Browse reporter-marked sidebars from the Sarah Boone archive, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 145 entries below include every sidebar marked in the court reporter transcripts available to the archive.
Counsel disputed whether State Attorney’s Office personnel should be listed as potential witnesses and raised a possible discovery issue involving hospital records.
Court's actionThe judge directed that the State Attorney’s Office names covered by the protective order not be read at this time, instructed counsel to read the remaining records custodians, and deferred any Richardson issue until it arose.
The court and counsel discussed reviewing prospective jurors’ scheduling conflicts before proceeding with questions about the case.
Court's actionThe judge said he would temporarily excuse the panel and ask them not to discuss the case so the court and counsel could compare notes.
The court and counsel discussed jurors’ ability to serve, planned individual questioning about prior knowledge, and follow-up questions about social media activity.
Court's actionThe judge agreed to ask two additional questions about liking or sharing social media comments.
Counsel clarified that the discussion concerned cause challenges, and neither side made a motion.
Counsel requested and agreed to a for-cause challenge to the juror wearing Badge 943.
Court's actionThe court ordered the juror in Seat 33 wearing Badge 943 stricken for cause by stipulation.
Counsel stipulated to a for-cause challenge to the juror in Seat 35, wearing Badge 664.
Court's actionThe court ordered the juror in Seat 35, wearing Badge 664, stricken for cause.
Counsel stipulated to a for-cause challenge for the juror in Seat 28, wearing Badge 366.
Court's actionThe court ordered the juror stricken for cause by stipulation.
At the bench, Jay reported no motion at that time, and Henderson also reported no motion.
Counsel requested and stipulated to a for-cause strike of the juror in Seat 18, wearing Badge 2870.
Court's actionThe court ordered the juror stricken for cause by stipulation.
Owens said he did not believe intended witness Debra Johnson was the local family law attorney of the same name.
Court's actionThe court asked counsel to clarify that the Debra Johnson he intended to call was not an attorney.
The court and counsel discussed excusing jurors over comprehension and language concerns, along with counsel's concern about No. 4's mention of his wife.
Counsel requested inquiry into possible accommodations for two prospective jurors with diabetes, questioning whether diabetes alone supported a cause challenge.
Court's actionThe judge agreed to follow up with prospective jurors 28 and 40.
The sidebar addressed arrangements for bringing in numbers 2, 17, and 34 individually.
Court's actionThe judge said everyone would be asked to step out first.
The State reported no motion, and the defense reported no motion for cause.
The court suggested possible confusion with a publicized Lake County case, and neither attorney sought a challenge for cause.
The State sought Juror 49’s removal over his wife’s possible pregnancy complications and other issues, while the court and counsel discussed panel recall and repeating the morning jury instruction.
Court's actionThe court struck the juror in Seat 49, Badge 67, for cause and said the deputy would notify him that he need not return.
Counsel raised concerns that courtroom cameras could discourage prospective jurors from speaking freely and capture counsel-table notes or computer screens.
At sidebar, Jay asked whether there was no motion, and defense counsel stated there was none.
The State requested a for-cause strike, and Henderson stipulated.
Court's actionThe court ordered the juror in Seat 27 wearing Badge 92 stricken for cause by stipulation.
The judge and counsel discussed discrepancies in expected row seating, including a woman neither could identify.
Court's actionThe judge called for the clerk to conduct roll call.
The judge proposed removing everyone else to question Juror 35 directly, and both sides agreed.
Neither side made a motion, and the sidebar addressed media instructions and when proceedings would resume.
Court's actionThe court said it would release her, bring her back with the panel, and repeat instructions not to watch local news or media about the case; proceedings would probably resume at 1:30.
Counsel approved repeating the court’s morning statements and discussed excusing Juror No. 37 for cause.
Court's actionThe court accepted the stipulated excusal of Juror No. 37 for cause.
Counsel stipulated to language-based cause challenges for nine prospective jurors after clarifying which jurors had English-language concerns.
The court and counsel discussed reviewing cause challenges and possible juror excusals after completing the ability-to-serve portion.
Court's actionThe judge agreed to address cause challenges before proceeding.
The State made a for-cause request, and Tony Henderson stipulated.
The judge proposed removing everyone and bringing in numbers 10, 18, 20, and 22 individually, and both attorneys agreed.
The defense sought a cause strike over uncertainty about whether the juror could overcome the interrogation’s negative implication and set aside opinions she may have formed.
Court's actionThe court struck Juror No. 10, Badge 122, for cause.
The State requested a for-cause challenge, defense counsel stipulated, and the court acknowledged the stipulation.
At the bench, the State and defense each stated they had no motion.
The State and defense each reported having no motion when asked by the court.
The court and counsel discussed courtroom availability, juror spacing, and concerns about illness-related juror dropouts.
Court's actionThe court directed a 15-minute recess to inspect the larger courtroom before revisiting the courtroom choice.
The sidebar addressed jury-selection space and seating, the exhibit list, and Julie Harper’s possible scheduling conflict and remote listening access without viewing digital evidence.
Court's actionThe judge set jury selection on the 23rd floor for that afternoon and requested the exhibit list; the next morning’s location remained uncertain.
Counsel discussed a juror’s religious concerns about judging others, whether Juror No. 13 might be an alleged victim in her ex-husband’s case, and a break before voir dire.
Court's actionThe court struck Seat 21, Badge 294, for cause by stipulation, found no current cause basis for Juror No. 13 while permitting further questioning, and agreed to a break before excusing the juror referred to as Seat 20.
The State took a for-cause position, and Henderson stipulated.
The discussion covered juror note-taking and the judge's plan not to encourage written juror questions.
Court's actionThe court allowed note-taking with instructions to rely on memory rather than notes and not be unduly influenced by another juror's notes.
Henderson requested privacy when discussing the circumstances, and counsel discussed when to address the private matters.
Court's actionThe court agreed to address the circumstances privately, address 51 and 29 that day, and pick up the next day.
The court and counsel discussed jurors' private concerns and how much time to allow the next morning for objections to 57 paragraphs.
Court's actionThe court set a 9:00 a.m. start the next morning, with jurors to report downstairs at 10:00 a.m. and be brought up at 10:30 a.m.
Counsel discussed using family-law records to challenge Brian Boone's alleged bias, potentially revealing Sarah Boone's incarceration and prompting rebuttal evidence.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection for now and required counsel to approach for a proffer before using family-law case material in cross-examining Brian Boone.
Counsel discussed consulting Ms. Boone about potential impeachment of her former husband before his expected testimony and explaining occasional attorney absences for witness coordination.
Court's actionThe court directed jury selection to proceed and agreed to a blanket inquiry about Ms. Boone's understanding of occasional defense-counsel absences.
Counsel discussed a prior panel member’s TikTok post, Juror 45’s county residency, and Juror 39’s exposure to news about the case.
Court's actionThe court left inquiry about juror communications to counsel’s discretion and struck jurors in Seats 45 and 39 for cause by stipulation.
The bench discussed a restroom break for the juror in Seat 6, release logistics involving 39 and 45, and a requested microphone check.
Jay objected that Henderson’s news-based setup offered counsel’s views rather than questions to prospective jurors.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection for now and directed Henderson to ask about jurors’ ability to follow the law and the presumption of innocence.
Jay challenged a self-defense question as vague and confusing, while Henderson said he sought to identify people opposed to any defensive weapon use.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection, allowed rephrasing, and instructed counsel to be specific about statutory requirements.
Counsel discussed whether a height-and-weight hypothetical was too close to the case facts and disagreed over Boone's reported height.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection and instructed counsel to use hypothetical people with heights and sizes unlike those in the case.
Jay objected that discussion of overt acts and attacking someone based on past conduct raised unclear legal issues under Quintana and approached the case facts.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection.
Counsel disputed whether questions about alcohol’s effects improperly explored case facts or assessed juror attitudes for peremptory challenges.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Counsel asked about juror phone rules and preliminary instructions on electronic activity, and the court discussed evidence access during deliberations.
Court's actionThe judge stated that jurors would keep phones turned off until collection for deliberations. The State would provide a clean laptop without programs or internet access for viewing presented digital evidence; the baseball bat would not go back, and luggage would be addressed later.
Counsel discussed taking a break away from jurors and reported that some prospective jurors had not understood the last question.
Court's actionThe judge allowed a break and elevator use, denied stair access, prohibited looking at or communicating with selected jurors, and said he would tell jurors to remain on the floor for possible individual follow-up.
The court and counsel discussed jury seating and swearing-in logistics and the next morning’s schedule around a Richardson issue involving pictures.
Court's actionThe judge directed calling in the panel, identifying selected jurors, dismissing the others, and then swearing in the jury. He planned a 9:00 a.m. jury return and required the culled-down picture list to reach the State before then, with a Richardson hearing before opening statements.
Owens said cross-examining Brian Boone about the dissolution of marriage file could reveal that Ms. Boone had been in custody for four and a half years.
Court's actionThe judge directed Owens to consult with Ms. Boone immediately and told counsel to return to the table.
Owens reported that a woman wearing a juror badge overheard his elevator remark about finishing the trial and that he believed she was on this jury.
Court's actionThe court directed that the jury panel be brought in and said the issue would be addressed if the woman was on the panel, with individual questioning if needed.
Counsel discussed asking about possible elevator contact with Mr. Owens or generally about compliance with instructions to stay away from the case.
Counsel and the court discussed the scope and format of an inquiry into what jurors may have overheard and any resulting concerns.
Court's actionThe court agreed to ask jurors as a group whether they had concerns to address privately.
Counsel discussed Juan Torres’s estimated 20-minute testimony, depending on cross-examination, two brief records-custodian appearances before lunch, and a request to avoid first-name-only references to adults.
Court's actionThe court indicated the records custodians could testify before lunch and instructed parties and lawyers to use full names or surnames for adults, distinguishing names spoken in video evidence and permitting first names for children.
Counsel discussed fitting next witness Vincent Battaglia’s testimony before lunch, with the State estimating 20 to 30 minutes for direct and cross-examination depending on defense questioning.
Court's actionThe judge agreed to proceed despite possible overlap with the lunch hour, accepted a tentative 12:30 lunch target, and clarified that the estimate was not binding.
Owens proposed asking the witness on cross-examination whether he got home around 7:00.
Court's actionThe court allowed the question but instructed counsel not to refer to a writing, stating there was no impeachment.
Counsel discuss releasing a New Jersey witness with a plane ticket and calling Mr. Moats before a possible break.
Counsel discussed expert travel and tentative witness schedules, with the State anticipating it might rest late Monday or early Tuesday.
Court's actionThe judge instructed both sides to use surnames and said he would release the jury for lunch and ask them to return at 2:00.
The State discussed Bluetooth speakers for 911-call playback and clarified that Abraham Moreno was a regular witness, not a CSI.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to notify him when the playback setup was ready.
Counsel proposed medical examiner testimony on Monday and discussed a possible Monday afternoon State rest, tentative Tuesday testimony by Sarah Boone, and possible Wednesday availability for defense experts.
Court's actionThe court directed an afternoon break until 3:35, followed by Deputy Martinez and the CSI, with an early conclusion if necessary.
The court confirmed the day's last witness and discussed employer service certificates and jury instructions for the long weekend.
Court's actionThe judge said he would repeat the pre-lunch instruction, adding directions not to do homework or read local news or newspapers.
Counsel discussed courthouse entry delays, and the judge agreed to remind jurors to use the far-right juror entrance.
Owens argued that prior positional-asphyxia findings were relevant to anticipated accident testimony, citing his understanding that the literature described most such cases as accidents.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection.
The court and counsel discussed whether to take a morning break or hear the State's two upcoming witnesses before lunch.
Counsel sought to admit State's F and N, stipulations on ID and an FDLE report, but the judge was unsure whether he had fully vetted the issue with Ms. Boone.
Court's actionThe judge announced he would briefly excuse the jury to question Ms. Boone about the stipulations.
Counsel discussed retrieving an admitted exhibit or using laptop material to refresh recollection.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that the exhibit be pulled up so counsel could use what had been admitted into evidence.
Counsel clarified that the requested December 25, 2019 phone entries were in the admitted exhibit, rather than on the unadmitted rebuttal disk.
Counsel discussed reported gallery disruptions, a request for Pearl Walker to testify remotely, and scheduling around witness availability and a juror’s childcare constraints.
Court's actionThe judge required a motion for Walker’s remote testimony and reaffirmed that she must be deposed unless the State waives it; he also said he would warn spectators to silence phones and avoid outbursts or face removal.
Counsel for both sides supported removing a spectator whose reported loud comments and exchanges raised concerns about disrupting the trial.
Court's actionThe judge directed defense counsel to inquire about Boone’s gallery contacts and report back, then announced plans to ask the spectator to leave at both sides’ request and offer livestream viewing instructions.
The court and counsel discussed whether one juror could leave to make phone calls about coverage without sending out the entire panel.
Court's actionThe judge instructed the juror to go alone to the deliberation room, make her calls, and report whether she could obtain coverage.
Counsel noted it was about 3:30 as he approached introducing the two-hour second interview.
Court's actionThe court approved taking the afternoon break at that point.
The defense requested revised wording for the jury instruction on law enforcement statements in Sarah Boone’s recorded interview, without objection from the State.
Court's actionThe judge directed counsel to finish direct examination and instructed the witness to return tomorrow for cross-examination or any redirect.
The State requested an in-camera inquiry into defense funding and a possible story-rights conflict, while Owens denied any deal or conflict.
Court's actionThe court tabled the matter for defense review and discussion, stating it would review it during lunch and revisit it that afternoon if necessary.
Henderson argued that a report could refresh the witness's memory despite her qualified answer.
Court's actionThe judge stated that no memory gap had been established and directed counsel to impeach if he believed there was a contradiction.
The judge expressed concern about refreshing recollection because a lack of memory was not being established.
Counsel debated whether arrest notice was relevant to the voluntariness of Boone's interview.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Counsel disputed whether Miranda-related questions about officers’ subjective intent were relevant to the jury’s assessment of the defendant’s statement’s voluntariness.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection, explaining that jury instruction 3.9(b) addresses force, promises, and voluntariness from the defendant’s perspective rather than officers’ subjective intent.
Counsel discussed exhibit preparation, recording redactions, witness depositions, and whether Boone could describe alleged prior violence before establishing an overt act.
Court's actionThe judge directed exhibit marking during lunch for a 1 p.m. restart, reaffirmed deposition opportunities before witness testimony, and denied prior bad-act evidence before an overt act is established under an objective standard.
Counsel discussed the reason for narrative testimony and breaking it up to allow objections.
Court's actionThe court disallowed a full narrative but permitted testimony broken into time segments, such as morning and afternoon.
Jay sought to preserve objections to reputation, past violence, and battered spouse syndrome evidence while Owens proposed asking why she made the recorded statements.
Court's actionThe court asked counsel to rephrase the question to address only her feelings at that time and avoid prior incidents.
Owens requested an overt-act determination before moving to other matters, and the court checked whether his presentation about the evening was complete.
Court's actionThe court left finalizing the point about falling asleep to Owens's discretion and said it would bring the jury out to hear argument.
Counsel disputed whether testimony about drinking and alleged prior violence could describe recurring behavior rather than specific incidents.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to rephrase the testimony without using the word pattern and move to specific instances.
Counsel discussed break timing, estimated examination lengths, asking jurors about staying until 6:00, and availability of two standby officers.
Court's actionThe judge left it to counsel whether to release the two officers and have them return tomorrow morning, noting they were unlikely to be reached that afternoon.
Jurors reported difficulty viewing displayed pictures, and counsel asked about showing demonstrative aids.
Court's actionThe court requested adjusted picture orientation for future displays and left showing demonstrative aids to counsel's discretion.
Counsel raised a local administrative order concerning surnames.
Court's actionThe judge agreed and asked that surnames be used.
Owens objected to alcohol-level questioning and argued that prior testimony described a hangover rather than intoxication.
Counsel objected that the paper clip might be attached differently than on the night in question, potentially affecting how easily the suitcase could be zipped.
Court's actionThe court allowed the State’s demonstration to show hand spacing and permitted redirect examination about differences in the paper clip’s placement.
Counsel reported no available witnesses, asked about timing for the motion to stay, and requested more time to identify medical record pages for proposed admission.
Court's actionThe court directed proceedings to resume at 9 a.m. the next morning, deferred the motion until closer to jury instructions, and instructed that the jury be released before further discussion.
Counsel discussed calling Detective Lowen while awaiting Dr. Brannon, whom Beck said was expected at the courthouse around 9:30.
The sidebar concerned the distinction between refreshing recollection from a statement and reading it.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection and instructed that she could not read the statement.
Counsel reported releasing Scott Lowen and Abraham Moreno, with neither needed for rebuttal, and discussed waiting for Dr. Brannon.
Court's actionThe court declined a break and directed the parties to wait.
Counsel disputed proposed testimony equating battered women and battered spouse terminology by reference to a jury instruction whose language had not been agreed upon.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection in part, allowing testimony that the terms are similar within the witness’s field but barring discussion of jury instructions at this time.
Counsel raised a case-law concern about the court accepting a tender in open court.
Court's actionThe judge declined to accept a tender in open court, stating that the qualifications speak for themselves.
Jay confirmed there would be no objection to the individual's ability to offer opinions.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to proceed.
Jay challenged the relevance of PTSD or battered-spouse testimony explaining subjective reactions rather than objectively reasonable behavior.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection.
The defense sought to compare expert reliability through a declined evaluation, while the prosecution challenged relevance and multiple defense attorneys’ participation.
Court's actionThe court sustained the relevance objection, but not the objection concerning a single evaluation, permitted rephrasing, and directed Beck alone to provide evidentiary responses for his witness.
Counsel disputed whether questions about comprehensive review opened the door to explaining the witness's asserted lack of time or opportunity to complete it.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection, allowing cross-examination about comprehensive review while leaving open whether further questions might open the door.
Jay argued that a hypothetical relied on anticipated rebuttal videos, while Beck asked about striking it if those videos were not admitted.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection, allowed counsel to proceed, and directed counsel to raise possible striking if the videos were not admitted.
Counsel discussed upcoming witnesses, a possible early lunch, and Ms. Walker’s anticipated 1:00 appearance, with Jay consenting to video testimony.
Court's actionThe court directed a break and said it would arrange removal of the witness-box chair for wheelchair access if Walker were called at 1:00.
The court checked with counsel about beginning the lunch break as previously discussed.
Court's actionThe court directed proceeding with the lunch break.
Counsel discussed additional preparation time for Dr. Julie Harper, jury-instruction review, and wheelchair access for Pearl Walker.
Court's actionThe judge directed Harper to be present at 1:30, scheduled the charging conference for the next day, and instructed the defense to send proposed instructions in Word to his judicial assistant before the next morning, copying the State. He also directed removal of the witness-box chair and deputy assistance for Walker.
Counsel discussed difficulty reaching Dr. Harper and submitting non-deadly instruction 3.6(g), arguing that it and 3.6(f) may both need to be read.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to text Dr. Harper to be present at 1:30 and to submit any requested instructions.
The defense argued that Boone’s treatment of Walker could counter impressions of grandiosity or narcissism, while the State challenged the questioning on character and relevance grounds.
Court's actionThe court sustained the character objections and, to the extent the evidence was not offered to show action in conformity with character, found it irrelevant.
Owens reported that Dr. Harper was walking to the courtroom and requested a short break while awaiting her arrival.
Court's actionThe judge instructed that they be ready to proceed as soon as Dr. Harper arrived.
Counsel discussed whether testimony about Boone’s father’s death could rely on her statements or written records.
Court's actionThe court sustained the hearsay objection to the question as phrased, allowed counsel to revisit it another way, and declined to address written materials not then before it.
Counsel discussed whether an expert could disclose prior diagnoses relied on in forming her opinions.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection, permitting exploration of the opinion’s basis and out-of-court statements on cross-examination but barring their introduction by the proponent unless the inverse 403 test is established.
Counsel discussed whether general dissociation testimony applied to Ms. Boone, with the defense linking dissociation to psychological detachment among battered women.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Counsel disputed whether expert questions about abusive acts needed to be framed as hypotheticals based on facts in evidence.
Court's actionThe court found the questioning relevant and allowed counsel to reask it in a different form.
Owens objected that a question addressing both sanity and battered spouse syndrome was compound and should be split.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection for now and permitted rephrasing, then reiterated that the objection was sustained.
Owens disputed the video's characterization, saying the speaker denied intent and causing the death while noting the video would need to be rewatched.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection and permitted rephrasing.
The defense objected that the question recast a statement that Jorge Torres's death was unintentional as a denial of killing him.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to keep the wording consistent with the statement and reserve argument for later, and agreed to strike the last question.
Owens sought to have the witness review the entire Aspire records paragraph, including references to relationship problems, under the rule of completeness.
Court's actionThe court allowed cross-examination to proceed and said the issue could be addressed on redirect.
The defense objected to questioning about the expert's failure to review jail medical records, citing earlier discussions and a message directing her not to review them.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection specifically to Orange County Jail records, while allowing counsel to confirm what the witness had not relied on.
Owens objected that interpreting injuries from different bat movements exceeded the forensic psychologist’s expertise, and Jay said he would move on.
Owens reported no remaining witnesses and proposed argument on introducing a court record and taking judicial notice concerning an alleged no-contact order violation by Jorge Torres.
Court's actionThe court called an afternoon break, with argument afterward outside the jury’s presence and counsel then able to rest before the jury if nothing else remained.
Owens raised concerns about notice of Dr. Werner’s PTSD opinion and an agreement for a follow-up deposition, while Jay denied that her opinion had changed.
Court's actionThe court directed that the jury be removed temporarily.
Counsel disputed whether a witness’s answer about insufficient information to diagnose PTSD during a jail evaluation was responsive.
Court's actionThe court overruled the request, explaining that the answer addressed the question asking for the witness’s opinion.
Counsel disputed whether the psychiatrist’s testimony improperly addressed an imminent-threat issue reserved for the jury.
Court's actionThe judge requested a readback of the question and answer and said he would remove the jury.
Counsel disputed whether materials provided to the expert informed her opinions on the inapplicability of BSS and PTSD to the case.
Court's actionThe court allowed Jay to voir dire the witness.
Counsel disputed questioning Dr. Werner about narcissism, text messages, and medical records beyond the opinions offered on direct examination.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and allowed cross-examination despite limited relevance, instructing counsel to accept the witness’s answers and leaving further objections for consideration as they arose; it stated that 90.704 prohibits direct testimony to inadmissible evidence.
The court addressed counsel’s use of a deposition passage when questioning the witness about text messages.
Court's actionThe judge instructed counsel to give the witness an opportunity to state what she said in the deposition if asking her to rely on it when answering questions about text messages.
Counsel disputed whether cross-examination could explore additional expert opinions, including battered spouse syndrome, and whether closing argument could criticize the State’s limited direct examination.
Court's actionThe judge overruled the initial outside-the-scope objection, prohibited counsel from attacking each other in closing argument, and ordered a break with the jury to return at 1:30 p.m.
Counsel disputed whether distinguishing between psychiatrists and psychologists concerned collateral impeachment or bias.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Counsel disputed questioning about when the witness disclosed her opinions and whether she had promised to notify counsel of changes.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection, permitted questions about opinion formulation and disclosure timing, and barred questioning about an alleged notification promise or the remedied discovery issue.
Owens proposed impeaching the witness over her uncertainty about Lenore Walker and asking whether she recognized a battered spouse syndrome treatise as authoritative.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection because the matter was collateral.
Owens argued that questioning would repeat testimony about battered spouse and post-traumatic stress, while Jay said his question concerned information not addressed on direct.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection as to asked and answered.
Owens objected that redirect exceeded the scope of cross-examination, while Jay argued that intoxication was relevant to the credibility of histories related to photographs.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Mr. Jay requested a break before showing videos and reading texts, estimating the presentation would last until about 5:00 ahead of a juror’s 5:30 departure.
Court's actionThe court approved a short break until 3:05.
Counsel discussed the timing of instruction 2.2 after Jay described preexisting edits and additional redactions.
Court's actionThe court agreed to read instruction 2.2 at the end.
Counsel discussed whether to play about an hour of rebuttal videos that afternoon or the next day, given a juror’s time constraint.
Court's actionThe court stated that proceedings could not continue past 5:30.
The judge and counsel discussed whether to conduct individual juror follow-up questioning immediately or at the next break.
Court's actionThe court directed all jurors except Juror No. 2 to leave for individual follow-up questioning and instructed the jury not to investigate, research, or discuss the case.
Owens objected that the person reading the texts was changing his tone.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
The defense sought clarification about selected text-message readings and raised concerns about omitted context, shared phone use, and the prosecutor’s tone.
Court's actionThe judge declined to comment on shared phone use or specific pages, overruled the tone objection, and agreed to tell jurors that only portions of Exhibit 21 were shown and the full exhibit would be available on a laptop during deliberations.
The court and counsel discussed tentative jury-return timing, nonbinding closing-argument estimates, and unresolved surrebuttal and text-message issues.
Court's actionThe court directed that the jury be removed to address surrebuttal and inquire further of Ms. Boone about text messages before setting the jury’s return time.
The judge discussed an overlooked wording correction in the printed jury copy, and both attorneys accepted correcting it without reprinting.
Court's actionThe judge confirmed he would excise the overlooked wording with a permanent marker.
Owens argued that a spectator's crying in front of the jury was prejudicial and considered requesting a curative instruction.
Court's actionThe judge declined to excuse the jury at that point and accepted Owens's request to leave the matter alone.
Owens challenged closing argument about whether an arm could come out of the suitcase, citing testimony that a hand came out.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection, stating that the record provided a factual basis for the closing argument.
Jay challenged the relevance of Owens's remarks about coming from a small town and being pleasantly surprised by the hospitality received.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and allowed Owens to continue, instructing him not to belabor the topic.
Jay objected to alleged personal attacks during defense closing, while Owens argued he could criticize the State's case and evidence.
Court's actionThe court declined to sustain Jay's objection at that time, permitting criticism of the State's position and evidence but prohibiting personal attacks.
Jay objected that Owens was interjecting personal beliefs into his argument about the evidence.
Court's actionThe judge cautioned Owens about interjecting personal beliefs, instructed him not to ask jurors to put themselves in a party’s position, and allowed him to proceed.
The State objected to defense closing argument about Moreno's inconsistent statements, disclosure obligations, and criticism of the prosecution.
Court's actionThe judge allowed credibility arguments based on differing testimony, barred reading statements not in evidence, and instructed counsel to attack the evidence rather than the state attorney.
Counsel disputed defense responses to the prosecution’s opening statements and discussed closing argument length and possible participation by a second defense lawyer.
Court's actionThe court allowed responses to opening statements without personal attacks, set no time cap, and left participation by a second defense lawyer to defense counsel’s discretion.
Owens challenged Jay’s self-defense rebuttal, citing prior violence and battered-spouse testimony, then asked about closing argument time.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection.
Jay requested no changes to the instructions and did not object to any grammatical strike-throughs, while Owens noted objections previously mentioned in conference.
No sidebars match these filters.