Marion County Courthouse

680
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL LAMAR WOODS, Defendant. --------------------------x CASE NO.: 2010-CF-4287
JURY SELECTION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE BRIAN D. LAMBERT VOLUME 6 OF 21 (Pages 680 - 857)
DATE: LOCATION:
October 17, 2013
Marion County Courthouse

110 Northwest 1st Avenue Ocala, Florida 34475 Shannon Carlton, RPR, FPR Stenographic Reporter Notary Public State of Florida at Large
REPORTER:
_____________________________________________________ JOY HAYES COURT REPORTING Official Court Reporters 407 Courthouse Square Inverness, Florida 34450 Bus:(352)726-4451 _____________________________________________________
681
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: ROBIN ARNOLD, ESQUIRE JANINE NIXON, ESQUIRE Office of the State Attorney 110 Northwest 1st Avenue Suite 5000 Ocala, Florida 34475 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: JAMES T. REICH, ESQUIRE 303 SW 8th Street Suite #2 Ocala, Florida 34471 TERENCE M. LENAMON, ESQUIRE Lenamon Law, PLLC 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3070 Miami, Florida 33132 TANIA Z. ALAVI, ESQUIRE Alavi, Bird & Pozzuto, P.A. 108 North Magnolia Avenue 6th Floor Ocala, Florida 34475 Defendant Present ALSO PRESENT: Kathleen O'Shea, Mitigation Specialist Brooke Butler, Jury Consultant Lenamon Law, PLLC
682
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BE IT REMEMBERED, that the following proceedings were resumed on Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 8:50 a.m. with appearances as noted: - - - - - - MR. LENAMON: I just spoke with my client and
he's indicating he has a really bad headache and has not slept last night and he's asking if we can get him some Tylenol to relieve some of the symptoms he's feeling here? THE COURT: Yes, I'll give it to him myself.
I brought a whole big bottle of ibuprofen. MR. REICH: I have Aleve, Judge. If he authorizes it and you want
THE BAILIFF: to give it to him. THE COURT:
I don't care if he eats cough
drops or takes medicine, whatever he needs to do to be here. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. So we've been advised
All right.
that all the jurors, prospective jurors for this morning, are downstairs. Anything we need to talk State?
about before we call for them? MS. ARNOLD: Honor. THE COURT: Defense?
Nothing from the state, Your
Mr. Reich or
683
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mr. Lenamon, are we good to go? MR. LENAMON: No, I have that motion I wanted
to move on Ms. Smith. THE COURT: Okay. He's asking for me to
strike No. 3, I mean, No. 7, Ms. Smith, from yesterday. MS. ARNOLD: Your Honor, my recollection is Initially she
she said she was in the middle.
said some things that might have given cause for concern, but after -- I mean, she indicated she was in the middle as far as the death penalty was concerned. I don't think her answers rise to the
level of a cause challenge. MR. LENAMON: Judge, I disagree. I believe
that she initially had said that she favored -obviously, favored the death penalty, but also leaned towards an automatic situation, and then as the state attempted to rehabilitate her with some legal questions, she said she -- although she said she could follow the law, the holistic statements and also her discooperation with me in answering my questions and not wanting to discuss the issues that I was trying to get her to discuss clearly support the record that she is a bias juror and I would move for cause.
684
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Well, under Matarranz, we kind of
-- the Supreme Court I guess has -- they've issued their opinion to give us direction so I won't comment on that further, but I'll strike her for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: then. Thank you. Let's call for the jury
Okay.
The panel, excuse me.
Just so the record's clear, if we don't get 14 from this group, we have a whole group of people that will be here on Monday, so we'll keep going. So I guess that means the state would need to make more copies of the questionnaires. MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: I'm sorry, Judge? I guess that means you guys have
to make more copies for Ruby and we're going to let her know we may have to use the panel on Monday. We'll see how we go today and tomorrow. I think they summonsed -- we
MS. ARNOLD:
checked and there were like 333 who had not been excused. I think they summonsed in 400 or 450 and
then some had already done the statutory thing and there were 333 I think Ruby told us this morning. THE COURT: It's going to be all our panel
next week pretty much.
685
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE BAILIFF:
Latoria, let them know we're
missing Antavio Kinsler. THE COURT: He's not here? Not here. They brought up two
THE BAILIFF: more.
It gave the 24 and I did a rollcall and They said
he's missing and he was not downstairs. they had everybody. MS. ARNOLD:
He was the young man that had
traffic court today. THE COURT: Yeah, not until 1:30. He has transportation issues.
MR. LENAMON:
Remember his mom took him that one time. THE COURT: was Mr. Flowers. I thought that was No. 138. That
You want to check down there,
Pete, in the traffic infraction land. THE BAILIFF: Yeah, I could call down and ask
them to do a rollcall. THE COURT: him up. THE BAILIFF: How do you want to -- do you Yeah, if he shows up, just send
want to redo it or just keep it the way it is? THE COURT: The way it is. So I'll have the one row where
THE BAILIFF: he's in five. THE BAILIFF:
Not in traffic court.
686
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: traffic court.
All right.
Mr. Kinsler is not in
Well, we're going to proceed
forward and we'll address him however we need to address him if he does show up later. THE BAILIFF: He would be in the second row.
We'll just put five in the second row then and then go six and seven. THE COURT: Okay.
(Whereupon, the prospective jury panel enters the courtroom.) THE COURT: Is that everybody, Pete? Except for the one. Okay.
THE BAILIFF: THE COURT: Have a seat. attending.
Mr. Kinsler, all right.
Welcome back.
Thank you for This
Remember, I'm Judge Lambert.
is -- excuse me, this is the case of the State of Florida versus Michael Woods. hearing thing. THE BAILIFF: THE COURT: Yes. Pete, we need the
Can you hear me now? Yes. All right. Welcome back.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Good.
I'm Judge Lambert.
What -- we're in the next part This is the
of what's called the voir dire.
process that we use to help us select a jury.
687
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
It's a chance for the attorneys to get to know a little bit about you in order to help them come to their conclusion about your ability to be a fair and impartial juror so they can decide who they think should be the jurors on this case. Each
side is entitled to a fair and impartial jury. We've already gone through some initial questioning. What we're going to talk about this
morning, the focus on this morning is issues surrounding the death penalty. So the -- what
will happen is after I'm done talking, the attorneys will have a chance to ask you some questions. After they've gotten your answers, then the attorneys and I will meet and decide whether to exclude somebody from the jury. Now, they can
exclude somebody from the jury if they give me a reason to believe the person might be unable to be fair and impartial. That's a challenge for cause.
The lawyers also have certain number of what's called peremptories where they can excuse a person from the jury without giving me a reason. So
really the jury selection process is a process of elimination more than anything else. Those who
are not eliminated are the ones that remain on the
688
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
jury. As you can see, it's taken us several days to go through the process. After we talk about the
death penalty this morning, we have 30 people from yesterday that are coming back this afternoon and those of you who are not excused from the morning session will merge or melt with them and then go through the final selection process, final questioning process. So the questions that will be asked of you today during this process are not intended to embarrass you or unnecessarily prior into your personal affairs. But it is important that the
parties and their attorneys know enough about you to make this important decision. If at any time there's a question that you would prefer not to answer in front of the whole courtroom, let me know. You can come up here and
give your answer just in front of the attorneys and me. At any time if you have a question of
either the attorneys or me, do not hesitate to let us know. And I think you'll see as we go through
this process today that there may be some questions that you'll be asking. Now, very importantly, there are no right or
689
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
wrong answers to the questions that will be asked of you. The only thing that I do ask is that you
answer the questions as frankly and as honestly and as completely as you can. You will take an
oath to answer all questions truthfully and completely and you must do so. Remaining silent when you have information you should disclose is a violation of that oath as well. If a juror violates the oath, this may not
only result in us having to try this case all over again from a different jury, but could result in the imposition of civil and/or criminal penalties against you personally. So, again, very important you be as honest and complete with your answers as you possibly can. If you don't understand a question, raise your hand and ask for an explanation or clarification and we'll be happy to do that. So in summary, this is a process to assist the parties and the attorneys in selecting a fair and impartial jury. All the questions that will be
asked are for that purpose and that purpose alone. If for any reason as you're going through this process you do not think you could be a fair and impartial juror, you must tell us.
690
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Let me ask all of you to stand and raise your right hand and be sworn in by our deputy clerk, Latoria. (Whereupon, the witness was duly sworn and testified under his/her oath as follows:) PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel was duly sworn and sworn as to the truthfulness of the questionnaire:) PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Have a seat. (Affirmative (Affirmative
Now, if you recall Monday afternoon when I came down there when you were in the jury assembly room, I read an introductory instruction to you, but I'm going to read that again as it's important in all cases. though. In order for us to have a fair and lawful trial, there are certain rules that all jurors must follow. One of the basic and primary rules It's very important in this case,
is that the jurors must decide the case only on the evidence presented in the courtroom. You must not communicate with anyone,
691
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
including friends and family members about the case, the people and places involved, or your jury service. Now, if you happen to be selected on the
jury, you can let somebody know you'll be gone for the jury service time. not discuss this case. You must not disclose your thoughts about this case or ask for advice on how to decide this case. I do want to stress again that this rule means you must not use any electronic devices or computers to communicate about the case, including Tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a website or chat room, or any other means at all. Do not send or accept any messages to or from anyone about the case or your jury service. You But other than that, do
must not do any research or look up words, names, maps, or anything else that may have anything to do with this case. This includes reading the newspaper, watching TV, or using a computer, cell phone, Internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all to get information related to this case or the people or places involved in this case. This applies
whether you're in the courthouse, at home, or
692
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
anywhere else. All of us are depending upon you to follow these rule so there will be a fair and lawful resolution in this case. Unlike questions that
are asked in court which will be answered in court in the presence of me, the judge, the parties, and the attorneys, if you as a juror or prospective juror do your own private research or investigation or inquiries outside the courtroom, then I, as the judge, have no way of assuring that what you're doing is proper or relevant to the case. The parties and the attorneys also have no opportunity to dispute the accuracy of what you may find, and perhaps more importantly, rebut anything that you may find. This is contrary to
our judicial system which does assure every party the right to ask questions about and rebut the evidence being considered against it and to present evidence with respect to that or argument with respect to that evidence. Out of court inquiries and investigations unfairly and improperly prevent the parties and the attorneys from having this opportunity that our judicial system promises. If you become aware
693
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of any violation of these instructions, or for that manner, any other instruction I may give in this case, you must tell me by giving a note to the bailiff. The bailiffs are the ladies and
gentlemen or deputy sheriffs here all dressed in green. Okay. As I indicated to you we're going to
focus this morning about issues pertaining to the death penalty. Mr. Woods has been charged in this
case, Michael Woods, the fellow seated over there, is charged in Count 1 of murder in the first degree with a firearm and burglary of a dwelling with a firearm in Count 2. There's two counts.
Now, preliminary, just so you're clear, one of the fundamental, bedrock things of our system is Mr. Woods right now is presumed innocent. presumed innocent. He sits
He stays presumed innocent
throughout the entire trial unless and until the State of Florida establishes to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed the crime of what he's charged. They
have to prove each element of the counts beyond a reasonable doubt. more in detail. As to Count 1, which is the murder in the We'll go into that a little
694
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
first degree, we go -- there are two phases. Phase 1 is what's called the guilt or innocence phase basically. That part of the trial, which
comes first, is pretty much conducted the same way as all other trials, criminal trials. If you're sitting on the jury, you'll be asked to return a verdict of either guilty or not guilty on the counts and your verdict must be unanimous on all the counts. That means that each juror
must be agree on each count either to acquit or convict. However, murder in the first degree is a little bit different. The legislature has In Florida
fashioned it a little bit different.
on a first-degree murder charge there are two possible sentences. Either death or life in That
prison without the possibility of parole.
means -- life imprisonment without possibility of parole means that if somebody's sentenced to life, they stay there in prison until they die. So the defendant sits presumed innocent. So
you go through the first part -- the first phase of this trial. If, and only if the defendant is
found guilty on Count 1, murder in the first degree, do we then talk about what's called the
695
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
penalty phase.
This is a little bit different
than all other cases because you, as the jury, get involved in the sentencing process. If you are asked to go to Phase 2, the penalty phase, at the end of the trial and Phase 2, you'll be asked to render what's called an advisory verdict, recommending either death or life to me. Now, I'm the one who ultimately does the sentencing, but I am required by law to give your determination, your recommendation, great weight. In essence what that means so that you're very clear about what you're being asked to do if we get to Phase 2 is what you recommend is extremely, extremely likely to be what happens to Mr. Woods if he's convicted as to -- as to the first-degree murder and you are asked to return a sentence -advisory sentence. There's some differences that we'll talk about pertaining to -- that I'll talk about now pertaining to Phase 2 and Phase 1. The first
difference is it is not required to be a unanimous verdict in Phase 2. You'll each be asked to
decide what your recommendation is. You don't have to -- it doesn't have to be unanimous about anything. You each make your
696
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
decision and then the foreperson tallies up what the -- the votes of the 12 jurors are. not unanimous. So it's
If there's at least a seven to
five recommendation for the death penalty, then that would be a recommendation for death. me, I'm kind of hoarse here. Excuse
I have a cold here.
If it is less than that, in other words, it's six to six or less, it would be a recommendation for life in prison without the possibility of parole. So you'll see on the verdict form recommendation of life because if six or more of you agree as to life or decide life on the verdict. If you recommend death, it'll ask you to
put the numbers down; 7-5, 8-4, 9-3, 10-2, 11-1 or 12-0 as to what your recommendation is. Okay. That's the first thing. The primary or
an important thing that we'll talk about today is the death penalty has been reserved in Florida for the one class of crimes, it's first-degree murder, but the legislature has created special rules for juries to consider in reaching a verdict in the penalty phase. The legislature in Florida recognizes that not all first-degree murders -- murder cases deserve the death penalty. In other words, if you're
697
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
convicted that doesn't automatically mean it's death. There is a process that you go through.
The legislature has created a list of circumstances that the jurors must consider in deciding to reach a verdict in a death penalty case. The prosecutor, the State of Florida, has to establish what are called aggravating factors. They must prove aggravating factors beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. set forth in the statute. These are
You'll hear the ones The defendant
that will be applied in this case.
will rely on what's called mitigating circumstances or mitigating factors. Now, mitigating circumstances are different because they do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. A mitigating circumstance needs
only be proven by the greater weight of the evidence. Mitigating circumstances may include matters regarding the defendant's background or character or circumstances surrounding the offense and will be offered as a basis for a recommendation of a sentence of life in prison. So in other words, you'll be asked to look at
698
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and evaluate aggravating factors and mitigating factors in coming to your decision about the penalty -- the verdict in the penalty phase. Now, the process of your weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the proper punishment is not a mechanical process. It contemplates different factors that may be given different weight or values by each of the jurors. So in your decision making, it is you,
and you alone, that are to decide what weight is to be given to any particular factor. In order for there to be a lawful death sentence there has to be at least one aggravating factor determined by you beyond a reasonable doubt. If the mitigating factors in your mind
outweigh the aggravating factors, then your verdict must be life. If there are no aggravating
factors that have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, your verdict must be life. Now, even if you believe that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors as you listen to them and evaluate them during the course of the penalty phase, I want to be very, very clear with you, that no time are you ever required to recommend a sentence of death.
699
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
You never are required to do that. always your option.
That is
But even if you think the
aggravators greatly outweigh or outweigh or whatever fashion the mitigating, you can always recommend and it's your absolute authority and right to recommend a life sentence. Now, I've kind of given you a broad outline of the penalty phase. I know none of you have been There'll
involved in this type of process before.
be instructions that will be read to you, jury instructions, that will be read to you by me during the penalty phase trial. copy of the instructions. Now, this is kind of a unique process because we're talking about penalty. You know, if the You'll each get a
defendant is found not guilty in Phase 1, then we don't get to a penalty phase. So we're kind of
going at this a little bit differently, but we need to do this in the process we're doing it. do not presuppose that the defendant is guilty. He is presumed innocent. We're just having to be So
ready to discuss penalty phase issues with you in case we get to Phase 2. Now, you're going to be asked some questions about this procedure. I'm going to talk to you
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
briefly about that.
I want to prepare you so you These are the typical I
can be thinking about it.
questions that may or may not come your way. expect they probably will.
I have the benefit of,
A, having tried these cases before and, B, watching them do this yesterday with the earlier panel. Now, you're going to be asked whether you have any moral, religious, or personal feelings about sitting in judgment of a defendant's conduct in this case. You may be asked feelings about the If you're in favor of the death
death penalty.
penalty, whether or not you agree with the premise that a sentence of death is not appropriate for all first-degree murder cases. You may be asked whether you would agree to weigh the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances with an open mind and determine whether death or life in prison without the possibility of parole would be an appropriate sentence. You may be asked whether you are unalterably opposed to the death penalty such that you could not consider it as a penalty under any circumstances. Many people have strong feelings
701
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
about the death penalty, both for and against it. And let me reiterate, there's no right or wrong answers today. Everybody's going to want to know
what your feelings are because they will evaluate this when we're done, the attorneys will. The fact that you may have strong feelings does not disqualify you -- does not automatically disqualify you to serve as a juror as long as you're able to put those feelings aside and apply the law as I instruct you. In other words, you
must be willing to be bound by your oath as you've just taken as a juror to obey the laws of this state in making your recommendation. Now, questions may be asked about whether your opinion concerning the death penalty will substantially impair your ability to follow the Court's instructions. These are some of the
general questions that will be asked of you. What we will do today based upon what we observed yesterday is it'll probably take us most of the morning, maybe into early afternoon. going to do this all at one time here. We're
Those of
you who are not excused after the morning session, the people who remained from yesterday will be coming back this afternoon and you will then be
702
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
melted into one final group for the final round of voir dire questions hopefully this afternoon. We'll do the best we can. We're going to keep going until it's -- we've addressed everything that we need to properly address and we're going to get -- it's serious stuff here today. have. This is the highest stakes we
The state has asked to -- they're going to
be asking you to impose a death penalty if the defendant is found guilty of first-degree murder. So we're going to be deliberate. We're going
to take as much time for both sides to do and ask the questions they believe they need to properly ask to get your opinions. bear with us. So I ask that you just
I appreciate your patience so far.
I know this has been a long process for you and it may go into tomorrow, just on the jury selection process. We'll do the best we can. I ask you to do the Ms. Nixon, go
We've been working hard here.
same and I thank you for your time. ahead. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:
Judge, one thing, about TV. I told you Monday
Oh, thank you.
that -- and it, in fact, is in the instruction I just read this morning about you can't read the
703
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
newspaper or Internet, television, anything about this case. Has anybody seen anything in the
newspaper or on television, on the Internet or heard anything about this case between Monday and today? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT: Okay. (Negative response.) No
Negative responses.
affirmative responses. I'll introduce people, too. Let me ask
initially before we get into the death penalty discussions, does anybody know me in the panel? Anybody know me. PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT: (Negative response.) Either as
Nobody knows me, okay.
the judge or a lawyer or walking around as a real person? Okay. As you look amongst yourselves, do any
of you know each other? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT: Okay. (Raising hands.)
What's your name, ma'am? Carolyn Macias. This is Juror No. 120,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Ms. Macias. Okay.
Who do you know, ma'am? Colleen. Oh, you know
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:
Where's Colleen?
704
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that lady in the back there? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. I apologize, I didn't -Colleen is -- what's
Colleen's last name? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. Mercer. How do you know her? From work.
You and she work together? We don't, but I do know
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: her from work. THE COURT:
Where do you work, ma'am? In the Shores.
What do you do? I'm a nurse.
What facility or hospital? Ocala Regional. And what -- who do you know
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay.
her to be in relation to this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: of this case. THE COURT: Okay. I have no idea. I didn't know she was part
Do you know whether she's related
to Mr. Woods at all? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That's her son.
705
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
That's her son? Yes, sir. So you know that lady is
the mother of Mr. Woods? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: (Nods head.)
Is that going to make it difficult
for you to sit on this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: Yes, sir.
No objection. State?
Okay.
No objection. Okay. Ms. Macias, again, there's
no right or wrong answers, but that's a very important thing for you to tell us about. appreciate your candor. You're absolutely We
correct, it would be a difficult case for you to sit on because you're going to be asked to if you sat on this jury to decide whether this gentleman, Mr. Woods, is guilty or not. And if so, what the
penalty would be, life in prison without parole or death, and you're uncomfortable doing that because you know his mother. Okay, ma'am, thank you very
much for your time and patience with us this week. You're excused. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Thank you.
706
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
All right.
guess maybe let me ask it a little bit broader. Does anybody know each other or anybody sitting in the courtroom in the audience, how about that? Anybody else know anybody? Does anybody know any
of the deputies or any of the staff up here? Okay. Let me introduce the people who are
seated in front of you who are going to be participating here. To my left is the state. Do any of you know
This is Janine Nixon. Ms. Nixon?
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT:
(No response.) Okay,
No one knows Ms. Nixon.
seated to her right is Robin Arnold, one of the prosecutors. Does anybody know Ms. Arnold? (No response.) Jim Reich is the Does anybody
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT: All right.
defense counsel on the guilt phase? know Mr. Reich? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT:
(No response.) This Does
No one knows Mr. Reich.
gentleman over here is Terence Lenamon. anyone know Mr. Lenamon? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT:
(No response.) You
Nobody knows Mr. Lenamon.
707
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
want to introduce anyone else here? MR. LENAMON: Yeah, Judge, Tania Alavi. She's
one of the lawyers helping us out on this case. MS. ALAVI: MR. REICH: Good morning. Have they already been asked if
they know Mr. Woods, Judge? THE COURT: MR. REICH: ahead of myself. THE COURT: You're all right. I appreciate We'll get to that. Oh, okay, sorry. I'm getting
you let me not miss anything. MR. LENAMON: This is Carla Mangano. She is
the legal assistant to Mr. Reich. O'Shea.
This is Kate This, I think
She's our mitigation specialist. He's our client.
of course, is Michael. you've seen him before. Butler.
And this is Brooke
She's helping us with jury selection. Good morning. Okay. All right. Did anybody
MS. BUTLER: THE COURT:
know any of these individuals at these tables here? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: THE COURT: All right. (No response.) No responses. You'll
see as we go through this that when you don't respond, I'll say something like that. That
708
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
doesn't mean I can't see you.
That's just for the
benefit of our court reporter and for the record. She takes all this down and so -- so that there's some continuity as to how the question's been answered, I'll say things like that. Okay. That being said, I'll turn it over to
the state to begin questions. MS. NIXON: Thank you, Your Honor. Good
morning, ladies and gentlemen. Nixon.
My name is Janine
I have the honor and the privilege to
represent the people of the State of Florida in this case, along with Ms. Robin Arnold. for a man by the name of Brad King. We work
I don't
know -- the judge didn't ask, but does anybody know Mr. King? Mr. Durham, you know Mr. King? I do know Mr. King very
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: well. MS. NIXON:
How do you know him? He and I were deacons at
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Trinity Baptist Church together many years ago. MS. NIXON: How many years ago? Well, he and I were
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
deacons together in the '90s, '91, '92, '93, '94, in that range. But I'm also a member of the
Trinity Baptist Church right now and I see him
709
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
occasionally. MS. NIXON: Okay. And would that get in the
way of your being able to be fair and impartial in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: I don't believe so at all.
And the question in another --
worded another way would be would you feel any -like you owe Mr. King anything? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Not a thing.
Would you have any trouble going
back to church -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Not a bit.
-- the following Sunday if you
found the defendant not guilty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Not a bit. So you wouldn't have any
problems that would weigh on you either way? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: Okay. No, I would not. Thank you, Mr. Durham.
Let me stop you for a second.
Could counsel approach? (The following discussion was had before the Court and out of the hearing of the prospective jury:) THE COURT: What I was saying is Mr. Kinsler's
710
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
here. 8:45. up.
He probably thought it was 9:45 instead of So he's downstairs now, so we'll send him
MR. LENAMON: MR. REICH:
That's fine.
And there's no need -- we waive
your instructions, the preliminary instructions. THE COURT: MR. REICH: THE COURT: right. (Whereupon, the discussion at the bench was concluded and the following resumed:) MS. NIXON: So we're going to be talking about Well, we'll swear him in. Yes, thank you. And I'll say a few things. All
issues of the death penalty today, the subject of the death penalty and whether you all can sit and be jurors in a case where you may be asked, you may not, initially, of course, you would be asked if you were chosen as a juror to determine whether the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And then if you do determine that, there's the next step and that's where the judge is saying that's different than in the normal everyday criminal case where you might just go as far as
711
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
beyond a reasonable doubt, proven, done. proven, finished.
Or not
You would be asked, Mr. Martin,
to go that next step and say, Let's talk about punishment here. Now, there's two punishments available to a first-degree murder case. If a defendant is found
guilty of first-degree murder there's only two punishments available. choices. So you only have two
Ms. Thompson, you're going to be asked
if you're a juror only to choose between those two. You don't have to choose between 50
different punishments. And I'm not going to ask you your opinion about the death penalty quite yet. all have one. I know you may
Ms. McCray, you may have an opinion They don't think
about it and some people don't. about it very often.
But some people have those
opinions and they're thinking about them right now, and you may in your kingdom, is it Mr. Siddell or Siddell? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Siddell. You may in your kingdom
Siddell.
if you were in charge of the world do it your way, right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Probably.
712
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
What's that? I'm sure I would. If I But
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON:
You would do it your way.
was in charge of my world, I'd do it my way. here we are not in our kingdoms, we're in the
United States of America, the State of Florida, and we have to do it that way. And the question
is not so much what your opinion is about the death penalty, but whether you can do it the State of Florida's way. Does that make sense?
Ms. Miller, do you understand what we're going to be asking you today? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: what you think. Ms. Hall? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Uh-huh. Yes.
So there will be questions about And, Ms. Hall, by the way, it's
Now, we've got you down as
Spranger, but you're Ms. Hall? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Ms. Hall. opinion. Okay. Uh-huh, yes. I'm going to call you today You may be asked about your
Thank you.
I anticipate you will and you certainly
should express it because as the judge said, there's no right or wrong answers here. There's
713
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
only truthful answers.
So you need to express But ultimately the
whatever opinion you have.
question is whether you can set aside that opinion if it's one -- you know, on one extreme or the other and do it the State of Florida's way, okay. So the -- the process is like a flowchart. Does anybody use flowcharts at work or anybody heard of them in school? school, Mr. Siddell. Sometimes we use them in
So the idea of a flowchart If then go here, if
is kind of you go one space. not you go down.
And then if you get here, then
you go one space and then you go down. So in this type of a case where we have first-degree murder, let's talk about how you get to first-degree murder first. If there's a guilty
verdict, and only if there's a guilty verdict of course, you will have the penalty phase here. if there's not guilty, you've gone over here. So If
there's a guilty verdict, you go to the penalty phase. Now, first-degree murder can be proven in two ways. First, by premeditation. Thought, the Now,
thinking before somebody kills someone. that's -- in the law in the guilt phase,
Ms. Keller, there's no set time period before
714
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
which someone must think.
It doesn't have to be a
month that you plan out, you know, Day 1 I'm going to do this, Day 2 I'm going to buy concrete, Day 3 I'm going to get a boat. like that. It can be -Pete, let me swear him. Sir, stand up. It doesn't have to be
THE COURT:
THE BAILIFF: THE COURT: Mr. Kinsler. THE BAILIFF:
We're going to swear you in,
Raise your right hand.
(Whereupon, the prospective juror was duly sworn and sworn as to the truthfulness of the questionnaire:) PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. (Affirmative response.) Mr. Kinsler, initially your
traffic infraction thing, that's going to continue. afternoon. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. Okay. That's fine. So you don't have to worry about this
So the attorneys are going
to be asking you some questions this morning. There's no right or wrong answers to any questions. ask. Just listen carefully to what they
If you have any questions about what they're
asking you or not understanding what they're
715
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
asking, let them know and they'll be happy to explain these things to you. Counsel's waived the other speech I had this morning. So we're just going to go ahead and go Let me ask you, Mr. Kinsler, do you
forward here.
know Mr. Michael Woods, the defendant? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No, sir, no. These two -- all These two ladies over
All right.
right, you don't know him.
here, Ms. Nixon and Ms. Arnold, are the prosecutors. Do you know them at all, sir? No, sir.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: of Brad King.
They work for a fellow by the name He's the state attorney here. You
won't see him in the courtroom during this trial, but he is their boss. here. He's an elected official
Do you know Mr. King at all, sir? No, sir. This fellow right
No, all right.
here is Jim Reich. guilt phase. MR. REICH:
He's defense counsel for the
Hello, Mr. Kinsler. How you doing?
Do you know Mr. Reich? No, sir.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
716
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: Terry Lenamon.
All right.
This is Mr. Lenamon, Do you know him?
He's co-counsel. No, sir.
All right.
Do you recognize any
of the people over at this table? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. No, sir. All right. Well, just go
ahead, Ms. Nixon, and we'll go forward. MS. NIXON: And, Mr. Kinsler, just to get you
up to speed, we were talking about issues of the death penalty. You may have opinions about that.
I so far asked everyone to hold on to those opinions and listen to how the State of Florida does things and to see whether your opinions about the death penalty or feelings about the death penalty or whatever moral obligations you feel you might have, how they compare with the way the State of Florida does things and see if you can be a juror on a case where we may ask that of you, okay. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes, ma'am.
So I was talking about We only get to the death
first-degree murder.
penalty phase if the defendant is found guilty of first-degree murder and you can do that -- and the
717
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
state can do that proving -- they can prove that two different ways. I was talking about. And if there's no set amount of time, Mr. Colon, I think you kind of reacted a little bit about that. It doesn't have to be a One way is that premeditation
month-long process, it doesn't have to be a list. It can be as long as it takes for someone to take the knife from their belt and swing it up and stab a person. It's that amount of thoughtfulness.
Now, the jury must come to that conclusion, of course, that that's what they were thinking and not it was a depraved act that they didn't think about. Once the jury comes to that conclusion,
though, it can be premeditated murder. The second way that the state can prove first-degree murder is if it's during the commission of a list of enumerated felonies, in particular forceable felonies. And what the state
means by that is like serious, if you may, robbery, burglary is one of those, okay. And the
idea being that there's a certain amount of culpability going out and doing something like that and if you happen to kill somebody in the process, you can be convicted of first-degree
718
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
murder. So far everybody thinks that they can -- those are reasonable laws and you can all agree? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MS. NIXON: So if the defendant is found (Affirmative
guilty of one of those first-degree murders, then the jury must then either -- we start a new process of the penalty phase and in that process we listen to additional evidence and you consider, you can consider some of the evidence you heard during the guilt phase. Ms. Lopez, so you would
listen to -- you would consider, let me put it that way, evidence that you may have heard already and apply to a different subject and then potentially additional evidence as well. Now, the state must prove in order to go any further certain aggravating circumstances. Again,
an aggravating circumstance, there has to be at least one proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That's that same standard that we used in the guilt phase. The state must prove it beyond a You have to be satisfied to
reasonable doubt.
that extent that that aggravating circumstance exist.
719
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Again, not what you might do in your world, Mr. Nellis. These aggravating circumstances, Those are the only ones
there's a list of them. you can use.
I'm sure we can each think of an
aggravating circumstance in our head that would make me -- make us more upset about a crime, make us -- make somebody more deserving of a higher penalty. But those might not be the ones that are
on the list, okay. Now, Ms. Slocum, you have to go by the ones on the list. I may go through those in a little
while and talk about them and just make sure that you think you could do that. Like if it didn't
comport with what your list of aggravating circumstances would be, whether you could say, yes, I could still follow that law, I could still do it. Then and only then, and here's our flowchart, only if there's an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you get to aggravating
circumstance and you say, no, the state hasn't proven any, then you go to life. If you say, yes,
the state has proven an aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt, then you go to your next step and you consider mitigating
720
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
circumstances. Mitigating circumstances are a little different. We'll talk about those for one moment.
Mitigating circumstances could be anything. Anything in the world, anything, anything, anything. Again, may or may not go along with They
what you think you would do in your kingdom.
could be anything you can think of from alcoholism to bad childhood to good childhood to a learning disability, psychological. psychological background? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON: background? (Negative response.) Anybody have any
Anybody have any mental health
That is they worked in the mental They've been a psychologist, been
health field.
trained as a psychologist, work for a psychologist, administered psychological testing? Anyone have any experience like that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON: (Negative response.)
Anyone been in treatment for
mental health disability, mental health? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON: Okay. (Negative response.)
Now, all these mitigating
circumstances I talked about, it could be depression, it could be like I said bad childhood,
721
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it could be good childhood. like that.
It could be anything
You would have to, if you're chosen as
a juror and if you swore to do this, say, I will consider those mitigating circumstances. The defense, if they take up that task, Mr. Giselbach, if they take up that task, they must prove those -- that mitigating circumstance, but not beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a lower
standard, by the greater weight of the evidence. By the greater weight of the evidence, a little bit more than not, okay. So it's a little bit
lower standard, but they still must show you, they have to show it to you as a juror, and then you must consider them. Is it Bourgeois? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Bourgeois.
You, Ms. Bourgeois, decide what You, as a juror. You could --
weight to give it.
you determine the value of that mitigating circumstance. You, and you alone. And as the It's
judge said, it's not a mechanical process.
something that you -- you just think about and you do, you do the best you can, you determine whatever value you want it. It may be different
than Mr. Giselbach, different than Mr. Nellis.
722
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
That's totally okay.
You give it whatever value,
and same with the aggravating circumstance. So once you, if you find that there's a mitigating circumstance, you say, okay, There is 1, 2, 4, 6, whatever, then you give them whatever weight. You assign it a weight in your mind. And
you don't have to give it a number, again, because it's completely up to you and it's not a mechanical process. And then you weigh it against
whatever aggravating circumstance or circumstances there are. Okay, any. Any weight you want and
you weigh them. And you -- so if you get to mitigating. not, you still determine the weight of the aggravating circumstance. You think about it and If
you make a determination of whether the recommendation is life or death. You can always,
as the judge said, you can always say you come to the conclusion there is aggravating circumstance, there's some mitigating circumstances, but I give them low weight. I don't consider them very much I think they
at all, I give them low val ue.
proved them, but they still are not very valuable to me, you can still say I recommend life. So there's always -- in the flowchart, you can
723
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
always go back to life.
But let me see, let me The state, the
check my notes for a moment.
people of the State of Florida, have decided that death penalty is appropriate in certain circumstances, in certain circumstances. And we
ask the jury to evaluate those and determine whether those circumstances exist, whether these are the ones that the death penalty is appropriate. The State of Florida has the right to have jurors on the panel that can do that. That can
recommend the death penalty if the circumstances exist, okay. Now, the defense has a right to have Who
people on the jury who can recommend life. have it in them, right? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Objection.
Can we come sidebar?
Yes.
(The following discussion was had before the Court and out of the hearing of the prospective jury:) MR. LENAMON: the law. Judge, she's mischaracterizing
The defense and state are entitled to She's indicating that That certain jurors
jurors that can do both.
jurors do one for the state.
are going to be state jurors and defense jurors
724
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and that's separate, Judge.
That's a Jurors have
misrepresentation of what the law is.
to be able to both recommend life or death, not one or the other. There's not going to be state
jurors and defense jurors. She's going down here, follow the flag, I'm marching, I'm a state attorney, I've decided to seek death and this is how I'm going to try to lead these jurors in a mischaracterized way to believing that the law requires death penalty when they ask for that. It's a mischaracterization of
what the law says, Judge. THE COURT: Well, I don't -- I don't think
she's gone to that length, but I mean -MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: If I --- you probably need to rephrase. -- if I rephrase it? I think you need to rephrase it
and say they have to be able to weigh all the factors and decide whether life or death is appropriate based upon that. MS. NIXON: Well, I will -- I will add to the
statement to add the statement Mr. Lenamon suggests which is you can do either which is what my point is, but --
725
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
Everybody's entitled. Everybody's entitled to make their It's not
decision whether it's life or death. whether it's state or defense.
Each side's
entitled to have jurors that are able to make the recommendation as to either based upon the evidence and how they see the case. MS. NIXON: THE COURT: But either way is my point. Yeah, that's what you're asking
here, but one of these -- not that the state's entitled to have people that have death and the defense is entitled to people that have life. Nobody's entitled to have people -- you have people with an open mind and decide whether which of the two is -MS. NIXON: rephrase it. THE COURT: Well, then say it that way. That leaves the jurors with the Do either way is my point. I'll
MR. LENAMON:
impression right now that, I guess I was chosen by the state because I'm a death juror because that's what she was focusing on and I think that's a mischaracterization because it then disallows the jurors' obligation to understand that they have to look at both sides as the Court indicated.
726
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Okay.
Objection -- his Just rephrase that.
objection's sustained.
(Whereupon, the discussion at the bench was concluded and the following resumed:) MS. NIXON: The point ladies and gentlemen, is
to have jurors that can listen to all of the evidence with an open mind and make either recommendation that they feel is appropriate and that is that they don't have a predisposed understanding that they are going to do one or the other. So now that we -- anybody have any questions at this point? Anybody have questions of me? (No response.)
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON:
Let's talk a little bit about Just in a general
these aggravating factors.
sense, listen to what they are and if you have any questions about that or thoughts, you know, No, no, there's no way I could consider that as an aggravating factor only. The capital felony was
committed by a person previously convicted of a felony. felony. MR. REICH: Excuse me, may we approach, Judge? Somebody previously convicted of a
(The following proceedings were had before the
727
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Court and out of the hearing of the prospective jury:) MR. REICH: My objection is that she's talking
about an aggravating circumstance that doesn't exist in this case and a terribly prejudicial one. It's in front of this jury now that he's been convicted of a prior. around that. THE COURT: MR. REICH: We absolutely can get around it. Well, please get around it, Judge. I move to disqualify the panel. I don't think we can get
MR. LENAMON:
The jury's under the impression now he has a prior felony. THE COURT: It's denied. Just talk about the
ones that are here. MS. ARNOLD: We talked about age as a
mitigator yesterday. MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. Well, I did. Right. I threw that out.
And I talked about police
officer as a -- I mean, as long we characterize that these are the ones -- these are the kinds of aggravating factors. THE COURT: Why don't we just talk about the
ones that are here, just the four that you've all
728
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
listed.
You know, these are the ones.
Is there
something you're adamantly opposed to. MS. ARNOLD: The only question I have at this
point, Your Honor, is if -- I mean, should we include other ones that we're not talking about just for them? THE COURT: These are the aggravators that
we're going to be talking about in this case, these four. Are there any of you that are opposed
and say, I can never consider that because I disagree with the law or I don't. You know, I
wouldn't go into there's several of them, you know, killing cops or killing children. know it was talked about yesterday. MS. NIXON: Well, okay. Well, so the killing And I
children is also off the table because that was talked about yesterday and it was not a problem and it's just the idea that those are aggravators and those are the only ways that they can aggravate. Obviously, couched in a way -Judge, she's going down a list
MR. LENAMON:
where she's going to list 16 aggravating factors -MS. NIXON: Yeah, 19. -- 19 to my client.
MR. LENAMON:
729
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: them yesterday?
Well, then why'd we talk about
MR. LENAMON:
She was making an example that
was specific to some prejudice when jurors had indicated they had a special relationship with children. issue. MR. REICH: I think this jury should be told It was a different, distinguishable
Mr. Woods has never been convicted of a felony. THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: Well, I don't know what that -Just say that this one does not
apply in this case, but it's just -THE COURT: Yeah, just tell them this one
doesn't apply in this case and say, Here's the ones we're going to talk about in this case. There's numerous other ones, but these are the ones we're talking about. (Whereupon, the discussion at the bench was concluded and the following resumed:) THE COURT: ma'am. MS. NIXON: The aggravating circumstances All right. Whenever you're ready,
we're going to be talking about in this case: 1. That the murder was committed during a During a burglary which is sort of
burglary.
730
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
related to the felony murder -- first-degree felony murder that we were talking about earlier. Is there anybody that feels that's -- number one, I cannot restrict my considerations to these aggravators is really my question? I am not able
to say, I'm going to look at the state's list of aggravating factors only. I'm going to look at
aggravating factors from my own personal experience. Is there anybody who feels that way?
Is there anybody that cannot apply this, cannot consider this aggravating factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: pecuniary gain. Okay. (No response.) Murder committed for
Pecuniary gain being for Ms. Miller, do you think it's
financial benefit.
something you could consider, the murder is committed for pecuniary gain? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: that. MS. NIXON: Okay. What part don't you Yeah, for I mean, I'm not sure I understand
understand, the pecuniary part or what? financial gain. That is to get money.
the classic example of course is killing a spouse for insurance money. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Oh, okay.
731
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
So that is an aggravating
circumstance that the state may put before you and the question is can you consider it and the second question is can you restrict your consideration of aggravating circumstances to these? you could do that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes. Now, that the murder was to Do you think
avoid arrest, in the avoidance of arrest. Ms. Mitcham, does that sound like something that's an aggravating circumstance? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes? Yeah. (Nods head.)
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: could consider? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON:
And is it something you think you
Sure.
And is it something that you could
restrict these list, could you restrict your consideration to these? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes. The murder was committed in Now,
a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner. this one is a little different because you've
already heard that the state may have proven that
732
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it was premeditated, right? Plante? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Plante? Yes.
Is it Plante or
Plante.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay.
Mr. Plante, you've already
heard it's premeditated and maybe, I mean of course it could be a first-degree felony murder, right? Could have been in the course of a
burglary? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes. But you may hear that and
you may find in a case that it was premeditated, right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes.
Premeditated murder, they -- he
took -- assuming he took the month-long planning process, okay. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes.
For the purposes of this question, The aggravating
it's that kind of case.
circumstance requires a little bit more than your regular premeditation like I talked about earlier, the taking the knife out of your -- the time it takes the knife out of your belt and stab it into
733
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
somebody, that can be premeditated if you find it as a juror, Mr. Plante. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes.
But the aggravating circumstance It defines these
requires a little bit more. things:
Cold means the murder was the product of calm and cool reflection. Calculated means having a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder. A killing is premeditated if it occurs after the defendant conscientiously decides to kill. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated The
intent to kill must be formed before the killing. However, in order for this aggravating circumstance to apply, a heightened level of premeditation demonstrated by the substantial period of reflection is required. A pretense of moral or legal justification is
734
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
any claim of justification or excuse that, though, insufficient to reduce the degree of murder, nevertheless rebuts the otherwise cold, calculated, or premeditated nature of the murderer. It's a big glass of water there. Yes. But it's an instruction the
judge would give you if you are a juror in this case. If you -- if you were a juror in this case
and if the defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder. Mr. Plante? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes, I could. And could you restrict that Those are the Could you follow that,
list of aggravating circumstances? only ones you're going to get. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes.
Those -- those four:
Course of burglary, pecuniary gain, avoid arrest, cold, calculated, and premeditated. circumstances. Aggravating
You can't use your own, okay. Yes.
And can you do that? Yes, I can.
735
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Let me interject there's 16 in the
statute here and many of them have nothing to do with this case. For example, one of the That
aggravators is the victim is less than 12. has nothing to do with the case. I think
Ms. Nixon gave an example earlier about committed by a person previously convicted of a felony. That has nothing to do with this case. has no convictions. MS. NIXON: Now, let's talk to each of you. Mr. Woods
Anybody have any questions at this point? Ms. Hall -- oh, Mr. Kinsler has a question? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Can you go back over
aggravating circumstances? MS. NIXON: Go over what? What it means. If we -- if you,
Sure, I think.
as a juror, if you're chosen on the jury and if you find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of first-degree murder, whichever of the two ways you decide, okay, there's premeditated murder and there's felony murder. Meaning you do it --
you kill somebody while you're doing some forcible felony, burglary being one of them. You find someone guilty, then we go to the
736
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
penalty phase.
You consider evidence previously
provided and some additional evidence to determine, number one, whether there's aggravating circumstance sufficient to justify the death penalty. Those aggravating circumstances that you
can consider are one of the four that I suggested to you. The burglary -- during a burglary, for Did you understand what I meant? Yeah.
pecuniary gain.
Avoid arrest or cold, calculated, Those are the aggravating
and premeditated.
circumstances that you can consider. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Okay. You can't -- my point is
you're not going to be able to take out of your brain, out of your life experience an aggravating circumstance that you think is -- you know, he said something nasty during the murder. That's
not an aggravating circumstance in here, okay. You can't use it to justify a death penalty. You
can only use the ones that are given to you by the Court, okay? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: (Nods head.)
And that's the point is can you
restrict -- in making a determination about the
737
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
death penalty, can you restrict to these aggravating circumstances, okay. your question? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: to ask. Yeah, that answered it. Did I answer
If you have more, do not hesitate Ms. Hall, what are your
Anybody?
thoughts about the death penalty being a juror on a death penalty case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: defendant is? MS. NIXON: You can ask. I'm not going to Can I ask how old the
answer that question. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Oh.
That could be a mitigator. I'm not sure. I'm
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: telling you.
Oh, no, I'm not asking you.
It could be.
As I said earlier, Would that matter
anything could be a mitigator. to you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: maybe not. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: No.
It's okay.
You can say maybe,
Maybe, maybe not.
Would you consider it if it was
presented to you as a mitigating factor?
738
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes.
And it was proven? If it was proven, yes.
And then you said, Okay, I'll
consider it and I'll give it whatever weight I want to give it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes.
So you would consider whatever
mitigators they gave? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Uh-huh.
You would consider whatever
aggravating circumstances and you would hold the state to the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Absolutely.
And then weigh those? Yes.
And do you have any concerns about
your ability to either impose -- recommend the death penalty if it was justified or life if it was -- if you felt like it was the right punishment? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: I could do it.
You could? Uh-huh. Any reservations?
739
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
No. Mr. Overdorf, how do you
feel about the death penalty, being a juror on a death penalty case, whether you could follow the way the State of Florida asks you to do this? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: I'm not really sure. Why not? I'm
Not really sure.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: just not -MS. NIXON:
I -- I don't know.
Did you have feelings about the
death penalty in general say before you walked into the courtroom -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: friend? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: What? I support it. Is it the situation where Yes. Yes.
-- if you were talking to your
you would support it in theory, but -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: What's that?
Well, you have some reservation
about being a juror on a death penalty case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: decision. Making that type of
740
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON: decision?
Making that kind of serious
(Nods head.)
And you don't necessarily know
whether you could? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yeah. And describe to me what you
mean by not being able to make the decision? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Just having to make the
choice and continuing on. MS. NIXON: Okay. What do you think your
reaction would be to being put in that position? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: I don't know.
If you were chosen and if you
found -- you know, if you were on the jury and you said I find the defendant guilty -- well, do you think it might have an affect on your decision to find the defendant guilty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: I don't believe so.
But you're not sure? No. Do you have any other
thoughts so far that I haven't asked you about, about the death penalty or being a juror on a death penalty case?
741
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
No. Ms. Slocum? I think I could follow the
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
process and find either guilty or innocence, but as far as making the choice to whether or not someone lives or dies, I can't do that. MS. NIXON: Wouldn't be able to do that? No. And so just to -- just as
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: much as that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay.
Yeah, I just -- I would
not be able -- that choice is -- should be in somebody's greater hands than mine. choice. Not my
I have a hard enough time thinking about I can't make a decision
putting my animals down. on someone else's life. MS. NIXON: Mr. Plante? PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I appreciate that, Ms. Slocum.
Yes, I think I could
follow the case and decide at the end whether or not it was, you know, an aggravating circumstance or a mitigating circumstance. MS. NIXON: And then do you think you could go
either -- you have an open mind in a sense, you could go either direction depending on whether the
742
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
death penalty is justified in your -- after your weighing process? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes, ma'am.
Or whether life is the better
penalty after your weighing process? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Plante.
What were you -- did you have any thoughts about the death penalty say before you walked in here? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: it's justified. MS. NIXON: Okay. And -- okay. Ms. Mercado? I think it honestly Sometimes it's I don't have I do believe in some cases
any further questions. PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
depends like on the case. justified.
Sometimes it isn't. We can't hear you. I can, but
MS. NIXON:
maybe everybody else can't. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: honestly depends. I'm sorry. I said it
I mean, I can follow the
statutes of the law given to me and not just restrict myself to that. I believe I could, yeah. MS. NIXON: Okay. You think you could? Yeah. Between life and death,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
743
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
Do you -- did you prior to walking
in here have thoughts about the death penalty, an opinion about it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: no. MS. NIXON: Ms. Thompson? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: What's the question? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Not a definitive opinion,
That is a very valid -I can't hear her. She said what's the question. The
question is how do you feel about sitting on a death penalty case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: the choice. I'm not capable to make
I couldn't live with it, putting
someone guilty and not knowing whether or not they were guilty. MS. NIXON: Okay. Well, presumably you would
have sat on the jury and you would have listened to all the evidence in the case and you -- the state would have made the -- shown you through the evidence beyond and to the exclusion -- satisfied you beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You don't feel like you could do that?
744
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
No. And then the second
question because you're answering the question whether you could be a juror in the first place, right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: (Nods head.) And we haven't
Is that a "yes"?
even gotten to the penalty phase with you, right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: No? No. (Shakes head.)
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: penalty phase? decision? PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Do you think you could sit in the Do you think you could make that
I could probably go
through it, but I don't know. MS. NIXON: You don't know? I don't know. Prior to coming in here
today, did you have any thoughts about the death penalty? Did you formulate an opinion? Yes.
What were your thoughts and what
was your opinion? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I believe in an eye for an
745
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
eye, an arm for an arm.
I mean, if you kill
someone, then they should be on the death penalty. MS. NIXON: Okay. It's only fair.
So you agree with the availability
of the death penalty as a -- as a punishment for a crime? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: on the jury? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Yes.
But you don't want to be the one
Fair to say? Yes.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: wrong answers.
And, again, there are no right or There's only truthful ones. So I
appreciate your candor and I won't bother you anymore. Mr. Rosensweig? Yes.
Is it sweeg? Swag.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Swag?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: letter there. PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Yeah. I'm missing a
Okay, Rosensweig.
I was wondering why they
746
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
kept saying it wrong. MS. NIXON: Maybe we just got it all wrong.
But anyway, tell me how you feel about being a potential juror in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My conscience will not
allow me to be responsible, either directly or indirectly, for the death of another person. MS. NIXON: Okay. What about the -- what Do you have any -Yeah, that includes that
about the guilt phase? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: indirectly. MS. NIXON:
Indirectly? If guilt leads to death, I
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: am responsible. MS. NIXON: Okay.
What if it was not a case What if it
where the death penalty was at issue?
was a case, you know, a robbery where it was a -you know, the potential sentence was unknown to you, would you be able to be a juror in a case like that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That would require a
little bit further thought by me, but off the top of my head I probably could. But knowing what the
outcome could be for this case, it's kind of moot. MS. NIXON: Okay. Okay. I appreciate your --
747
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and what is that based upon?
Is that your -- I
think you said it was conscience? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: A conscience. I am very
religious, so I base a lot of my values on the Bible. So I'm basing a lot of that on that. Okay. So it's a religious belief? Correct.
MS. NIXON:
That is the basis for that? (Nods head.) Thank you. Mr. Colon, how
do you feel about being a potential juror on this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: think I could do it. I mean, to be honest, I
It's just I don't find
myself in -- I find myself in the middle. MS. NIXON: In the middle? I would basically have to
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
look at everything, hear both sides, and I don't think anything would pop in saying, Yeah, I think he's guilty or, yeah, he's not guilty given that I would just have to weigh the options. MS. NIXON: mind? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yeah. So you would listen with an open
You haven't predetermined one way
748
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
or the other? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. No. I appreciate that. And,
Mr. Colon, did you have any feelings about the death penalty prior to walking in the courtroom? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I mean, I do go to church,
I'm very religious about that, but on that case, I don't take judgment on other people. So, I mean,
I would have to -- I don't just follow my beliefs. Like you said, I would have to go by everything that is presented. MS. NIXON: Okay. And you could follow the
law in the state of Florida? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yeah.
And by the way, I do not take
lightly the task that we ask -MR. LENAMON: come sidebar? (The following discussion was had before the Court and out of the hearing of the prospective jury:) MR. LENAMON: Judge, she is vouching for her She's confusing Objection. Objection. Can we
decision, the state of Florida.
-- and I'll clear it in my jury selection, but she began with this confusing statement about the
749
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
State of Florida's way, can you do it the State of Florida's way and she incorporated herself as part of the State of Florida and now she's going further and vouching in her decision to seek the death penalty when she says -THE COURT: You didn't hear what she said. Yeah, I don't take lightly.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:
I don't take lightly your task How do you
that you may have to do as a juror. know that's not the statement? MS. NIXON: they said we. THE COURT:
Everybody said it yesterday except
She didn't say -- she made no
statement because we brought this I'm vouching for it. I was interpreting she was getting ready to
say, I don't take lightly the tasks that you're going to have to do. It's a difficult task.
That's exactly what she said. MS. ARNOLD: Judge, and while we're here can I
ask that Mr. Reich -MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Reich heard it, too. Mr. Reich? While we're here,
Your Honor, I just ask that Mr. Reich refrain from editorial comments at the table because I can hear them and the jurors sitting --
750
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. REICH: MS. ARNOLD: MR. REICH: MS. ARNOLD:
I did? Yes. I'm sorry. I can hear him, so I think the
jurors that are sitting in the front row can hear him. THE COURT: I did not hear her say, I'm
vouching because we filed it, therefore it's proper. I understood she was getting ready to
ask, I understand you have a difficult task and we don't take this lightly, the difficult task we're asking you to do, which is absolutely correct. objection's overruled. (Whereupon, the discussion at the bench was concluded and the following resumed:) MS. NIXON: Mr. Colon, I was saying, by the So
way, I do not, we, all of us here in the courtroom, do not take lightly the tasks before you, before whoever is chosen on this jury. This
is the highest level of civic duty that we can ask of civilians and so that's why it's taking -we're taking the time and going through these questions methodically and we very much appreciate your cooperation and your participation in this. Ms. Miller, I'll ask you similar questions
751
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
about how you feel about being a potential juror on a case where the death penalty is one of the potential punishments? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I have the same feelings
as the gentleman over here, I don't think I could do that to anyone. and my conscience. MS. NIXON: Okay. I just couldn't. I really don't. It's faith
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Mr. Rosensweig? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON:
Just for the record, you indicated
Yes.
So you have a religious belief? I do.
Or at least framework -Yes.
-- from which you cannot -I cannot refrain from
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: that. I'm sorry. Okay.
MS. NIXON:
And is that -- is that
feeling, you could not be moved from that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Not at all. I
Thank you, Ms. Miller. Mr. Siddell? Yes, ma'am?
appreciate your candor. PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
752
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
How do you feel about being a
potential juror in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I could serve as a juror,
but I would not be able to be part of a death penalty. MS. NIXON: What's that based upon? Religious factors.
Personal feelings.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: death penalty.
I'm not opposed to the
I just don't know if I could live
the rest of my life knowing that I was part of somebody who was an end result per se. MS. NIXON: I understand. Is there anything
that would -- that could move you from that position or is that unalterable? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: inalterable. I don't think it's
I think it's based off this I don't
particular case and evidence presented.
know if I would be able to come to conclusion of death. life. MS. NIXON: But you don't think that the -- of I might be able to come to a conclusion of
the two potential penalties, at least one of them
753
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
would be removed from your -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. From mine, yes. Now, just to be clear, we
haven't presented any evidence and you shouldn't know much about the case. So what -- why would
you -- what factors are you thinking of that make you think that it's this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, if evidence is
presented and the person is found guilty and then we were presented with that, I don't think I would be one of those people who would be able to say he would be given death. serve life in prison. MS. NIXON: You would always say that? Yes. I would say that he should
I appreciate that, Mr. Siddell.
Mr. Kinsler, now you missed some stuff, so you let me know if there's something you need -- some filling in you need. But that being said, how do
you feel about being a potential juror? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: he felt about it, but -MS. NIXON: Mr. Siddell? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah, the guy next to me. When you say he, you mean I feel the same exact way
754
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
She's taking it down.
When you
say he, we don't know who that is. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't think I could live
with like knowing I was part of a decision that big between life and death of a person. MS. NIXON: Okay. And is it fair to say that
your reaction would be the same, and that is of the two potential penalties, one would be erased for you? There would only really be one? Well, I would probably be
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
like bias -- if a close friend or family member, my emotions probably would take over. MS. NIXON: Right. You understand what I'm
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: saying? MS. NIXON: Right.
And you understand that,
of course, you wouldn't sit on a case where it was a close family member or friend, either way. I
mean, whether it was the victim or the defendant, you wouldn't sit on that case of course. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay.
So in a case where you didn't know
anyone, could you listen with an open mind and make the decision or you don't think you could? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't think I could.
755
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
Thank you, Mr. Kinsler.
appreciate your answer. feel about this? PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Ms. Lopez, how do you
I know that I could keep
an open mind and given whatever is given to me, continue to keep that and from what my opinions might be out of that. MS. NIXON: your opinions? Okay. Thank you. Now what are
Did you -- prior to walking in
here when you -- before you even knew that you were on jury service, did you have an opinion about the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Just -- not really because I hear about Not really.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I've never really thought about it.
it, but never really gave it too great of thought. I never thought I would be in that position. MS. NIXON: Ms. Baker? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I really conscientiously Okay. I appreciate your answers.
couldn't vote for the death penalty and I would have a hard time even sitting in judgment of the defendant in general. MS. NIXON: In the first phase?
756
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Uh-huh.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I have -- I would have a
hard time sitting in judgment. MS. NIXON: Why? Just because I don't feel
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I'm in good conscience that -- that I would want to -- not that I don't want to do my civic duty, but I just don't feel in my heart that I could be in judgment of someone else. MS. NIXON: Okay. And we appreciate that.
And I don't mean to be -- you know, to guilt anyone into doing their civic duty, of course, and that's why we want truthful answers. that. I appreciate
Is it based upon just your personal
feelings or a religious basis or just long time feelings? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It's just -- I think part
of it would be my religious basis and part of it is just my conscience. I just -- I just don't
feel in my heart I can do that. MS. NIXON: Okay. And could you be -- could
anything change your mind about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: No. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
757
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Mr. Durham? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes, ma'am?
potential juror in a case like this? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It is not my life's desire
to sit on a case where someone's life might be at stake. However, I have no problem with making the
proper decision based upon what I'm required to do. MS. NIXON: Okay. And upon the evidence
that's presented to you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Upon the evidence,
whatever it is, yes, ma'am. MS. NIXON: Thank you, Mr. Durham. Did you
have any feelings about the death penalty prior to coming here? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, I'm a little I appreciate the
contrary to some of the people.
gospel and I see in God's words many -MR. LENAMON: Can we come sidebar?
(The following proceedings were had before the Court and out of the hearing of the prospective jury:) MR. LENAMON: Judge, I'm going to object to
Brad King's former deacon partner getting up and
758
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
preaching the Bible about the death penalty because that's exactly where he's going. If he
wants to do it outside the presence of this jury and she wants to question him on it, that's fine, but that's exactly where he was going, Judge. THE COURT: How do you know that? Because contrary to these
MR. LENAMON:
people, I see in the Bible, and I think he was going down that road. THE COURT: MS. NIXON: question. Response from the state? I think he was answering the
I think his views about the death
penalty need to be explored, but if they don't want to explore his views about the death penalty, then I guess... MR. LENAMON: They can explore them outside
the presence of the jury. THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: that. MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: privately. That's fine. Okay. We'll talk to him You want to do that? It's okay with me. All right. I don't have any problem with
759
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Whereupon, the discussion at the bench was concluded and the following resumed:) MS. NIXON: Mr. Martin, how do you feel about
being a potential juror in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't mind. You know, I
can hear the evidence I have to. MS. NIXON: Okay. And prior to coming to the
court -- prior to coming to jury service, let's put it, did you have feelings -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm for the death penalty.
If you done something and you're found guilty and you need to, I have no problem with that. MS. NIXON: price? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I mean pay the price. Not When you say you need to, pay the
only -- my personal opinion is I don't -- I think that there's too much of taxpayer money wasted on life imprisonment. If it's guilty, that's it.
You need to -- let's go. MS. NIXON: Okay. Well, let's talk about that
for a minute because a moment ago you said that you would listen to everything with an open mind? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would. I would listen
to it with an open mind and if they were found guilty, then when it came time for sentencing --
760
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
Yes. -- that would be -- I
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
mean, I would sit there and say, Well, he's guilty, he's guilty. happen. MS. NIXON: Okay. Let's -- what do you mean Would you -That's what's going to
by that's what's going to happen?
and let me ask the question, would you do the process that I talked about? That is determine
whether there's aggravating circumstances of the ones that the judge gives you and then consider any mitigating circumstances, whatever they might be, determine whether they were proven to your satisfaction of the law, and then give them whatever the value you wish to give them and then weigh it against the aggravating circumstances and then determine whether that justifies a sentence of death with an open mind and would life in prison be an option for you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I mean, that's just -MS. NIXON: Okay. Because like I said, I don't know about life.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I'm -- if you -- if you do the crime, that's it. Let's go ahead and move on. That's the way I
761
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
feel.
I mean, that's -Okay. I appreciate your candor. It's probably wrong, it's
MS. NIXON:
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
probably old school, but that's the way I feel. MS. NIXON: I appreciate your candor and
that's -- of course that's one of the things we need to know from you. And if anybody feels You
similarly, we would like to talk about it.
bring up a good point, an interesting point, and that is this whole issue of cost of life imprisonment. about that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON: Mr. Kinsler? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think no amount of money Okay. (No response.) Over -Anyone else feel similarly or think
Nobody else?
should be put on a person's life. MS. NIXON: Opposite end? Yes.
Anybody feel the same as Now, let's
Mr. Martin or the same as Mr. Kinsler?
assume that it even has crossed one of your minds, and Mr. Martin in particular, assuming you feel that way, this is one of those opinions that I was talking about earlier, could you set it aside and
762
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
say, you know, I do have that feeling, but that's not one of the factors I'm supposed to be considering and I'm not going to consider it in making this decision. I might consider it next
week when I'm, you know, voting, but for this decision today, I'm not going to consider it. you do that, Mr. Martin? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: I don't know. Can
You don't know? I don't know. Anybody else that it
crossed their mind and they just wanted to think about it, want to talk about the cost of life imprisonment, it's going to weigh on them, going to be a factor? Nobody? (No response.) I
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Gillum? Yes, ma'am.
appreciate your answers. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON:
How do you feel about being here,
being a potential juror in a death penalty case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: that. I don't want to comment on
I'm just answering the question, you know.
Because, you know, I could listen to the other comments that has been made, you know. It's --
763
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it's nothing really that you just come up with at spur of moment and say, Hey, you know, I'll do this, I'll do that. But as far as the death
penalty, I'm not for the death penalty. MS. NIXON: Okay. Do you -- understanding
that you're not for it, is it one of those opinions you could set aside and say, You know what, I could recommend death in a case where I found it to be justified? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, because I -- I would I mean
rather just let a person sit on death row. just life. MS. NIXON: Okay.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: time to think about it.
They would have plenty of It would be a slow death,
but that's the way I see it. MS. NIXON: So you feel as if life in prison
would be a better penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes. Is it -- is it fair to say
that you would never impose or recommend the death penalty regardless of the situation, regardless of the circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: That's a good question.
Because the question is are you
764
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
opposed to the death penalty? a fixed opinion of yours? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON:
Are you -- is that
I wouldn't recommend it.
You would not? No. Thank you, Mr. Gillum. I
appreciate your answers. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I know it's kind of a
vague answer, but that's the way I feel -MS. NIXON: Okay. -- simply because I do not
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: want to be here. MS. NIXON:
You don't want to be here? No, ma'am. No, sir and
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: no, ma'am. MS. NIXON: Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Gillum.
Ms. Eubanks, how do you feel about being a potential juror on a case where death penalty is, you know, an issue? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I can do it. My opinion It's
on the death penalty is it's situational. dependent upon the case.
The only way that I
would ever be able to say someone should get the death penalty is if the evidence presented was no shadow of a doubt they were guilty.
765
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
Okay. Shadow of a doubt would be
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: life. MS. NIXON: Okay.
Well, let's talk about that
a little bit because the legal situation you would find yourself in is if you are on the jury, the question would be presented to you in the guilt phase, that is the beginning, the first phase. We're going a little backwards here, I know that. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: That's okay.
In the first part of the case you
would be presented with evidence about whether the state proved the elements of the offenses beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, okay. And you would have to come to the
conclusion that the state did that, the elements of the offenses were proven beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. You would be
satisfied if you were a jury because that part of the case, there would be a unanimous verdict. Meaning it would be the verdict of each juror and of the jury as a whole. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay.
So you, if you were on that jury,
would have been satisfied that the defendant was
766
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then you would You It
go to the next phase, the penalty phase. would be satisfied. That's already done.
would not be -- it's almost as if it was given to you by someone else. satisfaction is over. these two penalties. So the question to you is would you hold the state to a higher burden in that first part and say, Look, I'm going to have to be -- it's going to have to be proven beyond, beyond a reasonable doubt, higher than that because I know I'm going to the next phase. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: it's a death penalty. Well, yes, because to me You know, you're holding I don't take it Like I You say, Okay, my I'm only deciding between
someone's life in your hands.
lightly and say, Okay, yeah they did it.
agree you would have to have a higher burden of proof. MS. NIXON: Okay. And by the way, now I'll
just mention it now, it's not beyond a shadow of a doubt, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether you consider those to be the same or not is another issue. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, ma'am.
767
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON:
But so you would say there would
be a higher burden because of the ultimate potential penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: (Nods head.)
Ms. Eubanks, I appreciate that.
What were your feelings about the death penalty prior to coming in today? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: situational. MS. NIXON: I think you said that. Yeah, I'm not against it. To me I feel it's
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Ti just depends on what the case -- what's going on. MS. NIXON: Okay. I mean, it's, yeah,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: situational. MS. NIXON: Okay.
Ms. McCray, do you -- do No, okay. No.
you know each other?
potential juror in a case like this? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Why? Because just I don't like Not good.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
to give opinions on death penalty.
768
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MS. NIXON: all?
You don't like giving opinions at
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Ever?
No.
No. Understanding you're
uncomfortable with it, is it something you could do understanding that, you know, the Court, it's your civic duty, Ms. McCray, we're asking you to do this, we know you're uncomfortable with it, can you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. No. At all or just because of
the penalty, potential penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't like giving
opinions on cases like this. MS. NIXON: opinion? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. (Shakes head.) Thank you. Ms. Kingcade? Okay. Not able to do any kind of
Kingcade, yes.
Are you okay? Yes.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: the microphone.
Because I don't know if I'm near
769
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yeah, I can hear you.
How are you? I'm doing fine.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: potential juror? PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I'm not sure yet.
I'm
kind of struggling with that. MS. NIXON: Tell me about your struggle. I don't know, it depends
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
on the circumstances and I guess I have to hear them. MS. NIXON: It depends on the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. And death penalty, I'm not Yeah.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: sure. MS. NIXON:
Well, tell me why you're not sure.
What do you mean? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm just really not sure I might could,
if I could do it or not, if I can. but I don't know. MS. NIXON:
I'm just being honest. And that's
I appreciate that.
very -- and it's an understandable answer under the circumstances.
770
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Right.
And I understand -- if that's your Did you have opinions about
answer, I understand.
the death penalty prior to being asked to serve on a jury? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Not really. Not really.
You were never put under -- put in
a situation of having to make -- make that call? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Never. Thank you.
Obviously, okay.
You're welcome.
Ms. Keller, how do you feel about
being a potential juror? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: uncomfortable. penalty at all. MS. NIXON: Is that a fixed opinion? It's fixed. I don't like it. I'm very
I do not believe in the death
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: could do ever? Okay.
Unalterably opposed to the death
(Nods head.) So it's not something you
771
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Keller. or -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay.
No. I appreciate it, Ms.
Is that based upon a religious belief
Yes.
-- long held -And -- yeah. Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Ms. Mitcham?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I believe that I could
enter it with an open mind and depending on the circumstances, make a decision one way or the other. MS. NIXON: Okay. Do you think you could do
that framework that the judge set forth and that we've talked about so far? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes, ma'am. Did
You could follow it, okay.
you have opinions about the death penalty prior to coming to jury service? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, I never really thought
about it that much, ma'am. MS. NIXON: to think. Understandable. Okay. I'm trying
Mr. Nellis, how are you? Good. How are you?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Good.
How do you feel about be a
772
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
potential juror? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: mind. MS. NIXON: circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Absolutely. And take into account all the I can come with an open
And weigh them? Yes, ma'am.
And then make a determination? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Did you have
any strong feelings about the death penalty prior to coming here? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: against it. the case. MS. NIXON: Giselbach? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Bach. Okay. Thank you. Mr., is it I'm not really for or
It would all depend on the facts in
Like Amberbach? Kind of.
Mr. Giselbach, how do you feel
about being here, being a potential juror, sitting on a case where the death penalty is one of the potential penalties?
773
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON:
I could do it.
And you could weigh all the
Yes.
And you would consider whatever
aggravating circumstances were presented and then determine whether they were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: recommend life? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes. Yes.
If they're not, you could
If those are not done, right? Right.
You would consider any and all
mitigating circumstances presented? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes.
Determine whether they were proven
to your satisfaction of the law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Yes.
And then give them whatever weight
you determine them to have? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes. And is there -- do you have
any reservations about that?
774
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Not really. And prior to coming to jury
service, did you have any strong feelings about the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: it. Not really. I believe in
It kind of depends upon the situation. MS. NIXON: Determine when it's justified and
when not? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yes. And, Ms. Bourgeois, how do
you feel about sitting here and being a potential juror? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm fine with that part of
it as far as weighing all the evidence, but when it would come to the -- the decision as to whether it was life or the death penalty, I'm a pro-life person and I don't believe in the death penalty. MS. NIXON: Is that a -- is that an
unalterable position? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: firm religious belief. MS. NIXON: Okay. Understood. And you don't Yes, that is. That's a
think there's anything that could change your mind about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Not on the death penalty,
775
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
no, ma'am. MS. NIXON: Okay. Understand. Now, is there
anybody else during this process here that we've been talking that says, You know what, I -- maybe I could, maybe my position could be changed a little bit depending on the circumstances, if I weighed everything? of the discussion? in any way? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MS. NIXON: Thank you. (No response.) Anybody feel that way because Anybody change their opinion
Anybody have any questions of me?
I don't have any further questions. Okay. Let's take about ten
THE COURT:
minutes here, a break, and we'll start with the defense after the break. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel exits the courtroom.) (Whereupon, a break was taken.) THE COURT: Let's talk to Mr. Durham first.
(Prospective juror enters courtroom.) THE COURT: Just have a seat, sir, wherever Okay. So we're on record. The
you were sitting.
Mr. Durham, Juror No. 132, is present.
attorneys wanted to speak with him privately because he was making some reference about the
776
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
gospel and his view of the death penalty.
So
let's explore that further without the other jurors present. MS. NIXON: And I -- let me say that I think I
asked you a question, Mr. Durham, about -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: You had, yes, ma'am.
-- about what your feelings about I guess whether you had
the death penalty.
feelings about the death penalty prior to coming to jury service? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: answer? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, ma'am. My comment Yes, ma'am.
So can you continue with your
was going to be that, yes, as I read the gospel, as I read God's word, there are many instances in there where God used the death penalty in the history of Israel and so on and so forth. no problem with it. where I come from. MS. NIXON: Yes. So you don't have a That was my opinion. I have That's
religious disagreement with the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, ma'am. I'm not
specifically for it, but I am not against it. MS. NIXON: Okay.
777
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Let me put it that way.
believe that the death penalty should be used in its proper perspective and when it's time for it to be used, yes, ma'am. MS. NIXON: Okay. And you can follow the laws
of the State of Florida? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Absolutely.
They will not conflict with your
religious beliefs in such a way -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: my religious beliefs. MR. LENAMON: Good morning, sir. How are you? It does not conflict with
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:
Good morning, sir.
How does your religious beliefs
play in, in terms of either leaning towards the death penalty because you know that in your belief that God had used it or that it may factor into your decision making, that you incorporate those beliefs into your actual decision making? does that play out? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, let me give you an In God's word How
example, just a quick example.
there is an instance where God told his people to go in and take Jericho, but leave everything there. Anything that's brought out goes into the
778
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
treasury.
But there was one man named Aiken who
brought out something for himself. And God then said, There's sin in the camp and God told Joshua to make a decision, go find this man, because until you do, things are going to happen in the camp. So God then told Joshua to do
this and in this time they found this man named Aiken and God's word was, He is to be stoned to death. The instance was a complete disobedience of the law of God that he had passed down at that particular time. So when there's a disobedience,
a complete disobedience of the law, and in this particular instance it was, God's judgment came down and I believe it was the right one, it was fair, because he said, Do not do this, period, the end, and this is the consequence and there was. MR. LENAMON: Well, how do you factor that in
with Jesus Christ and when he was -- had that prostitute thrust on him and threw her in the sand and -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I agree with you
wholeheartedly and we're talking -- we're talking law versus grace. And Jesus came, he died for us, We're talking a
and offers us salvation by grace.
779
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
spiritual aspect.
When we sow to the flesh, we When we sow to the spirit,
reap from the flesh.
we reap to the spirit. I worked for the Department of Corrections for 13 years as their senior chaplain. inmates. I saw many
I saw inmates that had been on death
row, inmates that I counseled, so on and so forth. My objective wasn't what they did. They're
spending their -- their crime was being punished by coming to prison. My whole focus was their
spiritual life and there is a difference in the spiritual life and physical life. MR. LENAMON: appreciate it. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you very much, sir. I do
I have no further questions.
All right. Bring the rest in?
THE BAILIFF: THE COURT: in.
Yeah, let's bring everyone else
(Whereupon, the prospective jury panel enters the courtroom.) THE COURT: MR. REICH: Okay. We ready?
Your Honor, may we approach the
bench for a moment?
780
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(The following proceedings were had before the Court and out of the hearing of the prospective jury:) THE COURT: MR. REICH: Yes, sir? During the break I went downstairs I was on the phone to my
to smoke a cigarette.
office and I didn't realize who I was approaching to ask for a lighter. Three of them were jurors,
including Mr. Kinsler, the lady who is sitting in the front row over here all the way to the right. THE COURT: MR. REICH: Eubanks? Yes, sir. And one other whose
name I don't remember.
I just want you to know
that I -- before I realized who it was I asked for a light and I told them I'm not supposed to be talking to you and I walked away. THE COURT: MR. REICH: Uh-huh. I just want you to know that was You've never -- I
the extent of the exchange.
don't believe I've heard you tell the jury about contact with lawyers and that kind of thing. you could do that, I'd appreciate it. MS. ARNOLD: I just have a question. If
Mr. Reich, did you say anything on the phone that causes you any concern?
781
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. REICH: THE COURT:
No, no, not at all. All right. That's fine.
(Whereupon, the discussion at the bench was concluded and the following resumed:) THE COURT: up. Okay. We're going to start back
If you happen to see the attorneys or the
defendant, they're not supposed to say anything to you. They're not supposed to have any contact
with you at all, whether it's direct or indirect, so there is no appearance of any inappropriate context. If you have happen to run into one of the attorneys and they ignore you and don't talk with you, do not hold that against them. following my direction. All right. Mr. Lenamon, you may proceed, sir. Thank you. Good morning. They're
MR. LENAMON:
Before we get started, I just wanted to address one thing and make sure that there's no confusion about the issue that Ms. Nixon referenced when she was talking about, I think the question that she phrased to you was, Can you do it the State of Florida's way was the only issue. remember that? And at some point I know in that questioning, Do y'all
782
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
either before or after, she made reference that she was the State of Florida and that's true. She's the State of Florida. But when she was
talking about doing it the State of Florida's way, she was referring to the law. she was saying. What I want to make clear is the law and her way are not the same. So if you're confused that That's really what
you believe Ms. Nixon told you, you have to do it her way and she's the State of Florida, then you're incorrect. Does everybody understand that? (Affirmative
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON:
Just so we can take it one step
further because I don't want to do like a social studies reminder, this is the executive branch. The prosecution is a separate branch of the government than the ones who created the laws that we're going to talk about a little later. The laws that we're going to talk about later, and I'm going to point out, although authorize the death penalty, they favor life. And I will show
you how that is written by the legislature that favors life and we'll talk about that in a little bit, okay.
783
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So having addressed that issue, I'm going to pass out some photos. There was a questionnaire
that went around and in the questionnaire we asked if you had heard about Ms. Centracco's death. Ms. Centracco's death happened back in 2007. And
had you knew the name or recognized the name from or generally the circumstances from the newspaper, you may have remembered and put that information down and we talked about with you individually. But there were some billboards that were put up at some point in the investigation, probably into 2008 and 2009, that where her family offered a reward for the arrest of the person or persons involved in this incident. And I'm going to pass
out a small -- a little bit blurry photo of the award sign to see if it jogs your memory and also pass around a photograph of Ms. Centracco and see if that jogs your memory as well. approach the jurors? THE COURT: Yes, sir. I have multiple copies. Okay. Judge, may I
MR. LENAMON:
And this is the -- her photograph.
Please take
your time looking at the photographs because I'm going to be talking to you about some other issues. And just give them to one of the
784
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
corrections deputies when you guys are done. (Prospective jurors reviewing photographs.) MR. LENAMON: Does anybody recognize? Does
that jar anyone's memory as to seeing one of those signs or hearing about this incident before? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. (Raising hands.)
We have one hand.
Mr. Kinsler. Mr. Kinsler. Who else? Over
MR. LENAMON:
here in the second row. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:
Who's that? Colon.
Second in?
Your name, please? Colon.
Mr. Colon and Mr. Kinsler. And who else in the back row? I
MR. LENAMON:
think you raised your hand in the corner? raise your hand in the corner. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:
Did you
Yeah, I raised my hand.
Mr. Kinsler. Yeah, I raised my hand. And that's
All right.
Mr. Overdorf, all right. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. And on this side? Let's
All right, Mr. Giselbach.
see, what's your name, ma'am?
785
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: you. MR. LENAMON:
Mine's Keller. Thank
Keller and Baker, okay.
We'll need to talk about that The next photograph I'm
individually later on.
going to hand out is a graphic crime scene photograph that you're going to see if you are chosen to be on the jury. The purpose of showing
you this photograph has to do with a couple of things. Number one, is when we will be discussing the aggravating factors that take place and about your opinion of the death penalty and whether you can sit fairly on this jury. And later on when we're
talking about victim impact evidence which is evidence that you get to consider on some level, but actually not apply to the issue of the death penalty in regards to the uniqueness of Ms. Centracco. These are -- this is a graphic photo, but please take a look at it. (Prospective jurors reviewing photograph.) MR. LENAMON: Now, I'm going to give you some
additional information about the death penalty in a few moments, but I want to talk about those
786
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
photographs, specifically with some jurors that had indicated that they believe they could sit on this jury. And I'm not going to go in any I'm just going to kind of pick
specific order. people out.
Ms. Thompson, how are you? Good.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: photographs.
Those were some graphic
Do you have anybody in your life
that that person reminds you of Ms. Centracco? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No.
Sister, mother -No.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: that?
-- friend, or anything like
Is there anything about those photographs
that stands out in your mind that would cause you a pause? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No.
Ms. Mercado, do you have anybody
that you know that is in your life, a mother, a sister, an aunt, that remind you of -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No. Anything
-- Ms. Centracco?
about those photos that would cause you pause? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No.
Mr. Plante?
787
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes, sir.
Do you have anybody in your
life, mother, sister, friend, niece, that would -that remind you when you see those photographs? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No, sir.
And the reason I ask you that,
Mr. Plante, because naturally we're drawn to, you know, believe it or not, people who are attractive. She's a beautiful, beautiful girl and
this poor innocent girl is going to be the focus of the -- a big part of this case. And a lot of times when we have people in our lives, that reminds me of my sister, that reminds me of an old girlfriend, that reminds me of my daughter. I can't imagine my daughter ever being When we have to deal
brutally murdered like that.
with that situation, the emotions and the anger, the anger that we're drawn to comes out and sometimes comes out at inopportune times. So I want to ask you this question here: Is
there anything that after seeing those photographs that's going to put you in a position of compromise because there's an emotional attachment to that young girl aside from the issue that she is -- I'm sorry, did someone say something? I
788
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
thought I heard something.
Aside from the issue
that she's pretty and completely innocent and a victim in this case, is there anything that you see that could cause you problems? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. No, sir. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Colon, the same question, is there anybody in your life that you can relate to? aunt, niece? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No. Mother, sister,
Anything in those photographs
that cause you pause that's going to draw an emotion out that you're not going to be able to set aside later on, specifically really anger because I think that's one of the things that kind of really comes out? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Mr. Durham. Okay. No. I'm going to go over to
Is there anybody in your life that
you can relate to in terms of a family member or a friend, someone close? And you have a big group
of people that you know. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, sir, I really don't.
I do not know anyone that looks like her. MR. LENAMON: What about same age, 20, young
789
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
person, because you're a pastor and you deal with a large group of people on a regular basis? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Surprisingly enough, the
people I deal with are over 50. MR. LENAMON: Okay. So I can't get in on that
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: one. MR. LENAMON:
Is there any emotional Obviously, we're all
attachment that you see? very upset about that.
There's a certain amount
of disappointment, anger, and I can't describe all the -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My first thought was I mean, you know, this
compassion for the family.
young lady was evidently traumatized and if I were a father, which I am, you know, it would be difficult for the family. MR. LENAMON: Is that something that you would
be able to set aside in this particular case where it doesn't kind of affect your ability to listen with an open ear? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah, I believe I could
set that aside with no problem. MR. LENAMON: Mr. Mitcham? Right.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
790
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Ms. Mitcham, I'm sorry.
What
are your thoughts about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: problem. I wouldn't have any
I didn't -- what was your question? My question is, first of all, do
MR. LENAMON:
you know anybody she reminds you of? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No, not at all.
And it doesn't necessarily have
to look like her, but it could be like a 20-year-old niece, that kind of thing. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No, sir.
And putting -- getting past
that, is there anything attached that you feel? Like the pastor was talking about, compassion, anything -- a lot of people feel anger. That's
where we're really concerned about, the anger part, because a lot of people can't get past the anger and sometimes it affects the juror's ability to keep an open mind because they're not focused on -- it's like when you're looking at something, you keep looking at that picture and everything's going around you, all this stuff that you should be listening to and paying attention to you disregard because you're just looking at that picture thinking, Oh, my God, how could he have
791
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
done that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: issue. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Mr. Nellis? Yes, sir? That would not be an
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you of? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Do you know anybody that reminds
No, sir. And what was your
feelings when you saw those photographs? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Just compassion for the
family, but that's about it. MR. LENAMON: No anger? No, sir. Would you be able to set
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
aside any possible feelings that are contrary to what is required to even do your duty, would you be able to set aside those emotions? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: (Nods head.)
Mr. Giselbach? Yes, sir?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you of anybody? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:
What did you -- did it remind
No, sir.
And what were your feelings?
792
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Compassion for the family. Nothing emotional that's
going to cause you to shut down and not listen to the evidence -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you? Okay. No, sir.
-- that we put out in front of
Ms. Lopez, what were your thoughts of
the photograph? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: anyone. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And compassion like It didn't remind me of
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
everyone else stated for the family. MR. LENAMON: No emotion that's going to cause
a problem with you and your ability to sit on this jury? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No.
Ms. Lopez, you were asked some I want to give
questions about the death penalty. you a hypothetical, okay.
Let's say you knew that
somebody was completely guilty of a premeditated first-degree murder. They did it and there was It wasn't an
absolutely no defense to it.
accident, it was not insanity, there's no mental mitigation, clearly this person intended to kill
793
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that person.
And you're on the jury and you
listen to that evidence and that's your -- that's what you believe, what are your thoughts about the death penalty in that given circumstance? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, after listening to
every -- all the evidence and if then directed my belief that that's what happened, I wouldn't have a problem. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Would you always give
that person the death penalty in that situation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Would I always give --
listening to the evidence? MR. LENAMON: If you believe that person
committed a first-degree murder, it was premeditated, there's no defense to it, it wasn't accident, no misfortune, no insanity, do you believe that you would always give that person -recommend the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes. Why? There's nothing to change
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
my mind if it was presented to me and I believed everybody without -- as long as I understood everything with no doubt, yeah, I would. MR. LENAMON: When you say nothing would
794
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
change your mind, what do you mean by that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Any other information,
additional information -MR. LENAMON: Okay. What about --- that would change my
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: mind. MR. LENAMON:
What about if you were presented
some mitigation to consider in regards to the things that happened in that person's life. Would
that change your mind even though you knew that person was guilty of first-degree murder and it was premeditated first-degree murder, they thought about it, they planned it, they did it? mitigation change your mind? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. No. Would any
Do you know what mitigation is? Other -- other evidence
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: that's not as strong. THE COURT:
Bad childhood, mental health
issues, problems in the family of the hypothetical defendant. MR. LENAMON: mind or no? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No. Would that stuff change your
795
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Okay.
Thank you, ma'am. You know, you
Mr. Giselbach, same hypothetical.
completely believe that somebody committed a first-degree premeditated murder. They planned
it, there's no defense to it, you were sitting on the jury so you listen to the evidence and you're completely sure that it was premeditated and planned out ahead of time. accident, no nothing. No insanity, no
What are your thoughts
about the death penalty in that situation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: for it. I would be for it. I'd be
But like she was saying or about the
questions you were asking her, the mitigations or whatever it's called, different situations, of course, would be -- you'd have to bring all those into play. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Why do you think it's
important to bring all those into play? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: don't have an answer. MR. LENAMON: you? I mean, what's important for Personal opinion, I really
If you believe somebody committed a
first-degree, cold-blooded killing and you have to decide on whether they get death or not and you completely believe that they did it and I know you
796
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
said you're for it, why would it be important for you to hear about mitigation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Why would it be important?
Yeah, for you? Because I would have to It could be as far as wrong
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: know every situation. place, wrong time.
People do things when they're
younger or things could have been done to them when they were younger to cause them to do things as they've gotten older. MR. LENAMON: about that. Okay. Tell me a little bit
Why do you believe that and what is
your background in relation to kind of believing that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't really -- just I don't really
it's something that I believe.
have -- me, personally, I haven't been through anything like that and I don't even think I know anybody who's been through anything like that. MR. LENAMON: Okay. But for some reason you
have attached the need to know more about a person's life. I'm trying to find out where that
comes from and why you're asking because that's the law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Right.
797
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
And we'll talk about that a
little later, but you came up with that on your own -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: from? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm not really sure. It's Right.
-- so I'm asking where that came
just something that I believe in. situation is different.
I mean, every
In every situation That's pretty much
there's different reactions. it. MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Mr. Nellis, what are your
thoughts about that same hypothetical that I gave Mr. Giselbach? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: facts. It would all depend on the
You know, in deciding you would think if His family is obviously
the man has family, kids.
victims of the whole thing also. MR. LENAMON: Right. And you got to think about
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
all the different things before you decide if the man should die or not. MR. LENAMON: So in other words, if you
believe he was completely guilty, there was no question in your mind it was premeditated, that
798
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you're not going to just jump right away and decide to put him to death. more? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: things. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Tell me some of the Yeah, there's a lot of There's something
things that you think. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: got kids. Like I say, if the man's
You know, you're traumatizing the kids You're You know,
even more for the rest of their lives. putting the family through a lot more. a lot of reasons like that.
Just the man has You
never committed a crime before in his life. know, obviously he wasn't a bad person. just made a bad decision. MR. LENAMON:
You know,
What about you, Ms. Mitcham?
What are your thoughts on that when we were talking about this premeditated, cold-blooded killed somebody and what are your thoughts about the death penalty in relation to that? Is it
something that you should just -- you're going to do every time or is there something else? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, I think it depends on I think you
the situation and the facts at hand. have to examine everything.
It's not a light
799
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
decision and I think you need to be absolutely sure before you would make a decision of death. MR. LENAMON: Now, what are some of the things
that would be important to you that you would want to look at before you decide whether to recommend death? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, like the gentleman
next to me said, you know, children involved, his previous life, if he was in trouble all the time. There's just a lot of little things you need to take into consideration when making that serious a decision. MR. LENAMON: Mr. Plante, when we're talking
about the death penalty, I know that you were asked, you know, what -- how you feel about it. In the context of sitting in a courtroom, knowing that you're going to have to make that final decision, what are the thoughts that come to mind of some of the things that you would want to know about the person that you are sitting in judgment of? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't know. I think I'd
like to know the whole situation, whether or not the whole situation was brought about by just the one person or whether there was extenuating
800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
circumstances where he knew the family where he was committing a crime, those types of things. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Okay. Now, what I want
to share with you, something the prosecutor had talked about a little bit, and that is how the death penalty process works here in Florida. And
I think she kind of generalized some stuff, so I'm going to jump ahead and talk about stuff she's already brought out. In this particular case there is an allegation that the state believes they're going to be able to prove four different aggravating factors. Now,
what an aggravating factor is, is the legislature has said that in first-degree murder cases, that you can enhance or increase punishment if there's at least one aggravating factor and that that factor is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So essentially what the legislature has said is that there are certain circumstances that we provide a list of specific aggravating factors which are -- if proven beyond a reasonable doubt, could be considered in enhancing the possibility of the death penalty. that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: (No response.) Is everybody with me on
801
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON: you, Mr. Plante.
So I'm going to be staying with They talked about four of them.
The first is called cold, calculated, and premeditated. The second is called -- it's a
burglary, basically called felony murder. Pecuniary gain is money. So if, you know, you go
rob a store, your motive is to steal, that's the kind of thing. And the other one is witness -It's really
it's kind of a witness elimination. called avoid arrest. arrest.
That's what we call an avoid
So I'm going to talk about this one here, the avoid arrest one first, okay. you a hypothetical. I'm going to give
Do you think there's a
difference, Mr. Plante, in if somebody goes and plans to commit a bank robbery and while they're committing, planning to commit a bank robbery, and they have a conversation with one of the people who is robbing the bank with them and they say, We're going to go rob that bank and to make sure that we don't get caught, we are going to kill the bank teller, kill the bank teller, and then make off with the money. Compared to someone who goes
to rob a bank and in the course is confronted in some kind of circumstance or situation with the
802
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
bank teller and the gun is discharged or the person shoots as a reactionary, not thinking. Do
you think there's a difference between the two of those? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes, there is.
Now, in our law, you can
consider the circumstances of the avoid arrest aggravator for both of those, but you would clearly assign them different weight. me, folks? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. (No response.) You follow
So if that's the If
situation -- so to make sure everybody sees.
that's the situation that we're talking about, in the first circumstance, let's say you get past that they're proven beyond a reasonable doubt because each of these aggravating factors have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That means
if there's some kind of question of whether they exist. For example, a burglary. There's a -- there's
a statute that you'll get to hear about that defines burglary and then it has all these other attachments of different things. Burglary could
be inside and it could be attached to the part of
803
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and it could not be attached to.
So if you're
talking about if something happens away from the house, the question becomes is it a burglary. I
mean, there's some statutory language that may or may not apply. But let's say you don't believe a burglary actually occurred when this killing. nothing to do with the killing. It had
You may not find
that that's proven beyond a reasonable doubt and you eliminate that. So that's not considered an
aggravating factor, okay. Let's say CCP. We know that premeditation,
premeditation is part of the charge you're going to hear and the first part Mr. Reich's going to deal with, they have to show some kind of thought before. And I think Ms. Nixon was talking about
it, there has to be something to show that there was -- they were thinking about it, but there could be -- there's no defined time. It's really
kind of left discretionarily up to you. But the heightened premeditation, when you're talking about like the planning in the first situation versus the second, you may say, There's no heightened premeditation here. I don't know They
what the State of Florida's talking about.
804
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
haven't proven that.
I mean, we could -- this
could have been -- this could have been -- it could have been a lot of things, but it wasn't proven. So that aggravator's eliminated.
So then that leaves you the pecuniary gain and the avoid arrest, which clearly if someone's going to rob somebody there's a motive for money involved. But, Mr. Plante, you may say, So what,
I don't think death really should be given any great weight when it comes to that particular aggravating circumstance and I'm not going to give it much. So you're only left with the avoid arrest. You get to look, if you get past the beyond a reasonable doubt portion and you believe that, yeah, it may have happened, it may have been proven, then you get to decide what weight is given. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. So your decision process
in weighing these aggravating factors is you and yours alone. Everybody who's sitting on this jury
when it comes to the penalty phase, unlike the guilt phase, the guilt phase is a decision of facts and a lot of believability issues,
805
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
credibility issues.
I'm sure Mr. Reich's going to
talk to you about credibility of witnesses and things like that. But it's not a moral The penalty phase is a Do you understand
compass-driven decision.
moral compass-driven decision. what I'm saying, Mr. Giselbach? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes.
This is morality.
You
get to attach your morals to the rules and make a decision based on those two in place and that's why we want to make sure we get people who are right in the middle, who are not going to go to one extreme or another and can follow the law and apply their morals of the community. So when we're talking about the avoid arrest aggravator, you get to decide what weight that -that gets. issue. So you have the aggravating factor
So avoid arrest is all that's left as an And if you found others, you You get the
aggravating factor.
can give whatever weight it is.
choice to decide what weight to apply to any given aggravating factor, any given mitigating factor. So technically, and I'm going to make an exaggerated, you know, statement here, you can decide that the age as you had talked about, you
806
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
had asked about the age, you can decide that because of his age and he's going to spend, you know, 60 years in prison and die and never get out because that's what's going to happen here, is that you can consider that as a mitigating factor and that alone, besides everything else that we've proved if we get to that. And, you know, that's the one thing I've really kind of not focused on at the beginning that we have to really kind of set aside. This is
a circumstance where we're putting the cart before the horse. We're putting the cart before the
horse in talking about sentencing and I'm talking -- you okay, Jim? And I'm talking about,
you folks with me, I'm talking about sentencing like he's done it. And we talked about this a little bit at the very beginning and I don't want you to make any mistakes that I believe Mr. Woods is guilty of these charges. He's presumed innocent. He's
presumed, protected by the cloth of innocence until proven guilty by the State of Florida beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. But my job is to get your feelings and opinions as if he was guilty and how you would
807
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
react in that circumstance because that's the only way we can get to a point where we have fair jurors who can decide both the guilt phase, guilt or innocence phase, and the penalty phase. everybody with me on that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: (No response.) Is
So when I'm sitting up here
talking about, you know, he's going to get 60 years, he's never getting out of prison, Mr. Reich's going to get up there, Mr. Reich is a very experienced lawyer who's been practicing 40 years. MS. NIXON: THE COURT: Judge, I'm going to object. Sustained. Mr. Reich is going to talk to
MR. LENAMON:
you about issues that have to do with the first part of the case and he's going to be addressing issues that have to do with Mr. Woods' defense. I
don't want you to think at any moment that we are contrary, that I'm sitting in the back because my job doesn't come into play unless Mr. Woods is convicted. If Mr. Woods is acquitted of these After jury
charges, you will never hear from me.
selection, you will not hear from me unless he is convicted of first-degree murder, period, end of
808
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
statement. So this is the only time I get to talk to you and I have to be straight with you about the obstacles that we have to overcome in death penalty cases because normally in -- normally in our society, we have the presumption of innocence that's attached to us. Constitutionally. And
with that, we have the state's burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. two things that start in every case. If this wasn't a death penalty case, we wouldn't be talking about sentencing. This is the Those are
only circumstance that we talk about sentencing is when there's a death penalty case that's involved and the reason we do that, which I'll talk about in a little bit, is -- is because the law provides in death penalty cases a special category of jurors that can only sit on a death penalty case. And the people who have made a conscientious objection to sitting on a death penalty case, I want you to listen very closely to this because I'm going to talk to you about this a little later at some point. Those of you who have said, yeah,
I can follow the law and I believe that I'm not taking an extreme position in regards to either I
809
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
believe that the defendant should get death every time there's a first-degree murder and that's why I was asking those questions because I wanted to know are you of the opinion that, yeah, it's automatic. If it's automatic, you're excluded.
So if you believe in the death penalty in every first-degree murder, you don't fit in the box to be able to sit on this jury. If you're at
the bottom part and you say that you can ever vote for the death penalty under any circumstances, you cannot fit in the box and be part of this jury. The only exception to that is that if you agree to enter into the weighing process, that you can set aside your scruples and commit to that you will keep an open mind and participate in the weighing process. the death penalty. You don't have to believe in You can still be against the
death penalty, but then you would be able to fall into this box. And why's that important? important? Why's that
Because we know that people in our
community come from all aspects of the community and different parts, including color, race, religion, and we want to make sure Mr. Woods has the fairest and most diverse jury possible that
810
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
could be sitting in on his trial. And if you're -- if your decision, and you have the right, you certainly have the right, you have the right, Mr. Baker? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Mr. Gillum? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yeah. Is it Mr. Baker?
That's me.
I'm sorry, Mr. Gillum?
You have the right to say, I
just don't want to be involved in this, this is not my thing. But is that what we want? Is that
the kind of society we want where if you could have been just as good a juror as Mr. Giselbach. I should remember your name. You can be just as
good a juror as him, but you decide, I really don't want to have to have the responsibility of somebody's life in my hands. Then guess what, if he gets a death sentence are you doing your civic duty if you could set aside, and I'm not saying you can, there's some people that just can't set it aside and I understand that. You know, I understand as a hard
core Catholic who clearly no matter what the church says is going to stick to a pro-life position and never going to change that under any
811
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
circumstance, I understand that. But a lot of people I think are more in a gray area and the question is can you come up here and say that you can consider it and do your duty and that you would listen to it and that's what I'm going to be talking about. Some of you can't do
it, some of you can, and we'll talk about that in a little bit. But as I was saying, we're in a situation that's a little different. So I don't want you to
be confused and think that I don't believe in his complete innocence. The way this is -- the way
this process is set up, it requires us to take a different approach and talk about things that are really uncomfortable. with me on that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: (No response.) Okay, folks? Is everybody
So let's go back to the So once the aggravating
aggravating factors.
factor comes into play, then we have what's called mitigation. Now, there are certain types of
mitigation that some people can accept and some people can't and I'm going to throw out one and I want to know from a couple people what their thoughts are.
812
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
If somebody is a drug user, Mr. Giselbach, what are your thoughts? Would you be able to
consider that as a mitigating factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes. Ms. Nellis? Yes.
Ms. Mitcham? Yes.
Mr. Plante? Yes, sir. Ms. Mercado? Yes.
Ms. Thompson? Yes. Mr. Lopez --
All right.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Mr. Colon? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: mitigating factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Ms. Lopez.
No, that's Ms. Lopez.
Yes.
Could you consider that as a
(Nods head.) So that could be a I'm going to There
possibility or a mitigating factor.
have to ask you a tough question, though.
813
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
may be some evidence that supports that there was sexual abuse in Michael's life by a caretaker, by a close family member, and that may become an issue. So I'm going to have to ask several of you people -- I'm going to ask all of you whether you have had somebody in your life, you personally, or someone close to you have been sexually abused. And then if you don't want to talk about it, just say private and we'll talk about it at a later time, maybe after lunch. So I'm just going to go through the list real quick. Ms. Spranger? Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall, I'm sorry? Private. Mr. Overdorf?
MR. REICH:
MR. LENAMON:
Private, okay. No.
Ms. Slocum? Private.
Mr. Plante? No, sir.
Ms. Mercado? No.
Ms. Thompson?
814
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Private.
Mr. Rosensweig? No.
Mr. Colon? No.
Ms. Miller? No.
Mr. Siddell? No.
Mr. Kinsler? No.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No?
No. Ms. Lopez? Private. Ms. Baker? No.
Mr. Durham? May I ask you a question?
Yes, sir. Would that include people
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
that I have counseled over the years or is it someone from the immediate family? MR. LENAMON: Probably in your case it would
probably include it, so we'll just --
815
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Then, yes, I'm aware. MR. LENAMON: Okay.
It could include it.
Mr. Gillum? No.
Ms. Eubanks? Private.
Ms. McCray? No.
Ms. Kingcade? Yes.
Ms. Keller? No.
Ms. Mitcham? No.
Mr. Nellis? No, sir.
Mr. Giselbach? No.
Ms. Bourgeois? Bourgeois.
Bourgeois? No. Okay. So let's go
Thank you.
back to this issue.
We're going to talk about Is there anybody
that a little later in detail.
816
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that would not be able to consider a sexual abuse situation as a mitigating factor? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Anybody?
(No response.)
Does anybody have a
response listening to a psychologist or a psychiatrist testify about issues related to complex -- what's called complex trauma? trauma, post-traumatic stress? Complex
Anybody who would
not be able to listen to evidence about it? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. (No response.)
So what's going to happen
then is that you're going to be presented with this information from the first part of the case and then there will be an opening statement in penalty phase just like in the guilt/innocence phase and then the defense would put on evidence after the state puts on evidence and there's something called victim impact which we'll talk about in a little bit. So essentially you have this trial taking place where it's just like the first trial. You
have your opening, the state puts on evidence, if they have additional evidence. They'll put on the
victim impact, which we're going to talk about in a second. Let's talk about that -- this now so we
817
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
can discuss this. So this is the jury instruction for victim impact: "You have heard evidence about the impact
of this homicide on the family, friends, community of Toni Centracco. This evidence was presented to
show the victim's uniqueness as an individual and the resultant loss by Toni Centracco's death. "However, you may not consider this evidence as an aggravating circumstance. Your
recommendation to the Court must be based on the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances upon which you would have been instructed." Can everybody see that? Thank you. Can you put
that over there, Tania?
So now what happens is -- what happens is the legislature, the lawmakers in our state, have decided that it's important, and rightfully so, that we honor the victims of cases. We all know
in our society how important that is. So at some point in the trial, at the penalty phase, this would be after if the defendant is convicted and after the state may put on some other evidence, but this may be the only evidence that they put on at beginning of their case, is they're going to put on evidence of what's called
818
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
victim impact. The mother of Ms. Centracco and perhaps a friend will come and testify. They'll show you
lots of photographs or several photographs. There'll be family members. lot of tears, a lot of pain. There's going to be a Everything that we
associate with the horrific loss of this young, beautiful girl who was taken away from her parents. And we know that naturally this is a very painful thing. We're all fathers, mothers, We know that emotionally that
brothers, sisters.
this is something that really tears at our heart. The problem we have in this situation is that the legislature has, rightfully so, said you can't use this in determining whether there should be a death sentence or not. You can't use it at all.
You can't consider it at all. So there's a lot of people whose first thought process is, Well, why do we hear it if we can't? Is there anybody who thinks that right off the top of their head? Why would we hear it? Well, we
hear it because the legislature has said, just looking at the jury instruction, that we get to -we get to see the victim's uniqueness as an
819
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
individual and how the resultant loss by her death. That's how. It's an honorary process. It's
an honorary process and you're going to have to deal with this in the middle of this journey, short journey, a week, four days, whatever, how long it takes between your finding of guilt and your finding of whether you should recommend a death sentence. So there's a lot of people who mistakenly believe that they're supposed to consider that and we need to make it unconditionally clear that you cannot use that in any form or fashion as part of the decision to recommend death. understand that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: Is there anybody who doesn't So we're all (Affirmative Does everybody
understand or disagrees with that? on the same page with that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: down. Thank you. Okay.
(Affirmative
Tania, you can take that
So what happens then as we were Then the defense
talking about victim impact.
820
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
puts on evidence and the defense may call a number of witnesses and the defense also may or will call experts that we talked about and they'll come in and they'll talk about things that are relevant. Now, taking a step back on that issue, does anybody have any personal experience, not with what we talked about before, sexual abuse. But
with the science of sexual abuse on young men? Does anybody have any background in that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. (No response.) Is anybody aware
Nobody.
that failure to disclose shame and refusal to admit is something that's pretty common in that circumstance? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I'm aware of that. So
You're aware of that, okay.
how do you think we could prove that if say hypothetically we had a client who refused to come clean, but we had a lot of evidence that supported otherwise. How do you think we could do that. I have no earthly idea how
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
you can do that, but I am aware of it through my years of counseling and through my years of experience, but I don't know how you would prove it.
821
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Would you listen to
circumstantial evidence if there was evidence of other crimes, if there was evidence that things were said and done to mental health experts, to witnesses, that supported this position and if we had other situations, would you be able to listen to that kind of stuff? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I could listen to that.
And if we had experts come in
who would say, you know, based on his opinion, he believes A, B, and C. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Could you do that? I could listen to it. Great. Anybody have a
problem not listening to that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: (No response.)
So then once the defense puts on
and then there's closing statements, just like any other closing, where the law will be talked about and the facts will be summarized and then a decision has to be made. Now, here's the -As I told you in
here's the interesting thing.
the very beginning of this, now coming full circle, the law clearly says it favors life over death. Does everybody see this? I can't see the bottom of
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
822
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Let me hold it up. Does
everybody see that?
This is part of the jury
instruction and I'm going to read the entire jury instruction portion that includes this in that. "Regardless of your findings in this respect, however, you are neither compelled nor required to recommend a sentence of death." The Florida legislature has decided that it is never going to require a jury to vote for death, a juror individually to vote for death, period. This is an individual responsibility. Unlike the
first part of a case where you have to decide unanimously whether you believe that someone is guilty of a particular charge and all 12 of the jurors have to decide. As Judge Lambert pointed
out, in this part of the case, it's different. In this part of the case it's a majority, bare majority situation. And what that means is if --
if six or more jurors vote for life, it's a life recommendation. That means if six jurors vote for
life, seven jurors, eight jurors, nine jurors, that's a life recommendation. The judge, as he
pointed out, will tell you he's going to follow your recommendation. If seven or more jurors vote
823
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for death, that's a death recommendation. Now, the way it works in Florida is that you have a single ballot that you are given to provide back to the Court. Two separate pieces of paper. In that piece
One piece of paper represents life.
of paper it says, We, the jury, dah, dah, dah, six or more jurors recommend life. You're not required to give your name, you're not required to give the number, you're not required to do anything. It's just six or more It's a life
jurors have recommended life. sentence.
If you -- if there's a death vote with seven or more jurors, then the Court requires you to give a specific number, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. You're required to give a specific number and those are -- that's how the ballot works. But to reach that decision, you have to jump through a bunch of hoops. As we talked about, you
have to come to the conclusion that there's at least one aggravating factor that's proven beyond a reasonable doubt and then that goes into a weighing situation. And then the mitigating
factors, which are a lesser standard as the state and judge talked about, and that goes into a
824
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
weighing situation.
And then you're looking at
the weight of those two. Well, why is that important? Because it's a
discretionary, individual decision then you're making on how much to give each aggravator, each mitigator weight. That you individually decide.
You're not instructed to go talk it over with jurors of what the weight should be. individual decision on each of those. Once you make that decision then, even if you decide that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors, you're never required to give death. You may. The legislature used that It's your
language, "may give recommendation of death". May. That's as far as the State of Florida has
gone in providing jurors the responsibility of having to make a decision on the death penalty. What they clearly say is that you must give life if the aggravators don't outweigh the mitigators or there's no aggravating factors, you must give life. And that you are never, ever
required to give death under any circumstances. So what does that sound like to you? It
sounds like a law that was created to give the discretion completely to the jurors to make their
825
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
own moral decision on whether the death penalty should be imposed. that? Understand? (No response.) Does everybody agree with
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON:
And here's the proof that I'm This is part of the jury
going to read to you.
instruction that encompasses on the most part a summary of the situation. language. It reads: This is the exact
"The sentence that you recommend to the Court must be based upon the facts as you find them from the evidence and the law. If after weighing the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances you determine that at least one aggravating circumstance is found to exist and that the mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, or in the absence of mitigating factors that the aggravating factors alone are sufficient, you may recommend that a sentence of death be imposed rather than a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole." Does everybody hear that? (No response.)
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Does everybody understand
that we have a state where in this case if he's
826
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
convicted, there are only two sentences. life without parole. in prison. He never gets out.
One is He dies Does
Does everyone understand that?
everyone believe that? believe that.
Because some people don't
Any questions about that? (No response.)
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: three. Okay.
And then we go on to
Now, this is the important part I was "Regardless of your findings
telling you about.
in this respect, however, you are neither compelled nor required to recommend a sentence of death." So you are never required, never under any circumstances, required to vote for death. everyone understand that? Does
Everyone understand? (Affirmative
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: Okay.
"If, on the other hand,
you determine that no aggravating circumstances are found to exist, or that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, or in the absence of mitigating factors, that the aggravating factors alone are not sufficient, you must recommend imprisonment of a sentence of life in prison without the
827
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
possibility of parole rather than a sentence of death." Does everyone see that? So you may give
death under the circumstances, you're never required, and you must give life under the circumstances. Does everybody see that? (No response.)
PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
That's the law, folks.
Now, a couple questions, Mr. Durham, if you were sitting on this jury, would you make it a responsibility to make sure that individual jurors are protected so that they can make their decision without other jurors trying to inappropriately pressure them? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: What -- what kind of I mean, it's --
control would I have on them?
it's just one juror versus another? MR. LENAMON: Yes. What sometimes happens is Sometimes there's a
sometimes there's a bully.
bully in the jury room and so the question is if someone's trying to say, Yeah, we don't need to think about this, you know, blah, blah, blah, you're wrong, you're wrong, and trying to get them would you be one of the jurors that -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would tend to be that
way more than anything else, yes.
828
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Thank you very much.
Just so we're clear, can be the
bully or the helper? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. No, no, not the bully. So the last thing I'm
going to do is I'm going to go back through the jurors and this is my question to you, I'm not trying to twist your arm, I'm not making you say anything, you heard what I said about this issue. What I need, if you've changed your mind and you rethought it after hearing everything, what I need you to tell me is that you have the ability to participate in the weighing process and that you can set aside your personal convictions and be part of Mr. Woods' jury. So I'm going to go through all the people who said that they had a problem with the death penalty and I'm just going to ask if you've changed your position or you have not. Mr. Overdorf, you had said you thought you would give some different effect in the guilt phase because of the death penalty. Could you
actually follow the law and make the state prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and not a higher standard, the first phase of the case?
829
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: issue? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Yes, the first phase.
And what about the death penalty
That I'm not sure of. Ms. Slocum? I could follow the law as
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
far as guilt or innocence, but as far as the death penalty is concerned, I realize I have the option that I don't have to vote for death, but I never would vote for death. life. I would definitely vote for
If I felt the person was guilty, it would
be a life sentence. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Ms. Rosenweig? I have not changed. I'm
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: sorry. MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Ms. Miller? Yes, my conviction still
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: stays.
I could follow the law, but I don't think
I could ever form the death penalty. MR. LENAMON: Mr. Siddell? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, it's not changed. I Okay. Ms. Siddell --
could still follow the law for the jury, but for the conviction, I still couldn't do that. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Mr. Kinsler?
830
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I want to change my mind
because I could weigh the mitigations and the aggravations, so I will change my mind. MR. LENAMON: law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes. Okay. So you can follow the
Even though you had personal
convictions against it, you changed it, you can follow the law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. At first I didn't think so Yes.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
how she was trying to explain it, but I understand it better since you explained it again. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Great. Yes, sir?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: about something.
I just want to be clear
It's not -- on both ends of it,
there would not even be a guilty verdict from me, as well as not being -MR. LENAMON: convictions? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: make that clear. MR. LENAMON: it. Okay. Thank you, sir. We appreciate Correct. I just wanted to Because of your personal
Mr. Gillum?
831
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Life.
It hasn't changed? (Shakes head.)
Now, as you mentioned, you
talked about a higher burden because of the charge. Could you after hearing what I had to
say, could you follow the law as it's set out and just hold the state to a burden that's required by law which is beyond a reasonable doubt? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: (Nods head.) When you
As to the aggravators.
were talking with the state, you were suggesting it would be higher than beyond a reasonable doubt because it's now talking about death versus life? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Yes.
So your position now or your
clarification of your position is you would apply the reasonable doubt standards to whether aggravators were proven or not? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Thank you.
MR. LENAMON:
Ms. McCray? What was your question?
Did you -- is your position the
same about the death penalty or -- we can't hear
832
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Life? (Nods head.) Ms. Kingcade? Yes. Life.
You were struggling, said you're Do you think you could
not sure you could do it.
set aside your personal convictions and follow the law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yeah. So you think you could
follow the law and weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: automatic life. I think I could.
Just so we're clear, you're not You would listen to the evidence
and decide death or life? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Yeah.
That's what he's asking. Yeah.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: mind? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:
So it's not automatic life in your
Explain that.
Yeah, if we get to Phase 2, then
833
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you will be asked to decide do you recommend death or do you recommend life. Mr. Lenamon is asking
each of you questions because your earlier responses kind of suggested that you would always vote for life. So we want to make it clear what You kind of before were not
your position is now.
too sure about being a juror, not sure about death penalty, if you could do this. So I guess the
question is is it always life or could you impose death in certain circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It depends on the
circumstances as I hear a case. THE COURT: So there may be circumstances you
would impose the death penalty based upon all the stuff that Mr. Lenamon was talking about and evidence in trial. Is that right? Let me see there. I still
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: struggle with that. THE COURT:
You still struggle with that life? Yeah. It probably would
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: be life, though. THE COURT: Counsel? MR. LENAMON: Yeah. Okay.
You want to follow up,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Yeah.
834
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
I know it's a difficult
situation and we're kind of putting you on the spot. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Right. And if you can't change
Right.
your personal conviction, if you can never vote for the death penalty, then that's one circumstance. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Right.
That I don't have control over.
But if you believe after you've listened to me and rethought it and said, You know what, I can listen to all the evidence and consider the death penalty as a possible sentence, then you can sit on the jury. You can't sit on the jury if you're -- if So you got
you're going to always vote for life.
to be straight with me, where do you fall? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Probably life. Thank you very much. Yeah. Ms. Keller,
I appreciate that.
has your position changed? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. No, sir. And Ms. Bourgeois? No, my position hasn't
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
835
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
changed. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Those are all the
questions I have, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. What we're going to do now I'm going to
is ask you to take a little break.
talk with the attorneys outside your presence. We'll see how many are going to be excused from this group and then we'll call you back in in a few minutes and then there'll be a lunch break and those of you who are not excused will come back at 2 o'clock. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: to be talked to? MR. LENAMON: think. THE COURT: Okay. All right. So let's do We may call a We need to go through that I Judge, individual questions.
Were there any that still needed
that, just have them wait outside.
few of you back individually about the issue that you wanted to talk privately with us about. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel exits the courtroom.) THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: State ready? Yes, sir. Okay. Let's talk about strikes.
836
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
We'll just go in the order. MR. LENAMON: questions.
Start with No. 106.
We need to do the individual
There's four jurors. Okay. We'll talk about -- which
THE COURT:
of the four do we still need to talk about that you don't think are stricken for cause. MR. LENAMON: Hall. THE COURT: she going? MS. NIXON: The state would -Yeah, you're right, Judge. Yeah, Eubanks, Thompson, Slocum? Isn't Eubanks, Thompson, Slocum, and
That's what I'm asking.
that's what I'm asking.
Some that said sex abuse
are probably going to be stricken anyway. Okay. cause? MS. NIXON: None from the state, Your Honor. None. First one is Ms. Spranger-Hall. Any
And we'll talk with her about her All right. How about Overdorf,
sex abuse issues. 107? MS. NIXON:
State would move to strike
Mr. Overdorf for cause. THE COURT: He's not really sure about
837
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
following the law is his first statement to us. MR. LENAMON: But when I re-talked to him,
didn't he change his position that he could follow the law? Yeah, so I think I rehabbed him. Judge, I think there is a
MS. NIXON:
significant reasonable doubt whether he could be a fair juror in the penalty phase of this case. never said he was at all sure. He
He repeated that He
he was not sure about the death penalty.
answered every question about whether he could impose either sentence that he wasn't sure. MR. LENAMON: But she hadn't explained how the
death penalty worked when she asked him that question. I spent an hour telling him how it
worked and then after he had listened to all that he said -- he indicated that he could. MS. NIXON: After he listened to all that he
said he was not sure. THE COURT: All right. We'll leave him on for right now. Strike? No. 108?
Slocum?
MS. NIXON: to be stricken.
The state would ask for Ms. Slocum
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: cause.
Yeah. Slocum's stricken for
All right.
838
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
All right.
No. 109, Mr. Plante? He's fine.
Anything?
All right with him? Yeah.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: right with her? MS. NIXON:
State? Yes. 110, Ms. Mercado? State, you all
Yes. Yes. 113, Thompson?
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON:
All right.
The state would strike -- would
ask to strike Ms. Thompson for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: theory? MR. LENAMON: confusing. THE COURT: All right. All right. She's gone for cause. Yeah, it's just a little No objection.
You don't like her eye for an eye
Mr. Rosensweig, strike for cause? Yeah.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: state? MS. NIXON: THE COURT:
I assume no objection from the
No objection. Okay. He's stricken for cause.
839
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
116, Mr. Colon? MS. NIXON: THE COURT: No motions. Defense? Fine.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON:
How about Patricia Miller, 117? State would move to strike
Ms. Miller for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: State? MS. NIXON: The state moves to strike No objection. 118, Mr. Siddell?
All right.
Mr. Siddell for cause. THE COURT: defense? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: All right. MS. NIXON: No objection. Okay. Any response from the
Siddell is removed for cause. Mr. Kinsler? No motion. Okay. That's fine.
Okay.
He kind of came back and he
said he would weigh the mitigation and aggravation. All right. MS. NIXON: Rachel Eubanks. State?
The state would move to strike I did not feel she was
Ms. Eubanks for cause.
840
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
rehabilitated.
Her initial statement to me was
not about the necessarily the penalty phase, but that she would never be able to impose the death penalty unless there was a higher burden on the guilt phase. THE COURT: MS. NIXON: But that -She clearly said that there was
going to be a higher burden on the guilt phase. THE COURT: I understand that, but that's --
that's the part of Matarranz that I wish the Supreme Court would understand what we deal with here. You know, I don't know that she understood She did say at the
the difference between that.
end in response to me that she would it beyond a reasonable doubt. MS. NIXON: Judge, just for clarification on
the record, what you asked her was whether she would hold the state to the burden in the penalty phase of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. THE COURT: MS. NIXON: She said yes. Yes. But that's not what the The original
original problem with her was.
problem with her is she said that if asked to render a recommendation of death, she would then
841
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
hold the state to a higher burden in the guilt phase. She would have to be -I suspect that's -- well, I
THE COURT:
suspect that's a misunderstanding of the process here. MR. LENAMON: Judge. MS. NIXON: about that. I talked to her for five minutes But she corrected herself,
The state continues its motion. All right. Motion's denied. Strike?
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Gillum on 27. Yes.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: All right.
You struck him without objection. Michael Martin, No. 129? Move for cause.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT:
Any objection from the state? None. All right. Stricken for cause.
How about Mr. Durham? Durham?
Anything about Pastor
He's got an intriguing background here.
Apparently been up at DOC on death row, counseling people and etc., etc. MS. ARNOLD: I think what he said was people
who had been on death row as in past tense. MR. LENAMON: I move for cause.
842
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
I think he's -- I mean, I think
he's sincere and well-spoken, but he's got different issues coming out starting with Mr. King, which it's just easier to strike him for cause so I don't have to be told what a nitwit I am if this goes up on appeal, at least for that. Okay. Mr. Durham, he'll be stricken for cause. Cause?
How about Baker, 133? MS. NIXON:
State moves Ms. Baker to be
stricken for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection. How about
Stricken for cause.
Gertrude Lopez, 136? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: I move for cause.
Any response from the state? Yes, I would object to that. That
she indicated after questioning, and the record is clear, Mr. Lenamon said if there were no mitigating circumstances she would vote for -- she would recommend death. the record. That is what he said on
Therefore, I don't think that she was
-- any reasonable doubt exists whether she could be fair. She said in all other times she would
weigh the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
843
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: cause.
All right.
She's stricken for
All right, 137, Ms. McCray? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection.
Stricken for cause. Any objection from the
140, Ms. Kingcade. defense? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No.
Yeah, she said life at the end. How about 141?
All right, 140's stricken. MS. NIXON: for cause. THE COURT: cause. Okay. counsel. All right.
The state would strike Ms. Keller
She's stricken for
Let's just for the record here, for Apparently, Mr. Woods was gone for a Everybody knew about
little bit of this here. that.
You're okay, you waived his presence for
our discussions here? MR. LENAMON: restroom, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Just as long Yeah, he had to use the
as -- you know, I get all kinds of motions after that. I've got one guy that wants DNA on a Different case, though,
driver's license case.
844
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
seven years later. All right. objections? MS. NIXON: THE COURT: Mr. Nellis. No objection. Okay. We'll leave her on now. Constance Mitcham. Any
Anything from anybody? No motions. I agree. No. Mr. Giselbach?
MS. NIXON: THE COURT:
MR. LENAMON: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON:
No motions. Ms. Bourgeois? State moves to strike Ms.
Bourgeois for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: cause. All right. So the ones we have left now, we No objection. She's stricken for
All right.
have Ms. Hall-Springer, No. 106, had sex abuse. Ms. Eubanks. MS. NIXON: THE COURT: Are you asking, Your Honor? I'm just kind of throwing it out
there of who we need to speak with now after we've tolled through the cause. MS. NIXON: gone. Hall, Thompson. No, Thompson's
845
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: abuse.
Right. Hall, Eubanks, Kinsler and Colon. Oh, Kinsler had sex abuse? Hall and Eubanks are about sexual
Kinsler and Colon are about the
billboards. THE COURT: MS. NIXON: Okay. All right.
And Mr. Giselbach was asked about He was interviewed
the billboards previously. privately. THE COURT: Right.
He was up here initially.
So we're just talking about the ones who raised it today? MS. NIXON: Right. So bring everybody in, dismiss
THE BAILIFF:
the ones, send the rest to lunch, and hold the ones that you need to speak to? THE COURT: you. That's pretty good thinking for
Yeah, let's do that. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel enters
the courtroom.) THE COURT: Everybody back, Pete? Yes. Everybody have a seat. We talked about your
THE BAILIFF: THE COURT:
Okay.
Thank you for your patience.
846
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
answers from this morning.
There are some of you I do thank you for
who are going to be excused.
your time and patience, but your jury service is coming to an end this morning. Some of you I'm
asking you to come back for the 2 o'clock session and then there's a couple of you that wanted to speak with us privately and we'll do that after the other individuals have been either excused or gone to lunch. Okay. excused. When I call your name you've been And, again, you can go on your way and All right. Ms. Thompson,
thank you for your effort with us. Ms. Slocum, you're excused, ma'am. you're excused, ma'am. excused, sir.
Mr. Rosensweig, you're
Ms. Miller, you are excused, ma'am. Ms. Lopez,
Mr. Siddell, you're excused, sir. you're excused.
Ms. Baker, you're excused. Mr. Martin,
Mr. Durham, you're excused, sir. you're excused.
Mr. Gillum, you're excused. Ms. Keller, you're Just give
Ms. Bourgeois, you're excused. excused.
Ms. Kingcade, you're excused.
Pete back your apparatus there. you are excused, ma'am. Okay.
And, Ms. McCray,
We're going to want to speak to Who's the
Ms. Hall, Ms. Eubanks, Mr. Kinsler.
847
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
other one? MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Colon. Mr. Colon. Okay. We're going to So if
speak with you five privately just briefly.
you're not one of those five, please report back down to the jury assembly room about 2 o'clock. We're going to have a group of about -- a group of about 40 of you come back up for final discussions or final questioning this afternoon and we'll see how we do today. Okay. So Ms. -- Ms. Hall, please stay with us
briefly, Ms. Eubanks, Mr. Kinsler, Mr. Colon and Mr. Overdorf. Everybody else, you're excused for
lunch and please report back downstairs at 2 o'clock in the jury assembly room. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel exits the courtroom.) THE COURT: privately. here, sir. We can just be up here talking
Mr. Overdorf, why don't you come up Just right up here, sir. Thank you.
Court reporter ready? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes.
(The following was had at the bench before the Court:) THE COURT: The reason we wanted to talk to
848
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you, you made mention when Mr. Lenamon showed the picture or billboard you recognized the billboard? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: to where I used to work. There was a poster close Up like at the gas
station, there was a poster on the door. THE COURT: the case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No. No, nothing. Okay. Do you know anything about
Is that going to affect your
ability because that poster was there to sit on this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: about anything? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: anything? MS. NIXON: THE COURT: No. Mr. Lenamon? No. Mr. Overdorf, please No. Huh-huh. It shouldn't.
You haven't formed any opinions
State want to ask him
All right.
come back at 2 o'clock to the jury assembly room. (Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: sir. All right. Mr. Kinsler, come up,
Pete, you're going to go down and get a new
849
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
date for Mr. Kinsler on his traffic thing with Pollack? THE BAILIFF: Yeah, I'll take care of it.
(The following was had at the bench before the Court:) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Kinsler, you had
made mention you might have seen the billboard I guess. Do you remember seeing it? Yes, sir. There was one
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
down the road from my house. THE COURT: Do you -- is that -- the fact that
you seen it, does it cause you to have any opinions one way or another about this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No, sir. No, sir.
Do you know anything about this
I mean, other than obviously what
the attorneys have been talking about? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Right.
But before today? No, sir. Anything from the state?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: Okay.
Yes, Your Honor, just a couple
follow-ups on that.
850
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: MS. NIXON:
All right. Mr. Kinsler, you went to Vanguard
and it says you went to Vanguard in 2007, beginning in 2007? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: Okay. Yeah, I was a freshman. And, you know, nothing you
know from high school that has anything to do with this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: No, sir. Or no, ma'am.
Thank you. Mr. Lenamon, anything? No. Mr. Kinsler, thank
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: you.
All right.
Just come back down at 2 o'clock to the jury
assembly room where you met this morning and we'll bring you back up with the final group. (Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Colon, come on up, sir.
(The following was had at the bench before the Court:) THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir, you indicated I
think in response to some of Mr. Lenamon's questions that you had seen the billboard before. Do you recall when you first saw that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It was a while -- I think
851
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
a couple years back.
I just saw the sign before.
But other than that, I don't remember anything about it. THE COURT: case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: before. THE COURT: You've not formed any opinions No, I just seen the sign You don't know anything about this
about this case, don't know anything about what happened other than what the attorneys may have kind of foreshadowed here in their questioning? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: No.
Nothing. Nothing from the state.
Mr. Lenamon, anything? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No. Mr. Colon, we'll see you
Okay.
back at 2 o'clock.
Just report downstairs.
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Eubanks, come on up.
(The following was had at the bench before the Court:) THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, you had indicated in
response to I think Mr. Lenamon's question about any issues of sex abuse either in your life or
852
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
family or friends that you wanted to speak privately about? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My niece was sexually
molested when she was four. THE COURT: Your who? My niece.
How long ago was that? She will be 13 in January,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: so about nine years ago. THE COURT:
Nine years ago? Uh-huh.
Is there anything about that that
you think is going to affect your ability to sit fairly and impartially in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: answer honestly. THE COURT: Well, I appreciate that and I No. I just wanted to
understand not wanting to talk about it in front of everybody. So nothing's happened to you or
anything like that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: Oh, no. No.
Anything from the state? Nothing. Who was the abuser? My sister's boyfriend at
MR. LENAMON:
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
853
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the time. MR. LENAMON: it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My niece went to my mom And how did they find out about
and said some stuff that wasn't right and my mom called the cops and they took it from there and DCF got involved and I'm pretty sure he's still in prison. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: all right? Okay. Thank you. Is she
All right, Ms. Eubanks.
You have motions or anything? No, she's fine. Just report back downstairs
Okay.
to the jury assembly at two and we'll bring you back up for the last round of questioning. you, ma'am. (Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: All right, Ms. Hall. Thank
(The following was had at the bench before the Court:) THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Hall, let me ask just
so our record's clear, you were summoned as Betty Rose Springer? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Uh-huh.
Is that a former name?
854
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes. And you're Hall now? Yes, it's on my driver's
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: license. THE COURT: Okay.
You had indicated in
response to some of the questions from Mr. Lenamon that you -- there was some issues about sex abuse and that you wanted to speak with us privately about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Uh-huh.
Okay, go ahead, what do you want
to tell us about it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: gone now. THE COURT: Did he abuse you? Yes. It was my uncle. He's
How long ago was that? Oh, my God, I was eight.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm 50. THE COURT: Okay.
So back in the '70s or so? Yeah, I'm old.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: pretty old. MR. REICH:
Well, he's pretty old and I'm
I'm the oldest. But it still bothers me.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
855
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Well, that's what we want to ask.
Is there something about that that if you hear issues of -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: probably. THE COURT: -- if you hear issues about sex I'd be uncomfortable
abuse involving Mr. Woods and a family member of his, a grandfather, that that would cause you difficulty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: yeah. THE COURT: That would put you over the edge? Well, I wouldn't be able I wouldn't be able It'd put me over the edge,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
to concentrate on the trial. to -THE COURT: Okay.
That's going to come into
the second part of the case, if we get to a second part -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Right. You know, in
-- penalty phase.
guilt there's not going to be anything about that. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Uh-huh.
Does that -- do you think you're
able to discharge your duties as a juror in light of your history and what you may hear about --
856
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
And the other thing about
the girl's picture, that really upset me. THE COURT: The one where she was shot? (Nods head.)
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: MR. REICH: Okay.
Did it upset you to the point you
think it would interfere with your ability to be impartial? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: nieces. THE COURT: I'm sorry. Okay. All right, Yes, because I have
Ms. Hall, then unless there's any objection I'll excuse her. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: effort with us. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: I'm sorry. It's perfectly fine. No, no objection. Thanks for your
Okay, ma'am.
It's okay.
I'm sorry what happened to you, but you're excused, you're free to go, okay. (Prospective juror exits courtroom.) MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Didn't we have 31 from yesterday? I thought we lost one this Mr. Lenamon forgot to
morning, Ms. Smith.
challenge her to cause and he did this morning and
857
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I excused her.
Just remind me to let Ms. Smith
know when she comes back at two that she's excused. She wasn't excused yesterday. So come back at two and I start my
MR. REICH: part? THE COURT: MR. REICH: part? THE COURT:
I assume they start their part. Sorry, we start the guilt phase
Yes.
(Proceedings continued in Volume 7)

Marion County Courthouse

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marion County Courthouse

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

680

October 17, 2013

Marion County Courthouse

THE BAILIFF: to give it to him. THE COURT:

I don't care if he eats cough

Nothing from the state, Your

to move on Ms. Smith. THE COURT: Okay. He's asking for me to

she said she was in the middle.

level of a cause challenge. MR. LENAMON: Judge, I disagree. I believe

Well, under Matarranz, we kind of

The panel, excuse me.

next week pretty much.

Latoria, let them know we're

THE BAILIFF: more.

It gave the 24 and I did a rollcall and They said

He was the young man that had

You want to check down there,

THE BAILIFF: he's in five. THE BAILIFF:

Not in traffic court.

THE COURT: traffic court.

Mr. Kinsler is not in

Well, we're going to proceed

THE BAILIFF: THE COURT: Have a seat. attending.

Mr. Kinsler, all right.

Thank you for This

Remember, I'm Judge Lambert.

Can you hear me now? Yes. All right. Welcome back.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Good.

I'm Judge Lambert.

What -- we're in the next part This is the

of what's called the voir dire.

process that we use to help us select a jury.

are not eliminated are the ones that remain on the

whether you're in the courthouse, at home, or

He stays presumed innocent

fashioned it a little bit different.

prison without the possibility of parole.

This is a little bit different

difference is it is not required to be a unanimous verdict in Phase 2. You'll each be asked to

If there's at least a seven to

I have a cold here.

You'll hear the ones The defendant

that will be applied in this case.

You never are required to do that. always your option.

But even if you think the

involved in this type of process before.

briefly about that.

I want to prepare you so you These are the typical I

can be thinking about it.

I have the benefit of,

The state has asked to -- they're going to

I appreciate your patience so far.

We've been working hard here.

Judge, one thing, about TV. I told you Monday

Oh, thank you.

affirmative responses. I'll introduce people, too. Let me ask

Nobody knows me, okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Ms. Macias. Okay.

Who do you know, ma'am? Colleen. Oh, you know

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:

You and she work together? We don't, but I do know

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: her from work. THE COURT: