Skip to content
Sarah Boone— Case Archive
2024 Criminal Trialtrial-daytrial-daysidebarvoir_direjury_selectionDay 1: Jury Selection - October 14, 2024Two jury panels were screened for hardships, publicity exposure, and impartiality, leaving 11 prospective jurors in Panel 1 and 13 in Panel 2. A protective-order ruling limited the defense witness names read to the jury.
2024 Criminal TrialDay 2: Jury Selection →

Day 1: Jury Selection - October 14, 2024

Jury Selection, Publicity Screening, and Witness-List Ruling

Judge Michael Kraynick
14Proceedings
5Pages
0Witnesses
2,215Lines
16Sidebars
Day 1: Jury Selection

Two jury panels were screened for hardships, publicity exposure, and impartiality, leaving 11 prospective jurors in Panel 1 and 13 in Panel 2. A protective-order ruling limited the defense witness names read to the jury.

Full day summary

Jury selection focused on service hardships, prior publicity, and impartiality across two panels. In Panel 1, stipulated cause challenges removed 35 of 50 prospective jurors, leaving 15. Individual questioning led to three further stipulated removals involving inability to remain impartial, active following of the case, and a prospective juror's experience of her sister's murder. A later stipulated excusal for caregiving responsibilities left 11 prospective jurors. The court released them with restrictions on research, discussions, and local news exposure. Panel 2 underwent screening for familiarity with Sarah Boone and potential witnesses, followed by questions about language comprehension, caregiving, financial conflicts, and medical needs. The court explored possible diabetes accommodations before stipulated cause challenges left 13 prospective jurors. Seats 2, 17, and 34 received individual publicity questioning. Seat 2 ultimately affirmed impartiality, and Seat 17 appeared to recall another case; neither faced a cause motion. Seat 34 agreed to rely only on trial evidence, but no cause decision was recorded before her questioning ended. During a sidebar, the court applied an existing protective order and directed that identified State Attorney's Office personnel not be named to the jury at that time. Defense counsel stated an intent to proffer their testimony outside the jury's presence for appeal. The court also allowed hospital records custodians to be named, deferring a conditional discovery concern about Jorge Torres's medical records until it arose.

1. Potential-Witness Discussion and Protective-Order Ruling

The court restricted naming State Attorney’s Office personnel during potential-witness lists under an existing protective order, allowed hospital records custodians to be named, and deferred a conditional discovery concern.

→
Procedural
Ruling on Publicity Questions During Jury Selection
26 lines
Procedural
Sarah Boone's Witness List, Trial Readiness, and Courtroom Accommodations
39 lines
Procedural
Venire Panel 1: Oath, Orientation, and Recognition of Sarah Boone
22 lines
sidebar
State Attorney Witnesses and Records Custodians
58 lines

Counsel disputed whether State Attorney’s Office personnel should be listed as potential witnesses and raised a possible discovery issue involving hospital records.

Highlights

Sidebar on potential witnesses and protective-order rulingrulingAfter the State objected and the defense stated its intent to proffer testimony outside the jury's presence for appeal, the court applied the existing protective order and directed that the identified State Attorney's Office personnel not be read to the jury at this time.

2. Panel 1 Voir Dire — Witness Familiarity and Publicity Screening

Panel 1 jury selection covers service hardships, stipulated cause strikes, and prior exposure to the case, with individual follow-up planned on impartiality concerns.

→
Voir Dire
Panel 1 voir dire on potential-witness familiarity
732 lines

Stipulated hardship dismissals left 15 prospective jurors on Panel 1. The court then screened for publicity exposure and impartiality concerns and planned individual follow-up.

2 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Reviewing Prospective Jurors’ Scheduling ConflictsThe court and counsel discussed reviewing prospective jurors’ scheduling conflicts before proceeding with questions about the case.
  2. Juror Screening and Social Media Follow-UpThe court and counsel discussed jurors’ ability to serve, planned individual questioning about prior knowledge, and follow-up questions about social media activity.

Highlights

Panel 1 voir dire on potential-witness familiarityrulingAfter the stipulated cause challenges, the court confirms that 15 prospective jurors remain, and both sides confirm the list.

3. Panel 1 Voir Dire — Individual Inquiries, Cause Challenges, and Selection Review

Panel 1 jury selection continued on Day 1 with screening for publicity exposure, impartiality, beliefs, and physical limitations. Four prospective jurors were excused by stipulation, leaving 11 who received return instructions and restrictions on outside information.

→
Voir Dire
Panel 1 voir dire on social media, beliefs, and physical limitations
260 lines

Three prospective jurors were removed through stipulated cause challenges after individual questioning. Two others faced no cause motions, and Seat 18 reported a caregiving conflict.

5 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Cause Challenges at the BenchCounsel clarified that the discussion concerned cause challenges, and neither side made a motion.
  2. Stipulated Cause Challenge to Badge 943Counsel requested and agreed to a for-cause challenge to the juror wearing Badge 943.
  3. Cause Challenge to Juror in Seat 35Counsel stipulated to a for-cause challenge to the juror in Seat 35, wearing Badge 664.
  4. Stipulated Cause Challenge for Badge 366Counsel stipulated to a for-cause challenge for the juror in Seat 28, wearing Badge 366.
  5. No Motions at the BenchAt the bench, Jay reported no motion at that time, and Henderson also reported no motion.
sidebar
Stipulated Cause Challenge to Badge 2870
5 lines

Counsel requested and stipulated to a for-cause strike of the juror in Seat 18, wearing Badge 2870.

jury selection
Panel 1 jury-selection review after Seat 18's excusal
74 lines

Seat 18 was excused for cause by stipulation. The remaining 11 prospective jurors received a corrected return notice and instructions against outside research, local news, and case-related communications.

Highlights

Panel 1 voir dire on social media, beliefs, and physical limitationsrulingBadge 664 confirmed actively following the case and estimated her latest exposure as the previous week. The court struck her for cause with both sides agreeing.Panel 1 jury-selection review after Seat 18's excusaljury eventThe court dismissed Seat 18, Badge 2870, by stipulated cause challenge, leaving 11 prospective jurors.

4. Panel 2 Voir Dire — Familiarity, Service Conflicts, and Financial Hardship

Panel 2 was sworn and screened on Day 1 for familiarity with Sarah Boone and potential witnesses, eligibility, and service conflicts. Three prospective jurors were excused, while childcare and diabetes-accommodation questions remained for further inquiry.

→
Procedural
Venire Panel 2: Oath and Familiarity with Sarah Boone and Potential Witnesses
39 lines

Four Panel 2 prospective jurors recognized Ms. Boone. Juror No. 3 recognized potential defense witness Debra Johnson, prompting the court to ask the parties to approach.

sidebar
Clarifying Debra Johnson's Identity
4 lines

Owens said he did not believe intended witness Debra Johnson was the local family law attorney of the same name.

Voir Dire
Panel 2 voir dire on familiarity and service conflicts
420 lines

Panel 2 underwent eligibility and hardship screening. The court excused Seats 12, 38, and 4, requested childcare follow-up, and agreed to further inquiry into possible diabetes accommodations.

2 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Discussion of Excusing Prospective JurorsThe court and counsel discussed excusing jurors over comprehension and language concerns, along with counsel's concern about No. 4's mention of his wife.
  2. Diabetes Accommodations and Cause ChallengesCounsel requested inquiry into possible accommodations for two prospective jurors with diabetes, questioning whether diabetes alone supported a cause challenge.

5. Panel 2 Voir Dire — Accommodations, Publicity, and Individual Inquiries

Panel 2 voir dire continued on Day 1 with service accommodations, agreed cause challenges, and individual questioning about prior case knowledge.

→
Voir Dire
Panel 2 voir dire on diabetes accommodations
478 lines

Stipulated cause challenges left 13 Panel 2 prospective jurors. The court followed up on service conflicts and individually questioned Seats 2, 17, and 34 about prior case knowledge.

3 sidebars inside this proceeding
  1. Separate Entry for Numbers 2, 17, and 34The sidebar addressed arrangements for bringing in numbers 2, 17, and 34 individually.
  2. Cause Motions at the BenchThe State reported no motion, and the defense reported no motion for cause.
  3. Possible Confusion With Lake County CaseThe court suggested possible confusion with a publicized Lake County case, and neither attorney sought a challenge for cause.
sidebar
Juror 49 Challenge and Panel Recall
20 lines

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.

Procedural
Panel 2 release and recall reporting arrangements
38 lines

Highlights

Panel 2 voir dire on diabetes accommodationsrulingAfter the stipulated cause challenges, the court corrected its remaining-seat list and confirmed with both sides that 13 prospective jurors remained on Panel 2.
2024 Criminal TrialDay 2: Jury Selection →