THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT? YES. LET'S PASS THAT.
JUROR: 154.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. YES.
JUROR: MORE.
JUDGE DAVILA: MS. KEHN, YOU SAID MORE?
JUROR: YES, MORE.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHY IS THAT?
JUROR: BECAUSE I TRUST THEM IN GENERAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: I DON'T THINK I TOLD YOU THIS, BUT YOU'RE JUDGES OF THE FACTS. YOU GET TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENED, WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, AND IN THE COURSE OF DOING YOUR JOB, YOU WEIGH THE CREDIBILITY OF TESTIMONY, WITNESSES, EXHIBITS, YOU GET TO DECIDE THE CREDIBILITY OF THOSE THINGS. I ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW, AND THE LAWYERS WANT TO KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IF LAW ENFORCEMENT TESTIFIES IN THE CASE, AN AGENT OR SOMEBODY -- I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE LOCAL POLICE OFFICERS WHO TESTIFY, BEAT COPS IF YOU WILL, AND OFFICERS WHO DRIVE BLACK AND WHITE POLICE CARS IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. THERE MAY BE AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES FROM OTHER INVESTIGATIVE DIVISIONS, THEY MAY TESTIFY ABOUT AND GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT THEIR INVESTIGATIONS. AND THIS QUESTION IS DESIGNED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE TITLE THAT THEY HAVE SOMEONE MIGHT WEIGH THEIR TESTIMONY HIGHER OR GIVE IT GREATER CREDENCE NOT REALLY LISTENING TO WHAT IT IS, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR JOB TITLE. THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION IS. I THINK WHAT YOU SAID, MA'AM, IS THAT YOU'RE INCLINED TO DO THAT. YOU WOULD GIVE IT MORE WEIGHT?
JUROR: I JUST THINK I WOULD, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE WEARING A UNIFORM, LIKE IF IT WAS A POLICE OFFICER IN A UNIFORM. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LIKE ATTORNEYS AND STUFF LIKE THAT --
(LAUGHTER.)
JUROR: SORRY, GUYS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU. WE ASK YOU TO BE CANDID, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. I DON'T THINK THAT -- THIS WAS TOUCHED ON YESTERDAY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE WITNESSES WHO WILL TESTIFY IN THE TRADITIONAL POLICE UNIFORMS. I DON'T THINK THAT TYPE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE. IS THAT ACCURATE, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: BUT YOU MIGHT HEAR REPRESENTATIVES FROM DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES WHO MIGHT TESTIFY IN AN INVESTIGATIVE FASHION, OR A REGULATORY AGENCY WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THE RESULT OF THEIR INVESTIGATION. YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD LEFT AND RIGHT.
JUROR: NO. LIKE YOU SAID ONE OF THESE GUYS ARE FBI. NEY. SORRY, BUT NEY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
JUROR: IT'S MORE LIKE POLICE OFFICER UNIFORM, SHERIFF UNIFORM GUYS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: I JUST HAVE A TENDENCY TO -- AND IT'S JUST LEFT OVER FROM STUFF IN MY CHILDHOOD AND STUFF.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: SO, YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: NO. THAT'S THE ANSWER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YES, LET'S COME BACK TO -- OH, I'M SORRY. IS THERE ANYONE BACK --
JUROR: WHERE AM I GOING? BACKWARDS?
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: THERE YOU GO.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THIS MR. BUI?
JUROR: HI. I'M 157.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. BUI, YES.
JUROR: YEAH. SO I THINK I WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE INCLINED TO BELIEVE A PERSON OR OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE AND GIVING EVIDENCE. YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE TO TESTIFY AND I'M LISTENING TO, YOU KNOW, THEIR TESTIMONY, I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, MORE EXPERIENCE AND MORE WEIGHT TO WHAT IS GOING ON. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M LEANING TO A LITTLE BIT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S PASS THE MICROPHONE TO MS. LOCKWOOD, PLEASE.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
JUDGE DAVILA: MS. LOCKWOOD.
JUROR: I WOULD ALMOST GIVE THEM LESS WEIGHT BECAUSE OF MY PAST EXPERIENCES. YOU KNOW, POLICE OFFICERS, AGENTS, EVERYBODY IS STILL HUMAN AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST MY LUCK OF THE DRAW, BUT I HAVE NOT ALWAYS ENDED UP ON THE GREAT SIDE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SO THAT HAS -- I WILL ADMIT THAT HAS COLORED HOW I VIEW THEIR TESTIMONY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
JUROR: YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE OF A POSITION OF POWER, I FEEL THAT IT HOLDS MORE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE MORE HONEST, HAVE MORE INTEGRITY, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT I HAVE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. SO DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD -- IF YOU HEARD TESTIMONY FROM, AND YOU HEARD ME AND MR. SCHENK TALK, THERE WON'T BE POLICE OFFICERS WITH BADGES AND UNIFORMS, BEAT COPS, THEY'RE NOT IN THIS CASE. THEY MIGHT BE PEOPLE FROM AGENCIES WHO ARE IN THE CAPACITY, THEIR JOB TITLE MIGHT BE AN INVESTIGATOR, AN INSPECTOR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT THEY'RE NOT OUT GIVING SPEEDING TICKETS AND ARRESTING PEOPLE ON THE STREET, THAT TYPE OF THING. DOES THAT MAKE A DISTINCTION FOR YOU THAT IS MORE --
JUROR: NOT REALLY BECAUSE IT'S STILL A POSITION OF POWER THAT THEY HAVE OVER JUST THE AVERAGE PERSON OUT THERE.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. I SEE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANYONE ELSE IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION? 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 AGENT OR AGENCY THAT MAY AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE AS A JUROR? I SEE NO HANDS. IS ANYONE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR IN SOME WAY SUCH THAT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL MIGHT BE IMPAIRED? ANYONE JUST FEEL THAT ABOUT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? I SEE NO HANDS. A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT. THIS PRESUMPTION REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIME 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 THAT IS BASED ON 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. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUARREL WITH THIS STATEMENT, THIS PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? IS THERE ANYONE WHO CANNOT ABIDE BY, ABIDE BY THIS INSTRUCTION AS TO THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE? 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 FEEL THAT? I SEE NO HANDS.
YOU UNDERSTAND THEN THAT AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, IF 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? YOU ALL UNDERSTAND THAT? ANYONE WHO DOESN'T? I SEE NO HANDS ON THAT. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE, DO YOU THINK YOU COULD DO THAT AND STILL FACE YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, AND MAKE THAT DECISION WITHOUT FEAR OF CRITICISM FROM ANY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS OR MEDIA? I SEE NO HANDS. YOU HAVE SEEN A VIDEO THAT DISCUSSED THE TOPIC OF UNCONSCIOUS BIAS, AND WE SHOW THIS TO YOU AS AN AID TO CONSIDER YOUR JURY SERVICE AND THE TASK AHEAD OF YOU. IT'S MEANT AS AN EDUCATIONAL TOOL TO INFORM REGARDING RESEARCH AND STUDIES ON THE ISSUES OF BIAS AND UNCONSCIOUS BIAS. I HOPE YOU FOUND THAT VIDEO INFORMATIVE AND HELPFUL. IN OUR NATION AND STATE WE HAVE CITIZENS, RESIDENTS, AND NON-CITIZENS FROM MANY DIFFERENT RACES, ETHNIC AND CULTURAL BACKGROUNDS.
IN THE JURISDICTION OF THIS COURT WE ENJOY A RICH DIVERSITY OF INDIVIDUALS AND CULTURES. 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, THAT IS, FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY. NOW, IT MAY APPEAR IN THE COURSE OF THIS TRIAL THAT MORE THAN ONE PARTY, OR ATTORNEY, OR WITNESSES COME FROM A NATIONAL OR RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS GROUP OR MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE THAN YOUR OWN. WOULD THIS IN ANY WAY AFFECT YOUR JUDGMENT OR THE WEIGHT AND CREDIBILITY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE TO ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE? ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT THAT WOULD AFFECT THEIR JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE? I SEE NO HANDS. TO REACH A VERDICT THE JURY MUST BE UNANIMOUS. DO YOU ALL ACCEPT THE REQUIREMENT THAT A JURY MUST BE UNANIMOUS? ANYONE WHO PARTS COMPANY WITH THAT? I SEE NO HANDS.
DOES ANYONE FEEL THAT BECAUSE OF A PHILOSOPHICAL, MORAL OR OTHER RELIGIOUS REASONS THEY CANNOT SIT AS A JUROR IN A CRIMINAL CASE? ANYONE HAVE THOSE FEELINGS? I SEE NO HANDS. AS A JUROR, AS I TOLD YOU, YOU'RE ASKED TO DETERMINE THE FACTS AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANT DID, IN FACT, COMMIT THE ACTS THAT CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSES CHARGED. THAT'S YOUR TASK. AS A JUROR, YOU ARE NOT TO CONSIDER NOR SPECULATE ON THE QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT. THAT QUESTION IS SOLELY IN THE PROVINCE OF THE COURT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO PARTS COMPANY WITH THAT? I SEE NO HANDS.
JUDGE DAVILA: 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. DO YOU ALL ACCEPT THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO REMAIN SILENT AND THUS NOT TESTIFY IN THE CASE? IS THERE ANYONE WHO PARTS COMPANY WITH THAT? I SEE NO HANDS. IF MS. HOLMES RELIES ON HER RIGHT NOT TO TESTIFY, WILL ANYONE HOLD THAT AGAINST HER? I SEE A HAND. IS THAT MR. BUI? YES, SIR, WE'LL GET THE MICROPHONE TO YOU. 157.
JUROR: TEST.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, MR. BUI?
JUROR: HI. YEAH, YOU KNOW, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HER TESTIMONY AND HER SIDE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT SHE'S GOING THROUGH AND THE SIDE OF HER STORY AND EXPERIENCE. I UNDERSTAND THAT SHE'S NOT FORCED OR REQUIRED TO, BUT I THINK FOR ME IT WOULD PROBABLY HELP ME, YOU KNOW, KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS TRIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT EARLIER I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. YOU REMEMBER THAT?
JUROR: SORT OF.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, WHAT IT MEANS, SIR, IS THAT WHEN SOMEONE IS CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE THEY ARE PRESUMED -- THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THEY ARE NOT GUILTY. THIS PRESUMPTION THEN REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I JUST CAN READ TO YOU THE INSTRUCTION, THE REASONABLE DOUBT INSTRUCTION. SO SOMEONE IN OUR COUNTRY WHO IS ACCUSED OF AN OFFENSE DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT GUILTY. THAT'S WHAT THAT CONCEPT MEANS. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?
JUROR: YEAH. AND LIKE I SAID, I AGREE, YOU KNOW, SHE IS PRESUMED TO BE NOT GUILTY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR HER SIDE OF THE STORY AND TESTIMONY LIKE REGARDLESS.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT THE WAY, THE WAY OUR LAW IS, IS THAT A DEFENDANT WHO IS ACCUSED, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF, A DEFENDANT COULD AT THE END OF A CASE NOT PUT ANY EVIDENCE ON AND MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROVED THEIR CASE. SOMEONE COULD DO THAT. AND THEN THE JURY WILL HAVE TO DECIDE, WELL, DID THEY PROVE THE CASE OR NOT? THAT'S THE ULTIMATE ISSUE. DOES THAT HELP YOU WITH THAT CONCEPT?
JUROR: YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. I WAS JUST REALLY SHARING A THOUGHT/OPINION I GUESS.
JUDGE DAVILA: YEAH -- NO. I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL OF YOUR OPINION, SIR. I'M JUST TRYING TO CLEAR UP THE PROCEDURE THAT SOMEONE DOESN'T HAVE TO PUT EVIDENCE ON IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. IT'S ENTIRELY THEIR CHOICE. I THINK I CAN APPRECIATE FROM A HUMAN STANDPOINT, GEE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER SIDE IS, BUT I SUPPOSE WHAT THAT SAYS IS THAT SOMEONE COULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEIR OWN CASE AND PERHAPS IN A CASE THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT PROVED THEIR CASE AND SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT ANYTHING ON. DO YOU SEE HOW THAT MIGHT WORK? I AM SORRY?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: DOES THAT HELP YOU IN ANY WAY? YESTERDAY WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE ABOUT THIS AND I THINK IT CAME TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A DEFENSE ON OR AN OBLIGATION TO PUT A DEFENSE ON. TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM EVERYBODY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A CASE ON; HOWEVER, THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO DO SO. DOES THAT HELP YOU A LITTLE BIT WITH THAT CONCEPT?
JUROR: YEAH, UNDERSTOOD.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTION OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO KNOW ABOUT THAT QUESTION?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. LET'S SEE. I THINK I ASKED YOU WHETHER YOU KNEW ANYONE WHO WAS A LAWYER OR A CRIMINAL DEFENSE OR PROSECUTION OR DEFENSE, AND I THINK I GOT A RESPONSE. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION? I SEE NO HANDS. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED WITH OR APPEARED AS A DEFENDANT OR A VICTIM OR A WITNESS IN ANY INVESTIGATION BY A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, WHICH INCLUDES POLICE DEPARTMENTS, SHERIFF OFFICES, ANY FEDERAL INVESTIGATION OR ANYTHING ELSE, PROSECUTION THAT YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH? AND IF ANYONE WANTS TO SPEAK PRIVATELY ABOUT THAT, WE CAN, OF COURSE, DO THAT. MR. MURPHY, I SAW YOUR HAND UP. DO YOU NEED THE MICROPHONE?
JUROR: DO I NEED THIS?
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU KNOW, THE MOST IMPORTANT PERSON FOR HEARING IN THE COURTROOM, SIR, IS OUR COURT REPORTER. SO LET'S GET THAT MICROPHONE FOR HER.
JUROR: IS IT ON?
JUDGE DAVILA: NOT YET.
JUROR: I WAS CALLED AS A WITNESS IN A CASE BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND I -- I'M SORRY, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT YEAR. I WANT TO SAY 2014. IT WAS A CASE AGAINST A PHYSICIAN FOR -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD WOULD BE -- I GUESS FRAUD FOR RECEIVING RESEARCH FUNDS. AND ANOTHER POSITION THAT I HELD IN THE COUNTY WAS THE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR AT THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, AND I WAS NOT, I GUESS, A PARTY TO THE CASE, AND I WAS JUST BROUGHT IN TO EXPLAIN THE RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION PROCESS.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. WAS THAT IN STATE COURT, SIR? WERE THOSE CASES --
JUROR: I THINK IT WAS COUNTY COURT.
JUDGE DAVILA: RIGHT, SUPERIOR COURT.
JUROR: SUPERIOR COURT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WAS IT ON HEDDING STREET OR FIRST STREET?
JUROR: HEDDING.
JUDGE DAVILA: THAT'S THE CRIMINAL COURT?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO IT WAS A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION?
JUROR: YEAH.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WERE YOU SWORN AND TOOK THE STAND AND TESTIFIED?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: A LAWYER ASKED YOU QUESTIONS?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: A LAWYER FROM COUNTY COUNSEL OR D.A.?
JUROR: DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THEN YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS BY A DEFENSE COUNSEL?
JUROR: I DON'T THINK I WAS. I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WASN'T MEMORABLE.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUROR: WELL, I THINK I DID A GOOD JOB. I WAS ACCURATE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND HOW LONG WERE YOU -- HOW LONG DID YOU TESTIFY?
JUROR: MAYBE TEN MINUTES.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. OKAY. AND WAS THAT JUST THIS ONE TIME OR WERE THERE --
JUROR: JUST THE ONE TIME.
JUDGE DAVILA: GOTCHA. THANK YOU. LET ME GO BACK BEHIND YOU TO YOUR LEFT, MR. MURPHY. JUROR NUMBER 143.
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, MS. ELSHENITI, YES.
JUROR: YES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS IT ONLY IN THE U.S. COURT OR IT MIGHT BE OUT OF THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE I HAVE A CASE FOR MY BROTHER WHO WAS DETAINED IN EGYPT AND HE STILL -- HIS CASE IS UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR TWO YEARS. NOW HE'S IN PRISON. THIS IS LIKE A BIG THING FOR ME.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, OF COURSE.
JUROR: IT'S A POLITICAL THING BECAUSE HE'S ACCUSED OF SCHEMING THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: WERE YOU INVOLVED IN THAT CASE OR ARE YOU INVOLVED IN THAT CASE?
JUROR: I'M NOT INVOLVED.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. LET'S GO BACK IF WE CAN PASS IT UPFRONT, PLEASE, TO MS. MASON-BURCHELL.
JUROR: YES. WITH MY JOB PROBABLY ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO I WAS SUED THROUGH MY JOB WITH WAL-MART AS THE STORE MANAGER FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION. AND SHE FELT THAT IT WAS DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER, AND SO SHE TOOK ME AND THE TERMINATING MANAGER TO COURT. AND IT WAS PROBABLY LIKE A TEN MINUTE PART, AND THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAD TO DEAL WITH.
JUDGE DAVILA: WAS THAT HERE IN OUR SUPERIOR COURT?
JUROR: IT ACTUALLY WAS SACRAMENTO COUNTY.
JUDGE DAVILA: OH, OKAY. HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? I'M SORRY?
JUROR: IT'S PROBABLY 10 OR 12 YEARS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I SEE NO HANDS. LET ME ASK THOSE OF YOU WHO ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, MS. MASON-BURCHELL, AND MS. ELSHENITI, AND MR. MURPHY, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE EXPERIENCES THAT YOU THINK WILL AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE? MR. MURPHY, YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD SIDE TO SIDE NO I TAKE THAT? NO?
JUROR: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. HAVE YOU OR ANYONE CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY LITIGATION -- THIS IS FOR THE PANEL -- ANY LITIGATION OR CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OR ANY OTHER STATE OR MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY? ANYONE BEEN IN LITIGATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT, STATE, FEDERAL, AND MUNICIPAL? I SEE NO HANDS. CAN ANY OF YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER REASON WHY YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TRY THIS CASE FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY BOTH TO THE GOVERNMENT OR THE DEFENSE OR WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON THIS JURY? ANYTHING ELSE A PARTY WISHES TO RAISE? I SEE NO HANDS. OH, I DO SEE A HAND. YES, LET'S PASS IT BACK, PLEASE. IS THAT MR. PERALTA? 166. YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THIS, SIR?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THIS MR. LEE?
JUROR: IT'S ONLY I HAVE A FEW WEDDINGS TO ATTEND, AND I'M A GROOMSMAN, AND THOSE ARE OUT OF THE STATE AS WELL.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHEN ARE THOSE?
JUROR: ONE I BELIEVE IN PARTICULAR WOULD BE DECEMBER 3RD. I NEED TO BE THERE ON A FRIDAY, AND THE WEDDING HAPPENS ON SATURDAY. IT'S IN HAWAII.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT'S IN HAWAII. OKAY.
JUROR: AND THEN THERE ARE TWO OTHER WEDDINGS THAT I'M SCHEDULED TO ATTEND ON THE COURT DATES.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND WHEN ARE THOSE?
JUROR: ONE WOULD BE DECEMBER -- IT'S A TUESDAY. I CAN PULL UP THE CALENDAR REAL QUICK? I BELIEVE IT'S THE 21ST WOULD BE ONE THAT IS ON TUESDAY, AND THEN THE ONE THAT I'M A GROOMSMAN FOR WOULD BE ON -- IT'S ON DECEMBER 4TH, BUT I NEED TO BE IN HAWAII ON THE 3RD.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO IT'S THOSE TWO WEDDINGS?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU, SIR. LET'S PASS IT BACK NOW TO MR. PERALTA, PLEASE.
JUROR: TWO WEEKS AGO I WAS -- I HAVE MY MRI ON MY HEAD BECAUSE OF THE PERSISTENT HEADACHE. I WENT TO MY NEUROLOGIST, AND HE PRESCRIBED ME A MEDICATION FOR ANTIDEPRESSANT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND FOR PAIN WHICH IS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE FOR ME WHEN I'M DOING MY WORK IN -- MY DAY WORK. SO AS A SUPERVISOR OF THE POST OFFICE, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO CONCENTRATE BECAUSE OF THE PERSISTENT HEADACHE THAT I'M HAVING RIGHT NOW SO.
JUDGE DAVILA: DO YOU HAVE THAT HEADACHE NOW, SIR, DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS?
JUROR: YEAH. THIS MORNING I HAVE IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. AND YOU TOOK YOUR MEDICATION?
JUROR: YES, I HAVE IT IN MY CAR. I JUST TAKE IT A WHILE AGO.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT HELPS YOU IN THIS?
JUROR: IT IS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A CONTINUING CONDITION?
JUROR: I HAVE NO IDEA, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE I STILL HAVE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT ON SEPTEMBER 20TH.
JUDGE DAVILA: I SEE. ALL RIGHT, SIR. AND WHEN YOU GET THESE HEADACHES, YOU TOLD US ABOUT THIS IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND YOU HAVE SOME HEADACHES AND IT CAUSES YOU SOME DISCOMFORT?
JUROR: CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AN INABILITY TO FOCUS?
JUROR: YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE?
JUROR: AND BESIDES THAT I'M THE ONLY ONE LEFT IN MY OFFICE.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, YOU'RE MISSING OVERTIME.
JUROR: YES, WE'RE HIDING THOSE.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PERALTA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING? ANY OTHER RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTION?
JUROR: CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION AGAIN?
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU THINK OF ANY OTHER REASON WHY YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TRY THIS CASE FAIRLY AND IMPARTIALLY BOTH TO THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DEFENSE OR WHY YOU SHOULD NOT BE ON THIS JURY?
JUROR: YEAH. SO --
JUDGE DAVILA: THIS IS MR. BUI, I BELIEVE, YOU'RE JUROR NUMBER --
JUROR: -- 157.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: AND SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE REASONS WHY I WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE FOR THIS JURY. ONE IS I AM CONTRACTED --
JUDGE DAVILA: I THINK YOU TOLD US IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 1, SIR, THAT YOU JUST PURCHASED A NEW HOME; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YEAH, NOT PURCHASED, BUT WE JUST STARTED RENTING A NEW HOME.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I THINK YOU TOLD US THAT YOUR WORK IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T WORK, YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR HOUSE I THINK; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YEAH. AND SO IT'S JUST ME AND MY GIRLFRIEND LIVING THERE, AND I'M TRYING TO GET CONVERTED TO WORKING AS A PERMANENT WORKER AT THIS COMPANY, WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED NEXT MONTH.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. I'VE READ YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, AND I'VE READ YOUR RESPONSE. I HAD AN AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS AS TO SELECTIONS IN THIS CASE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: NOTHING, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION? LET'S PASS IT OVER TO JUROR NUMBER 143.
JUROR: IS IT ON? 162.
JUDGE DAVILA: 162. I'M SORRY, MS. GLIK.
JUROR: I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT MY ENGLISH.
COURT REPORTER: SPEAK UP.
JUROR: SO AS I SAID, I'M JUST A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT MY ENGLISH. I THINK IT'S GOOD. I'M NOT SURE IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR THIS TRIAL.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. HAVE YOU UNDERSTOOD?
JUROR: I HAVE UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
JUROR: BUT I'M NOT SURE DURING THE TRIAL I WILL UNDERSTAND.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, I KNOW THAT THESE LAWYERS, ONE OF THEIR JOBS IS TO MAKE THEIR CASES AND MAKE THEIR QUESTIONS ACCESSIBLE AND TO MAKE IT UNDERSTANDABLE FOR THE JURY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ALL LAWYERS DO.
JUROR: OKAY.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO I'M SURE THESE LAWYERS ARE GOING TO DO THEIR BEST TO ACCOMPLISH THAT AS WELL. SO THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THANK YOU.
JUROR: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE WELCOME.
JUROR: NUMBER 155.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES, MS. MARTINEZ.
JUROR: YES. BEFORE I CAME WE HAD SOME STAFFING ISSUES AT WORK, AND AS OF LAST WEEK WE'VE LOST TWO OTHER TEACHERS THAT HAVE RESIGNED, AND THEY'VE BEEN TEXTING ME THROUGHOUT THIS PROCEEDING THAT IF I'M GOING TO BE PICKED FOR JURY DUTY BECAUSE I'M THE ONLY OTHER TEACHER FOR THIS CLASSROOM AND BECAUSE OF COVID RESTRICTIONS, WE CAN'T HAVE OTHER TEACHERS STEP INTO MY CLASSROOM. SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IT'S 13 WEEKS BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE FOR THE DAYS THAT I MIGHT BE OFF, AND THAT IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE STAFFING PROBLEMS. PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO COME AND WORK WITH SMALL CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY'RE EITHER AFRAID OR THEY DON'T LIKE THE HOURS. AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT BEING SUCH A LONG TRIAL THAT IT WILL IMPACT MY CLASSROOM AND MY ABILITY TO WORK WITH THE CHILDREN IF I'M HERE THE WHOLE TIME.
JUDGE DAVILA: SURE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY QUESTIONS MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY, ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. DOWNEY: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
JUROR: SO I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. I'M SORRY. THIS IS JUROR NUMBER 143.
JUROR: 143, CORRECT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES.
JUROR: SO I HAVE A SIMILAR CONCERN. I WORK AS A TEACHER IN A PRIVATE NONPROFIT SCHOOL, SO WE ARE SHORT IN STAFF AND IN BUDGET. I'M A TEACHER FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS, SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER TEACHER FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR. SO TODAY I WAS OFF SO I JUST GIVE THEM THINGS FOR THE STUDENTS TO WORK INDEPENDENTLY, BUT I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE REST OF THE SEMESTER.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU.
JUROR: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'RE WELCOME. LET'S PASS THIS FORWARD TO MS. GONZALEZ, 108.
JUROR: HI. I'M ALSO A TEACHER. SIMILAR PROBLEMS TO THE LAST TWO BUT ALSO I'M THE ONLY ONE IN MY HOUSEHOLD THAT IS WORKING RIGHT NOW. MY HUSBAND LOST HIS JOB DUE TO COVID. SO, YEAH, BEING AWAY FOR 13 WEEKS FROM MY STUDENTS WOULD REALLY -- I HAVE A HARD TIME EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT ALSO NOT BEING ABLE TO BRING IN A PAYCHECK IS REALLY CONCERNING.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. AND ARE YOU A FULL-TIME TEACHER THROUGH THE DAY BEGINNING AT 8:00 OR 9:00 A.M.?
JUROR: YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. I SEE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I SEE NO HANDS. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: ANY QUESTIONS?
MR. DOWNEY: NO.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I'M NOW GOING TO YIELD THE FLOOR TO COUNSEL TO HAVE THEM ASK SOME QUESTIONS. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK AT 3:30 AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HOUR, AND WE'LL TAKE UP ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT WE NEED TO AT THAT TIME. BUT I'D LIKE TO AT THIS TIME ALLOW FOR COUNSEL TO AT LEAST BEGIN THEIR QUESTIONING IF THEY HAVE ANY. OH, GOSH. THANK YOU, MS. KRATZMANN. MR. SCHENK, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?
MR. SCHENK: I DO. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JEFF SCHENK. I MET YOU THIS MORNING. I'M ONE OF THE PROSECUTORS REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES IN THIS CASE. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, A COUPLE OF GENERAL QUESTIONS, AND THEN ONE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL QUESTION. I'D LIKE TO START BY TALKING ABOUT THE KINDS OF WITNESSES THAT MAY APPEAR IN THIS CASE. THE JUDGE ASKED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR VIEW ON LAW ENFORCEMENT, AND IF LAW ENFORCEMENT WITNESSES TOOK THE STAND, HOW YOU WOULD FEEL ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY. YOU ALSO SAW IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE WOULD YOU GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY MORE WEIGHT OR LESS WEIGHT. LET'S REPLACE LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, WITH DOCTORS. I'M CURIOUS IF INDIVIDUALS HAVE EXPERIENCES IN THEIR LIFE THAT THEY'LL BRING INTO THE COURTROOM WITH THEM. LET'S SAY IN THE PAST YOU FOUGHT A BILL, YOU DISAGREED WITH A BILL, YOU WERE FRUSTRATED WITH MEDICAL CARE THAT YOU RECEIVED. DO YOU HAVE ANY LIFE EXPERIENCES THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE YOU TO EVALUATE THE TESTIMONY OF MEDICAL DOCTORS DIFFERENTLY IN THIS CASE, EITHER GIVING THEM MORE WEIGHT OR LESS WEIGHT? ANY HANDS?
JUROR: SO I'M JUROR NUMBER 131, KELLY KOCH. SO MY HUSBAND HAS RECEIVED DIFFERENT KINDS OF LEGAL TREATMENT FROM DIFFERENT DOCTORS AND SURGERIES AND SUCH. AND HE'S GOT PASSED AROUND FROM DIFFERENT DOCTORS AND DIDN'T GET ALL OF THE CARE THAT HE NEEDED, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD WEIGH IN IMPARTIALLY TO THEIR TESTIMONY BECAUSE TO ME IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF DOCTORS, THEY'RE OUT FOR MONEY. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD BE IMPARTIAL.
MR. SCHENK: SO THE EXPERIENCES THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH YOUR HUSBAND, YOU THINK YOU WOULD BRING INTO THE COURTROOM WITH YOU. AND IF A DOCTOR WAS ON THE STAND EXPLAINING SOMETHING TO YOU, YOU MIGHT EVALUATE THEIR TESTIMONY DIFFERENTLY OR GIVE IT LESS WEIGHT BECAUSE OF THESE PRIOR EXPERIENCES; IS THAT FAIR?
JUROR: YES, YES. YES, I DO.
MR. SCHENK: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. ANY OTHER HANDS? DO YOU MIND PASSING THE MICROPHONE JUST BACK. THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THAT 154, MS. KEHN?
JUROR: 154. I'VE HAD ALL GOOD EXPERIENCES WITH DOCTORS.
JUDGE DAVILA: CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? CAN YOU USE THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
JUROR: HELLO.
JUDGE DAVILA: YES. THANK YOU.
JUROR: YES, I HAVE NOT QUITE THE SAME AS I WOULD WITH POLICE, BUT I -- THEY'VE BEEN TO SCHOOL FOR A LONG TIME SO I HAVE A TENDENCY IF THEY'RE EXPLAINING SOMETHING, I'M GOING TO BELIEVE THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
MR. SCHENK: THERE WILL BE SOME INSTANCES WHEN THE JUDGE MIGHT TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR EXPERIENCE YOU CAN ACCEPT THEIR TESTIMONY AS WHAT IS CALLED EXPERT TESTIMONY.
JUROR: OKAY.
MR. SCHENK: BUT THERE ARE OTHER INSTANCES WHEN THEY MIGHT JUST BE A WITNESS, WHERE THEY OBSERVED SOMETHING, A PERCIPIENT WITNESS, I SAW SOMETHING, I HEARD SOMETHING, AND I'M THERE TO TELL YOU ABOUT THAT. SO IT IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THEIR MEDICAL TRAINING THAT THEY'RE SPEAKING TO YOU ABOUT. IN THAT SITUATION, WOULD YOU STILL GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY EVEN MORE WEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND?
JUROR: I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I ONLY TALK TO DOCTORS IF I -- I ONLY TALK TO DOCTORS IF I NEED ONE. SO I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T -- I DON'T -- I TRY NOT TO. HOW ABOUT THAT?
MR. SCHENK: DO YOU HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO JUDGE IT FAIRLY? IS THAT SAFE TO SAY?
JUROR: IF YOU TELL ME, IF YOU TELL ME THIS PERSON IS A DOCTOR, HE'S BEEN A CARDIOLOGIST FOR TEN YEARS, OR HOWEVER MANY YEARS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO ASK HIM QUESTIONS, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO BELIEVE THAT HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
MR. SCHENK: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHARING THAT. WERE THERE OTHER HANDS?
JUDGE DAVILA: THIS IS MR. BUI, 157.
JUROR: HI. YEAH, IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT SHE WAS SAYING AND MY PREVIOUS ANSWER WAS, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THEIR CREDIBILITY AND THEIR BACKGROUND I WOULD WANT TO STAY UNBIASSED, BUT THEN ALSO I WOULD LIKE TRUST THEM AND THEIR PROFESSION THAT THEIR TESTIMONY HELD SOME SORT OF WEIGHT AS WELL.
MR. SCHENK: DO YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM THIS ADDITIONAL WEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THE PROFESSION INSTEAD OF EVALUATING THE TESTIMONY AND THE STATEMENTS THAT THEY MAKE HERE IN COURT?
JUROR: YEAH. I WOULD, I WOULD DO MY BEST, BUT I FEEL LIKE PARTIALLY I WOULD INCLUDE THEIR PROFESSION IN THIS WHOLE THING.
MR. SCHENK: OKAY. AND WHILE I'M SPEAKING WITH YOU, IF I COULD FOLLOW UP. YOU EXPRESSED A VIEW THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR MS. HOLMES'S SIDE OF THE STORY I THINK YOU SAID; IS THAT RIGHT?
JUROR: YES.
MR. SCHENK: WOULD YOU HOLD IT AGAINST HER IF SHE DIDN'T PROVIDE HER SIDE OF THE STORY, IF SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY?
JUROR: NOT NECESSARILY. I JUST, YOU KNOW, I THINK TO ME IT'S IMPORTANT TO HEAR LIKE HER VOICE AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE LIKE WHO SHE IS AND WHAT IS HAPPENING THROUGH HER. I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, BEING IN THE COURTHOUSE IS NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, HEARING ANYTHING FROM, YOU KNOW, THE SOURCE IS KIND OF A BIG DEAL IN A SENSE.
MR. SCHENK: UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU FOR SHARING. ANY OTHER HANDS TO THE MEDICAL DOCTOR'S QUESTION? THE JUDGE ALSO ASKED YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR IPV. I'M WONDERING INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL AGAIN, I'M WONDERING WHETHER YOUR EXPERIENCES WOULD AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO JUDGE EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE, IF YOU HEARD EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE ABOUT THAT HAPPENING, WOULD THAT AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO BE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL IN THIS CASE? ALSO, DO YOU HAVE A CONCERN THAT THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT TRIAL FOR YOU BECAUSE HEARING THE TESTIMONY MIGHT TRIGGER FEELINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRIOR EXPERIENCE IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE? I SEE ONE HAND.
JUROR: YEAH, 154. FOR SURE. IF YOU START TALKING ABOUT --
JUDGE DAVILA: LET'S GET YOU THE MICROPHONE, MS. KEHN.
JUROR: 154. YEAH, IF YOU START TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY ACTING LIKE HIM, YEAH, OF COURSE I'M GOING TO RIGHT AWAY THINK ABOUT THAT.
MR. SCHENK: SURE.
JUROR: SO I DON'T KNOW HOW I COULD NOT.
MR. SCHENK: SO IF THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT MADE YOU THINK OF YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH YOUR FORMER HUSBAND, THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT TRIAL FOR YOU IT SOUNDS LIKE.
JUROR: YEAH, IF YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY WHO WAS VERY CONTROLLING OR VERY MEAN, YEAH, I DEFINITELY WOULD THINK ABOUT IT RIGHT AWAY. OF COURSE IT'S RIGHT THERE.
MR. SCHENK: THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.
JUDGE DAVILA: THIS IS 134, MS. LARUE.
JUROR: I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYBODY WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. MY SISTER, HE ALMOST KILLED HER. SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE SOMEBODY WHO BULLIES OR BEATS AND SMALLER OR WEAKER PERSON. I CAN'T COMPREHEND IT, AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE WOULD DO THAT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
MR. SCHENK: SO THAT SEEMS A REASONABLE POSITION TO ME, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD THINK THAT. DO YOU THINK IF YOU HEARD TESTIMONY ABOUT IT THAT YOU WOULDN'T --
JUROR: I CAN'T HONESTLY SAY YES OR NO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I JUST KNOW THAT IT'S STRONG FOR ME. I'M SORRY, I KNOW IT'S STRONG FOR ME THAT ANYBODY ABUSING OR A WEAKER PERSON, PERIOD, MEN OR WOMEN, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME, A WEAKER PERSON, I CAN'T ABIDE BY IT -- I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH IT SO. I DON'T KNOW IF I HONESTLY COULD BE IMPARTIAL. I CAN'T SAY YES OR NO BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I'VE NEVER BEEN HERE IN THIS SITUATION.
MR. SCHENK: SURE. THANK YOU FOR SHARING. ANY OTHER HANDS? THANK YOU. AND, MS. LOCKWOOD, IF I COULD FOLLOW UP BRIEFLY WITH YOU. THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING YOUR VIEWS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS MY SIDE GOING TO START BEHIND? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME NOT UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT BUT SORT OF REGULATORS, AND MORE PEOPLE IN SUITS, BUT AS YOU SAID, SHOULD BRING INTEGRITY TO THE JOB AND CERTAINLY BRING A MEASURE OF AUTHORITY BEHIND THEIR PROFESSION. I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE GOING TO START A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BEHIND BECAUSE OF YOUR VIEWS?
JUROR: I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IT'S BEEN YEARS AGO SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THAT SIDE OF THE LAW AND I PUT MYSELF IN THAT POSITION. I DON'T HOLD IT PERSONALLY AGAINST PEOPLE. I'M JUST MORE MINDFUL OF THE ABUSE OF POWER NOW THAT I'M OLDER. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU GUYS ARE STARTING IN A NEGATIVE PLACE IN MY POSITION. I'M JUST MORE HYPERAWARE OF IT NOW.
MR. SCHENK: RIGHT. AND HOW ABOUT THE WITNESSES? IF SOMEONE IS TESTIFYING AND THEY HAPPEN TO WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR JOB HAPPENS TO BE A REGULATOR, ARE THEY STARTING A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BEHIND? EVERYBODY HAS VIEWS BUT SOME PEOPLE COME INTO COURT, AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THEY CHECK THEIR VIEWS AT THE DOOR, BUT ARE ABLE TO HEAR AND EVALUATE TESTIMONY FAIRLY. IS THE WITNESS GOING TO START BEHIND OR WILL YOU ALSO LISTEN TO THEIR TESTIMONY FAIRLY?
JUROR: I BELIEVE EVERYBODY HAS A SHOT TO BE HEARD, AND I'LL GIVE EVERYBODY THAT SHOT. I'VE BEEN IN A POSITION WHERE I NEEDED MY PEERS TO HEAR ME, SO I'M HAPPY TO DO THE SAME FOR OTHERS.
MR. SCHENK: RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY.
MR. DOWNEY: GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE PANEL AND THEN A FEW QUESTIONS FOR A COUPLE OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY. FIRST, I WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE MEDIA ISSUES THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORNING WITH JUDGE DAVILA. DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL, AS JUDGE DAVILA SAID, YOU WILL BE INSTRUCTED NOT TO VIEW MEDIA THAT IS EITHER ABOUT THIS TRIAL OR ABOUT THE EVENTS THAT THIS TRIAL CONCERNS. WOULD ANYONE WHO FEELS LIKE THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT INSTRUCTION RAISE THEIR HAND? IS THERE ANYONE WHO FEELS LIKE THAT WILL BE HARD? YES, MA'AM. WHAT IS YOUR JUROR NUMBER?
JUDGE DAVILA: THIS IS MS. QUINTANILLA. JUST A SECOND, MS. QUINTANILLA. WE'RE GOING TO GET THE MICROPHONE TO YOU SO YOU CAN BE HEARD.
JUROR: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS. I LIVE WITH MY HUSBAND AND TWO KIDS, AND THEY'RE ADULT KIDS. AND LIKE THE EXAMPLE I GAVE THIS MORNING IS WHERE I'M COOKING DINNER AND THEY HAVE THE NEWS ON AND IT CAME ON. MY CONCERN IS THAT I DON'T LIVE BY MYSELF AND I CANNOT TURN THE T.V. OFF FOR THE WHOLE DAY, AND I CAN ALSO NOT RESTRICT THEM TO HAVE A LIFE WHILE THE TRIAL GOES ON. SO I WILL HAVE TO BE HONEST, AND I WILL HAVE TO SAY THAT I WILL CONTINUE TO LET THEM LIVE THEIR LIVES. AND IF I AM CHOSEN, I WILL BE GOOD AND LIKE TRY NOT TO GET ANY INFORMATION, BUT I LIVE WITH THREE OTHER INDIVIDUALS. AND IF THEY TURN ON THE T.V., I CAN WALK OUT OF THE ROOM, BUT THE PAPER WILL BE THERE. AND I JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE.
MR. DOWNEY: WELL, I CAN UNDERSTAND. DO YOU THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO, WHEN THE CASE GOES ON, DO YOU THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU DID YESTERDAY AND THIS MORNING AND JUST WALK AWAY OR NOT LISTEN TO THE STORY?
JUROR: YES, BUT IT WILL BE THERE. THE NEWSPAPER WILL BE THERE SUNDAY MORNINGS, AND I MIGHT TURN AROUND, AND IT MIGHT BE THERE. AND SO I JUST WANT TO HAVE A DISCLAIMER THAT THE LIGHT WILL GO ON IN MY HOUSEHOLD LIKE NORMAL, AND I WILL DO MY BEST IF CHOSEN TO NOT TO LOOK, NOT TO READ, TO WALK AWAY, BUT IT WILL BE THERE.
MR. DOWNEY: THANK YOU, MA'AM, FOR BEING HONEST. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO FEELS LIKE THEY'LL HAVE DIFFICULTY STAYING AWAY FROM MEDIA COVERAGE IN THE CASE? MR. BUI.
JUROR: HELLO. SORRY. I FEEL LIKE I KEEP GETTING THE MIKE NOW.
(LAUGHTER.)
JUROR: SO A LOT OF MY JUST DAY TO DAY IS JUST OBSERVING INFORMATION FROM THE SOCIAL MEDIA AND SHARING MY THOUGHTS, MY OPINIONS. MOVING FORWARD, I WOULD DO MY BEST TO AVOID ANY INFORMATION OF THIS CASE, BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SAY, LIKE, IT WON'T POP UP AND I MIGHT BE A LITTLE TEMPTED TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. AND ALSO, IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME UP TO ME AND TALK ABOUT IT OR ANYTHING, I'D HAVE TO WALK AWAY FROM THE SITUATION. IT MAY BE WEIRD, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT'S SOME OF THE THOUGHTS THAT ARE KIND OF GOING THROUGH MY HEAD WHEN THINKING ABOUT CONSUMING MEDIA.
MR. DOWNEY: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO ALSO FEELS LIKE IT MIGHT BE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO AVOID MEDIA ABOUT THE CASE? I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. JUDGE DAVILA GAVE YOU AN INSTRUCTION TODAY AND TALKED TO YOU AT SOME LENGTH ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE FOR ALL OF THE PARTIES REALLY, FOR THE GOVERNMENT AND FOR THE DEFENSE, AND CERTAINLY FOR THE COURT. BUT I KNOW SOMETIMES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE IN OUR SYSTEM, PEOPLE CAN SOMETIMES FELL LIKE THEY'LL HAVE DIFFICULTY ADHERING TO THAT INSTRUCTION. WOULD THE PEOPLE WHO FEEL LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY MAINTAINING A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? DOES EVERYONE FEEL LIKE, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS CASE, THAT YOU CAN GRANT THAT PRESUMPTION TO MS. HOLMES?
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY, THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT AS TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION THERE WERE NO HANDS.
MR. DOWNEY: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THAT'S THE SAME CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND QUESTION, THERE WERE NO HANDS. I WANT TO ASK YOU ALSO, A FEW OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY, ABOUT REPORTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT YOU MAY HAVE GIVEN IN THE PAST. MR. MURPHY, JUROR 130, YOU REFERENCED ON YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE A MATTER THAT YOU PREFERRED TO DISCUSS WITH THE COURT IN PRIVATE, AND I DON'T WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT. IS THAT THE MATTER THAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED OR WAS THERE ANOTHER MATTER THAT YOU THOUGHT WAS AN INCIDENT OF YOU REPORTING SOMETHING EITHER AS A WHISTLEBLOWER OR IN CONNECTION WITH WRONGDOING BY SOMEONE ELSE?
JUROR: IT WAS THE MATTER WE ALREADY DISCUSSED. I'M SORRY. IT WAS THE MATTER WE ALREADY DISCUSSED RELATED TO MY ROLE AS THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM MANAGER.
MR. DOWNEY: OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY. LAST QUESTION FOR THE PANEL IS THIS: IT CAN BE THE CASE, I THINK, PARTICULARLY WITH SO MUCH EXPOSURE TO MEDIA THROUGH OUR IPHONES, THROUGH CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO MEDIA TO THINK THAT WHAT THE MEDIA SAYS AND WHAT THE MEDIA REPORTS IS ACCURATE. AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MEDIA IN THIS CASE. YOU'VE GATHERED THAT FROM FILLING OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRES. MANY OF YOU HAVE IN SOME SMALL SENSE HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO. IS THERE ANYONE WHO FEELS THAT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN SUBSTANTIAL MEDIA COVERAGE OF MS. HOLMES AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE TRIAL, THAT THAT MIGHT INDICATE THAT SHE IS GUILTY OF SOME OFFENSE? I SEE NO HANDS IN RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPEN MINDEDNESS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TO FILL OUT THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE MIDST OF A PANDEMIC. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: LET ME ASK BEFORE WE BREAK, DOES THE GOVERNMENT PASS FOR CAUSE?
MR. SCHENK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SITUATIONS WE WANT TO DISCUSS, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. LET'S TAKE OUR BREAK NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. LET'S TAKE A 30 MINUTE BREAK, PLEASE, 30 MINUTES. WE HOPE WE CAN GET YOU BACK UP HERE BY THE TOP OF THE HOUR. AGAIN, THE ADMONITION NOT TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH ANYONE AND NOT TO READ ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DO WITH IT REMAINS IN PLACE. THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU IN 30 MINUTES. YOU SHOULD GO DOWNSTAIRS. COLLECT YOURSELVES IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM. MR. MURPHY, WE WILL GET THAT FROM YOU. THANK YOU.
(PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL OUT AT 3:23 P.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THE RECORD SHOULD REFLECT OUR PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL HAS LEFT THE COURTROOM. ALL OTHER PARTIES REMAIN. PLEASE BE SEATED. THANK YOU. MR. DOWNEY, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE JURORS HERE, AND IF YOU, IF YOU OR ANY OF YOUR PARTY NEED TO TAKE A BREAK AND YOU WANT TO INDICATE ON THE RECORD THAT YOU CAN PROCEED, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHOUT YOUR COLLEAGUES'S PRESENCE, I'M HAPPY TO RECEIVE THAT.
MR. DOWNEY: CERTAINLY, YOUR HONOR. I THINK AS TO MS. HOLMES THIS IS EFFECTIVELY A SIDE-BAR AND WE HAVE THAT SITUATION COVERED, SO PERHAPS WE COULD PROCEED.
JUDGE DAVILA: WITH HER BEING PRESENT?
MR. DOWNEY: NO. SHE COULD BE DISMISSED, AND THEN WE CAN PROCEED.
JUDGE DAVILA: THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT, THAT SHE CAN BE DISMISSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CONVERSATION, WE'LL CERTAINLY PERMIT THAT, OR ANYONE ELSE OF YOUR TEAM WHO WANTS TO LEAVE THE COURTROOM, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE. FIRST I'D LIKE TO READ THESE COLLECTIVELY. 155 IS MS. MARTINEZ, SHE'S A TEACHER. SHE SUGGESTED STAFFING ISSUES THAT WOULD COMPROMISE HER EMPLOYMENT. 143 IS A TEACHER AT A NONPROFIT, AND SHE ALSO EXPRESSED SIMILAR CONCERNS. 108, GONZALEZ, ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERNS. SHE'S A TEACHER. 166 IS MR. PERALTA. HE TALKED TO US ABOUT HIS MEDICAL CONDITION AND FINANCES. THEN 157, MR. BUI, WHO TALKS TO US ABOUT FINANCES AND HIS CONCERNS. ANY THOUGHTS ABOUT THESE RESPECTIVE JURORS?
MR. SCHENK: NO OBJECTION TO DISMISSING THIS GROUP.
MR. DOWNEY: NO OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO THE COURT WILL, AS TO 155, MS. MARTINEZ, WE WILL EXCUSE HER FOR HARDSHIP, AND SAME AS TO 143, AND SAME AS TO JUROR 108, AND SAME AS TO 157, AND THE SAME AS TO JUROR 166. THEY ARE EXCUSED FOR HARDSHIP AND FINANCIAL REASONS. MR. DOWNEY, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE POOL OF FOLKS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT?
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, WITH REGARD TO JUROR NUMBER 154, I THINK HER ADMITTED PREFERENCE FOR TESTIMONY OF CERTAIN LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS COUPLED WITH THE TESTIMONY OF DOCTORS INDICATED A BIAS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE MEANINGFUL IN CONNECTION WITH THE CASE. SHE ALSO INDICATED WHEN SHE FILLED OUT HER QUESTIONNAIRE A FAIR DEGREE OF BIAS TOWARDS THE GOVERNMENT GENERALLY IN CRIMINAL CASES. FOR EXAMPLE, SHE WROTE IN HER QUESTIONNAIRE "USUALLY THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY," AND IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION 57. AND IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION 58 WHEN ASKED IF SHE BELIEVED A DEFENDANT HAD AN OBLIGATION TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE SHE WROTE, "IF THEY'RE NOT GUILTY, WHY ARE THEY ACCUSED? WHAT DID THEY DO TO MAKE THEM SEEM GUILTY?" I THINK, YOUR HONOR, THERE'S A BIAS ISSUE GENERALLY AGAINST CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS THERE, AND WE WOULD ASK FOR HER DISMISSAL.
MR. SCHENK: NO OBJECTION.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WHEN THE COURT ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE WAS ANYONE WHO PARTED COMPANY WITH THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, FIFTH AMENDMENT PRIVILEGE NOT TO TESTIFY, SHE DID NOT RAISE HER HAND TO THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT I HAVE REFERENCED HER QUESTIONNAIRE, HER RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS BY MR. SCHENK IN REGARDS TO MEDICAL INDIVIDUALS AND OTHERS WHO MIGHT TESTIFY ABOUT OTHER ISSUES. I WILL STRIKE HER FOR CAUSE. IT'S APPROPRIATE. ANYONE ELSE? MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: I BEG YOUR PARDON, YOUR HONOR. LET ME JUST GET ORIENTED AS TO MY CHART.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, I WOULDN'T WANT TO -- NEED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRIAL IN CONNECTION WITH JUROR NUMBER 133 OF CONFLICT WITH CERTAIN TRIAL DATES.
(PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.)
JUDGE DAVILA: HIS -- HE HAS WEDDINGS TO ATTEND, AND I THINK A WEDDING WAS THE 21ST OF DECEMBER AND THE ONE IN HAWAII REQUIRES HIM TO LEAVE ON A -- ON THE 3RD. THE WEDDING IS ON THE 4TH. WE NEGLECTED TO ASK HIM IF HE WOULD BE RETURNING SHORTLY AFTER THE WEDDING. I'M NOT GOING TO EXCUSE HIM NOW. LET ME SAY, I HAVE CONFIDENCE -- I TOLD THE JURORS THAT IT MAY GO INTO DECEMBER. AS YOU KNOW, OUR SCHEDULE I THINK NOW IS INTO LATE NOVEMBER. I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT COUNSEL ARE GOING TO, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COURT, EFFICIENTLY PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE SUCH THAT THAT WON'T BE AN ISSUE. SO THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT THOUGH.
MR. SCHENK: YOUR HONOR, JUROR 134 IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION THAT I ASKED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO HEAR EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR IPV SAID SOMETHING I THINK THAT WAS SIMILAR TO A JUROR WE JUST EXCUSED. AND YOU TAKE THE WORST NOTES WHEN YOU'RE ASKING THE QUESTION, SO I'M HONESTLY NOT POSITIVE -- I CAN'T QUOTE WHAT SHE SAID, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT'S SOMETHING LIKE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO HEAR WHEN A WEAKER INDIVIDUAL OR SOMEONE ELSE IS BEING PUT IN A VULNERABLE POSITION. IT AT LEAST STRIKES ME AS AN INDIVIDUAL WORTH A DISCUSSION ABOUT, WHETHER HER COMMENTS WERE SIMILAR ENOUGH TO MS. KEHN, I THINK.
JUDGE DAVILA: MS. LARUE AND MS. KEHN, YES. MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, I WOULDN'T BE INCLINED TO DISMISS HER ON A CAUSE BASIS. I UNDERSTAND THE STATEMENTS THAT SHE MADE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT SHE SAID ABOUT THE TESTIMONY, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCUSAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENT JURORS WILL HAVE DIFFERENT REACTIONS TO DIFFERENT KINDS.
JUDGE DAVILA: WELL, SHE SAID SHE HAS STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT THE WEAKER PERSON AND THEN SHE QUALIFIED THAT OR EXPANDED THAT BY SAYING IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S A MAN OR A WOMAN I THINK IS WHAT SHE SAID.
MR. DOWNEY: THAT'S RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND I WROTE DOWN THAT SHE SAID, "I CAN'T ABIDE BY IT."
MR. DOWNEY: RIGHT.
JUDGE DAVILA: IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND IT SOUNDS TO ME -- OF COURSE, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE ANY TESTIMONY THAT AFFECTS THIS OPINION IN THE CASE. SHE EXPRESSED THIS OPINION NOW. I DON'T THINK IT RISES TO A CAUSE CHALLENGE AT THIS POINT.
MR. DOWNEY: I AGREE, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE, MR. DOWNEY?
MR. DOWNEY: NO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK I'VE EXHAUSTED IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY.
MR. SCHENK: BRIEFLY, ONE THING. I WANT TO CONTINUE TO MAKE A RECORD ON THIS ISSUE, YOUR HONOR. WE CAME BACK FROM LUNCH TODAY, AND THE DEFENSE RAISED FIVE POTENTIAL HARDSHIPS FOR THE COURT: 117, 121, 142, 143, AND 145. I BELIEVE ALL OF THOSE WERE NON-WHITE JURORS. I THEN STOOD UP AND NOTED FOR THE COURT THAT I THOUGHT MR. BREKKE, WHO IS JUROR 127, ALSO CHECKED YES TO QUESTION NUMBER 1 THAT HE HAD A HARDSHIP. I WOULD ALSO NOTE FOR THE COURT THAT JUROR 130, MR. MURPHY, DID NOT CHECK YES FOR QUESTION NUMBER 1, HE CHECKED NO, BUT THEN HE WROTE A LENGTHY DESCRIPTION IN THERE ON A BASIS FOR A HARDSHIP. I WANT TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP THE RECORD ON THIS CASE IN CASE IT BECOMES AN ISSUE AS WE MOVE TO THE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. YOU'RE NOT MAKING ANY MOTION AT THIS POINT TIMING WISE?
MR. SCHENK: I AM NOT.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENT ON THAT?
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, WE HAVE CONSENTED TO THE DISMISSAL OF EVERY JUROR OF ANY RACE WHO HAS A REASONABLE HARDSHIP REQUEST. WE'VE PROPOSED IT OVER THE GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION, AS THE COURT KNOWS, PRIOR TO THEM BEING FORCED TO COME DOWN HERE FOR JURY SERVICE IN MANY INSTANCES. SO I, I JUST WANT TO DISASSOCIATE MYSELF IN STRONG TERMS FROM MR. SCHENK'S COMMENTS.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THERE WERE SOME OF THESE THAT WERE RAISED. I KNOW YOU SAID "FORCED TO COME DOWN." THERE WERE SOME OF THESE THAT WERE RAISED THAT WE NEEDED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON.
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, I AGREE WITH THOSE. I THINK OTHERS WE EXCUSED ON THE BASIS THAT WAS ARTICULATED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE WITHOUT MUCH ADDITIONAL INQUIRY, BUT I THINK THE RECORD IS QUITE CLEAR OUR RAISING HARDSHIP REQUESTS WITHOUT BEING TACTICAL, WHEREAS THE GOVERNMENT HAS WAITED TO SEE THE JURORS FIRST.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, LET'S TAKE A BREAK. MY SENSE IS THAT -- DO YOU OTHERWISE PASS FOR CAUSE THEN, SIR?
MR. DOWNEY: I DO, YOUR HONOR. YES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER CHALLENGES FROM THE DEFENSE?
MR. DOWNEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES?
MR. DOWNEY: NO FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT.
MR. SCHENK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN WE CAN CALL THE JURY BACK, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S THE TIMING NOW IS TO BEGIN JURY SELECTION PROPER, THAT IS, TO HAVE THE SIDES ENGAGE IN EXERCISES, ANY PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED A LIST, A RUNNING LIST I'LL CALL IT.
COURT CLERK: I'LL UPDATE IT.
JUDGE DAVILA: YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED A LIST THAT HAS AT LEAST CURRENTLY THE ROSTER, IF YOU WILL, OF JURORS. WE WILL NEED TO ADD THIS COMPLEMENT, TODAY'S COMPLEMENT TO THAT PANEL. MY SENSE IS, MY MATH IS, WHICH IS NOT A STRONG SUIT OF MINE, BUT MY MATH SUGGESTS THAT WE WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF JURORS IN THIS LIST TO SELECT A JURY FOR THE CASE. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: YES, WE DO.
MR. DOWNEY: I DO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU. SO COMBINING, USING YESTERDAY'S PANEL WITH TODAY'S PANEL, THAT WILL BE THE UNIVERSE, THE COMBINATION OF THE ROSTER, IF YOU WILL. I'M CURIOUS IF WE SHOULD, IF THIS COURT SHOULD EXCUSE THIS JURY TODAY OR RELEASE THEM, NOT EXCUSE THEM BUT RELEASE THEM TODAY, IT SEEMS LIKE WE CAN CONDUCT THE SELECTION PROCESS WITHOUT THEM BEING PRESENT BECAUSE WE'RE DRAWING FROM YESTERDAY'S PANEL AS WELL WHO OBVIOUSLY ARE NOT HERE. IF I INFORM OR IF I WERE TO RELEASE THE JURY TODAY OR EXCUSE THEM FOR TODAY WITH THE PROVISO THAT THEY WILL BE CONTACTED SHOULD THEY BE SELECTED OR IF THEY NEED TO RETURN FOR ANY PURPOSE, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT, MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. NO OBJECTION.
MR. DOWNEY: THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO ALSO SELECT THE ALTERNATES THAT WILL NEED TO BE SELECTED AS WELL. I THINK OUR POOL SUFFICES FOR THAT AS WELL.
MR. DOWNEY: MY MATH SUGGESTS THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE MATH AS A STRONG SUIT, EITHER.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO LET'S DO THAT THEN. I'LL ASK MS. KRATZMANN TO NOTIFY THE JURY COMMISSIONER DOWNSTAIRS THAT THE -- THAT WE HAVE -- THE COURT HAS EXCUSED THOSE JURORS, THOSE FIVE JURORS THAT WE MENTIONED AND THAT THE BALANCE OF THE PANEL ARE PERMITTED TO LEAVE THE COURT. THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT EXCUSED FROM JURY SERVICE, BUT THEY SHOULD, THEY SHOULD JUST WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE COURT SHOULD THEY BE CALLED BACK.
COURT CLERK: YOUR HONOR, CAN I JUST GET CLARIFICATION? I BELIEVE WE HAD THE FIVE JURORS EXCUSED, BUT JUROR 154, THAT WOULD BE SIX TO BE EXCUSED; IS THAT CORRECT?
JUDGE DAVILA: MS. KRATZMANN, I SAID MATH WAS NOT MY STRONG SUIT AND YOU WANTED TO PROVE THAT PUBLICLY, DIDN'T YOU?
(LAUGHTER.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THAT'S WHAT GOOD CLERKS ARE FOR, THEY KEEP US ON OUR TOES. SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SIX. I THINK YOUR MATH IS CORRECT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, MS. KRATZMANN.
COURT CLERK: THANK YOU.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS INDICATE TO OUR JURY COMMISSIONER DOWNSTAIRS THAT THOSE JURORS WHO HAVE BEEN EXCUSED ARE EXCUSED. THE BALANCE SHOULD WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE COURT. THE ADMONITION REMAINS IN PLACE AS TO THEM. LET'S SEE WHERE WE GO. MY SENSE IS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO -- IF WE SELECT A JURY TODAY, WHICH I'M CONFIDENT WE WILL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BRING THEM BACK TODAY FOR SWEARING PURPOSES. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS -- I MENTIONED THIS AT THE BREAK. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT WHEN WE SHOULD SWEAR IN THE PANEL THEN. MR. SCHENK?
MR. SCHENK: YES, YOUR HONOR. WE DISCUSSED THIS A WEEK OR TWO AGO, AND THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTED THAT WE WAIT TO SWEAR THEM IN UNTIL THE WEDNESDAY OF OPENING. THE COURT EXPRESSED A VIEW OR AT LEAST A THOUGHT THAT THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THE COURT TELLING THE JURY YOU'RE NOW THE JURY, I'M SWEARING YOU IN, DON'T EXPOSE YOURSELF TO ANY MEDIA, DON'T READ ANYTHING. I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS IS JURORS HAVE A LOT OF FIDELITY TO THE INSTRUCTION PROVIDED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE. THE JURORS TOOK THAT SERIOUSLY. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOME MEASURE OF COMFORT THAT THE JURORS WILL NOT BE EXPOSED TO ADDITIONAL MEDIA. THE COURT CAN CERTAINLY ASK ON WEDNESDAY MORNING IF ANYONE HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO CALL IN THE 17, OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WOULD BE FOR TOMORROW, THE JURY PLUS THE ALTERNATES, JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SWEARING THEM IN. I DON'T NEED TO SAY A LOT ABOUT THE DISRUPTION TO SOMEONE'S DAY OR THEIR LIFE TO COME INTO COURT JUST FOR THAT SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. I THINK THAT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING, BUT CERTAINLY IF THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT NEED TO DO IT, THAT WOULDN'T BE AN OBSTACLE.
JUDGE DAVILA: OKAY. THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNEY: YOUR HONOR, I THINK WE'RE DISRUPTING THESE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE SELECTED, THEIR LIVES A LOT, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT. IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE TO GET A JURY SWORN AS SOON AS IT'S SEATED, BUT I LEAVE IT TO YOUR HONOR TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE OR IF YOU HAVE ANY REGARDING, MR. DOWNEY, REGARDING THE JURY'S RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION ABOUT MEDIA ACCESS. I HAVE TO CONFESS, I'VE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THEM ALSO. THEY'VE TOLD US THAT THEY HAVE TURNED AWAY, THEY HAVEN'T WATCHED THINGS. MS. QUINTANILLA WAS VERY CANDID ABOUT HER HOUSEHOLD. SHE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THINGS, BUT SHE WILL LEAVE THE ROOM. OTHER JURORS HAVE SAID, NO, I READ THIS. I THINK ONE JUROR TOLD US I SAW IT ON MY PHONE AND DIDN'T PUSH THE BUTTON, DIDN'T CLICK. I HAVE REMINDED THEM AT EACH BREAK WHAT THEY'RE NOT TO DO, KIND OF A MODIFIED INSTRUCTION OF A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL INSTRUCTION THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE. AND I, I -- MY SENSE IS THAT THEIR ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS, MY OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN THAT, AND I SHARE MR. SCHENK'S OBSERVATION, THEY'VE BEEN SINCERE IN THEIR RESPONSES AND UNDERSTANDING THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AND I APPRECIATE THAT.
THAT'S BEEN -- MY SENSE IS THAT -- LET'S BE CLEAR, THEY KNOW THE MEDIA IS INTERESTED IN THIS CASE, AND THEY'VE -- WHEN THEY'VE COME IN THE COURTROOM, IT MAY BE -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FRONT DOOR LOOKS LIKE IN THE MORNING, BUT MY SENSE IS THAT THEY'VE QUEUED UP WITH MEDIA AND OTHER INTERESTED PEOPLE. SO I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT. I DON'T WANT TO DISRUPT. I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO HAIL THEM IN TOMORROW TO BE SWORN IN AND INFORMED. WE WILL INFORM THOSE JURORS WHO ARE SELECTED TODAY TO RETURN WEDNESDAY NEXT, I BELIEVE IT IS THE 8TH, AT LEAST POTENTIALLY AT 9:00 A.M. AT THIS TIME. THAT STARTING TIME MAY ADJUST. IT DEPENDS, AS I TOLD YOU EARLY ON, THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE RESIDENTS OF OUR JURORS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD START EARLIER TO CAPTURE AS MUCH COURT TIME AS WE CAN. LET'S SEE WHERE THAT GOES. BUT LET'S NOT GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES. LET'S TAKE A BREAK. HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU LIKE TO COLLECT YOUR THOUGHTS? I SUPPOSE I WAS TALKING TO MY COURTROOM DEPUTY WHEN I SAID THAT. LET'S GO TO THE TOP OF THE HOUR, AND WE'LL SEE WHEN WE COME BACK.
COURT CLERK: COURT IS IN RECESS.
(RECESS FROM 3:44 P.M. UNTIL 4:19 P.M.)
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD. ALL PARTIES PREVIOUSLY PRESENT ARE PRESENT ONCE AGAIN. OUR PROSPECTIVE PANEL IS NOT PRESENT. I BELIEVE DURING THE BREAK MS. KRATZMANN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH COUNSEL THE ACCUMULATED, I'LL CALL IT, ROSTER OF POTENTIAL JURORS HERE. LET ME ASK BOTH SIDES WHETHER YOU'VE HAD AN OCCASION TO REVIEW THAT ROSTER AND WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT?
MR. SCHENK: WE HAVE REVIEWED IT, AND IT IS ACCURATE.
MR. DOWNEY: THE SAME WITH DEFENSE, WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH IT AND IT IS ACCURATE.
JUDGE DAVILA: THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS I INDICATED AT OUR BREAK, THIS THEN DOES COMPRISE THE UNIVERSE OF JURORS THAT I BELIEVE WOULD ALLOW FOR A JURY TO BE SELECTED IN THIS CASE. I NOTE THE HOUR. IT'S ABOUT 25 PAST 4:00 O'CLOCK. WHAT I THINK I WILL DO IS I THINK -- I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, AND MY SENSE IS THAT IT WILL BE BETTER TO BEGIN THIS JURY SELECTION PROCESS TOMORROW MORNING. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, FIRST OF ALL, IS I WILL EXCUSE GROUP NUMBER 3, WHICH WAS THE OTHER GROUP THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE TOMORROW IN LIGHT OF THE JURY SERVICE. IN LIGHT OF THE ROSTER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE NECESSARY, MATHEMATICALLY NECESSARY, SO I WOULD LIKE TO EXCUSE THEM. ANY COMMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT, MR. SCHENK, ON THAT?
MR. SCHENK: NO, YOUR HONOR.
MR. DOWNEY: WE CONCUR.
JUDGE DAVILA: SO, MADAM CLERK, IF YOU COULD CONTACT THE JURY COMMISSIONER AND INDICATE GROUP 3 WILL NOT BE NEEDED AND THEY'RE EXCUSED FROM FURTHER SERVICE.
COURT CLERK: YES, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: I'LL ALSO ASK YOU, MADAM CLERK, TO NOTIFY THE JURY COMMISSIONER THAT THE 41 PROSPECTIVE JURORS THAT APPEAR IN OUR ROSTER LIST SHOULD BE SUMMONED TOMORROW MORNING. I'D LIKE THEM TO RETURN TOMORROW MORNING AND LET'S HAVE THEM COME IN AT 9:30. IS THAT POSSIBLE?
COURT CLERK: COME IN OR BE HERE?
JUDGE DAVILA: COME IN THE COURTHOUSE AND BE IN THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM BY 9:30. I'D LIKE US TO BEGIN THE WORK AT -- IS 9:00 O'CLOCK A GOOD TIME TO DO THAT? SHOULD WE START EARLIER?
MR. SCHENK: 9:00 O'CLOCK IS FINE. THANK YOU.
MR. DOWNEY: WHATEVER YOUR HONOR PREFERS. 9:00 O'CLOCK IS FINE. EARLIER IS FINE.
JUDGE DAVILA: LET'S START AT 9:00 O'CLOCK TOMORROW MORNING THEN, AND THAT WILL BE FOR COUNSEL TO ENGAGE ANY PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AS TO THE FINAL JURY. YOU KNOW THAT PROCESS, WE'VE GIVEN YOU A SHEET, AND I THINK WE'VE GIVEN YOU THE SHEET, AND YOU'LL PASS THAT BACK AND FORTH FROM YOU. AGAIN, IT'S REQUIRED -- BECAUSE THE PROSPECTIVE JURORS WON'T BE SITTING IN THE BOX, IT REQUIRES YOU TO DO THAT VIRTUALLY WITH THE NOTES AND WITH THE ROSTER THAT WE HAVE. I'LL REMIND YOU AGAIN OF THIS TOMORROW. THE FIRST STRIKES, IF ANY, WILL BE FROM THE FIRST 12 ON THE LIST. THAT 12 WILL CONTINUE, YOU'LL ROTATE UP AND FILL VIRTUALLY, IF YOU WILL, ANY STRIKES THAT ARE COMPRISED IN THAT. WHICH IS TO SAY THAT YOUR STRIKE, YOUR FIRST STRIKES CAN'T BE JUROR NUMBER 26, JUROR NUMBER 32. YOU'D HAVE TO STAY IN THAT CONFINE OF 12 AND KEEP THAT ROTATING. ONCE WE DO HAVE AGREEMENT ON THE 12 JURORS, WE WILL THEN MOVE TO THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATE JURORS, AND THAT -- THOSE SELECTIONS WILL COME FROM THE BALANCE OF JURORS WHO ARE REMAINING. AND THE NEXT FIVE FOLLOWING THAT WILL BE THE DEFAULT, IF YOU WILL, ALTERNATE JURORS, AND THAT WILL COMPRISE THE UNIVERSE OF WHERE YOU'LL BEGIN YOUR SELECTIONS IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU. I HOPE IT DOES. OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER BEFORE WE RETIRE FOR THE EVENING?
MR. SCHENK: NO.
MR. DOWNEY: NO, YOUR HONOR.
JUDGE DAVILA: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. WE'LL SEE YOU TOMORROW MORNING.
COURT CLERK: COURT IS ADJOURNED FOR THE DAY.
(COURT CONCLUDED AT 4:23 P.M.)