4.State Voir Dire — General Inquiry and Juror Questions
272 linesTHE COURT: Do you see her anywhere now?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, if you see her later, please bring it to our attention, okay?
JUROR: Okay.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
With that, members of the jury, I'm going to go ahead and turn over questioning to the State at this time.
Mr. Jay, you may proceed.
MR. JAY: Thank you.
Let me know if I'm too loud with the microphone because I'm pretty loud without it.
Thank you-all for your service. We're going to go through more questioning. I'll have some questions today, defense will likely have questions tomorrow.
We are just asking you to be open and honest with us. Even though we're going to get personal, even though we're going to ask you things that you may not think makes any sense, we're just asking you to be open and honest with us, because day four of the jury trial, if something comes up during the trial that we asked you about and you didn't tell us, it's going to be too late. We're going to have to -- we could have problems.
So can everybody promise to be open and honest with me to the best of your ability? Louder so I can hear you.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: That's more like it.
We are past the afternoon lull. You know, after lunch, there's sleepy time, but we're at 3:00 o'clock, so we should be past that.
First thing I'm going to ask you about, which you may not think makes any sense, but I promise it will in a minute. Who went on sleepovers as a child toa friend's house or cousin's house, relative's house? All right. Just about everybody.
How about as an adult, you know, we have these Airbnbs and all of these different places that you can now vacation with your friends and your family. Anybody do that as an adult?
JUROR: For work.
MR. JAY: All right. Now, in those experiences, as a child sleeping over or as an adult having a sleepover, did you learn anything about the people in the way they lived that was shocking or unusual to you? Does that apply to anybody?
All right. 6, without naming names, just briefly, what was it?
JUROR: The family was kind of dysfunctional, you know. The guy that I was friends with, we were, you know, 17, 18, but just staying over at his house it was just very odd. The whole family dynamic was very different, and he was -- you know, when we were by ourselves or with another group like that.
JUROR: No names.
JUROR: Two friends' houses I stayed over, their parents had pornography. My dad didn't, so it was kind of shocking.
MR. JAY: Okay. You may win. We may not top that.
All right. How about just in our adult lives, you come across people either, you know, co-workers, or maybe you see strangers in public at a restaurant, and you see a couple interacting in a way that is shocking or very different than what you're used to or how you would want to be treated or wanted to see your partner treated. Does that apply to anybody?
All right. Let's pick on Seat 32.
JUROR: Probably most people --
COURT REPORTER: Microphone, please.
JUROR: I was just saying that probably most people have seen people have a loud fight in a public place and it's a little weird.
MR. JAY: Okay. Anybody else ever experience that?
All right. Obviously, everybody has their own subjective opinions about how we perceive the world, how we think everybody should be living. What I'm going to ask you is if in this case, the only person's state of mind that matters will be the defendant's, not yours, just what the evidence shows about her state of mind, can everybody set aside what they may learn about as we take a glimpse into Ms. Boone's and Mr. Torres' life, at least for a day, but perhaps a larger window of time? Can everybody agree that the only person's state of mind that will be relevant to you in the jury instructions will be Ms. Boone's?
Does anybody have any doubt in your ability to put aside your subjective, what would you do, what would you say beliefs and just follow the law and only be concerned with Ms. Boone's state of mind? Anybody have doubts in their ability to do that? It's fine if you do. Today is the day, not day four.
Are you just holding your placard up?
JUROR: I feel like I always put myself in other people's shoes, or at least try to, so it would be hard to not do that.
JUROR: I just think that it would depend on the circumstances of what was happening. I mean, I've seen different things back and forth between people that, you know, sometimes it's like, you know, just let it go, and other times you just got to say something.
MR. JAY: Well, as a juror, it's not going to be your place to go back in time and saying something that may have been happening in the past. What your job as a juror is going to be is did the State prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. And an element of one of the -- the crime is going to involve her state of mind, and perhaps another instruction may involve her state of mind. Do you have any doubt in your ability to set aside your -- you know, your state of mind, your personal feelings about the conduct that was described in the testimony and evidence and just only consider that for her state of mind?
JUROR: I guess I could.
JUROR: Yes, I can.
JUROR: I think I can -- yeah, I can.
MR. JAY: Okay. Anybody else have anything they want to say about the topic? Because this part of the trial is the only time you can ask a lawyer and you will not get a bill. So if you have a question, now is the time to ask a question about this topic. If we move on to another topic and you want to come back, that's fine, it's still free. All right. We're good on this?
Anybody following baseball? Everybody that follows baseball and has stakes in television rights wants the New York Yankees and Aaron Judge to play Shohei Ohtani and the Los Angeles Dodgers. So I'm very sorry for the Guardians fans and the Mets fans. Sorry, Madam 50.
All right. My next question is: Do we have any professional baseball players here? No professional baseball players out of 48? Okay.
All right. Let's say that a reasonable batting average -- you don't have to know a lot about baseball, so if you don't, you're going to be fine. Let's say the average batting average is 200, which means 20 percent. One out of five times that you go up to the plate, you're going to get a hit, make it to first base or further safely, and get a big salary when your contract is up, all right?
Knowing that, when any particular baseball player that is in the major league baseball league steps up to the plate, is it reasonable to expect that 20 percent of the time they should get a hit? Anybody think it's not reasonable, that's like the average, normal, objectively reasonable baseball player? Now, if you're doing 300 or higher, you're going to get a lot more money.
All right. How about you, Seat 12? Have you ever stepped into the batter's box, baseball or softball, and swung a bat?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. JAY: So you've never faced somebody that throws, potentially, a hundred miles an hour, and can make the ball do three or four different tricks and slide it up and down and all around?
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: All right. Do you think it would be objectively reasonable for you to get a hit if you tried 200 times?
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: All right. Anybody disagree? Not nothing personal to No. 12, but put yourself, who thinks here, like, after never having faced a major league player -- all right, we'll get to you, 48 -- that you could do this?
All right. Seat 48?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Played Little League.
JUROR: Yeah.
JUROR: I worked with a professional pitcher who got injured, a man sitting right next to me, asking how to do things. You and I --
JUROR: -- each one of us is capable of hitting that bat. Probability and statistics, throw out a high volume number. So it is statistically likely that I will make contact. It might be a foul, it might go into the dirt, but I'm a hit it.
MR. JAY: All right. I'm talking about getting a hit. You're going to be on first base and asking for a contract.
JUROR: What's the volume again?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: All right. So, potentially, you're going to have a jury instruction that reads, what would be objectively reasonable for a person in those circumstances.
JUROR: They don't know because --
MR. JAY: All right. So the baseball example is one person may have a vastly different experience in the batter's box than another. Would everybody agree with that?
And so in that particular instance, if you're read an instruction about what an objectively reasonable person in those circumstances would do, it's going to be, again, that person and not your personal experience. Does everybody understand that? Anybody have a problem they think with following that instruction?
The last thing we're doing and what is not a part of this is asking you, the juror, what you would do. And I just want to make sure nobody has any problems understanding that this is not about what you would do. Anybody have doubt in their ability? That's a no? We got quiet.
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: Okay. Next thing I want to talk about, second degree murder. I know that it's been mentioned from the Information that there was a murder charge, it is a second degree murder charge. Again, there's no death penalty. That is for certain select first degree murder cases. So this is not a death penalty case.
My question is this: If part of the instruction that you will receive at the end of the trial, if you are lucky enough to join us and stay, I know you're already happy about day two, if there is an instruction that says, second degree murder does not require the State to prove an intent to kill, is anybody going to have any doubts in their ability to follow that instruction? Second degree murder does not require an intent to kill.
First row on my right, your left, anybody have any problems with that instruction as it is read?
Second row, on your left? You're awful quite.
Mr. 25?
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: All right. Third row, left?
Fourth row, left?
All right. First row, right?
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right?
Okay. I also expect there will be an instruction of the law from the judge that says, basically, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime in Florida, specifically, alcohol.
Anybody in the front row on the left have any doubts in your ability to follow that instruction if the judge gives it to you?
Second row on the left?
Third row on the left?
Fourth row on the left?
First row on the right?
Second row on the right?
Third row on the right?
Fourth row on the right?
All right. Anybody in the front row, right, not follow the news at all, avoid it? I know we talked a little about it Monday and Tuesday, but this is going to be a different line of questioning.
Anybody avoid the news, doesn't follow it at all? Raise your paddle up high if that applies to you. Front row, right -- unless you want a shoulder's workout.
4, any particular reason you avoid the news?
JUROR: Just super negative.
JUROR: I did watch the -- some of the hurricane stuff, like the weather.
JUROR: But, no, I don't follow the news.
JUROR: No. I --
MR. JAY: You do follow the news?
Anybody else in the front row, right?
Second row, right? You got to do it high, like I'm really going to give you that trip the judge is promising people, around the world to your favorite destination.
All right. 16, any particular reason you don't watch the news?
JUROR: Same reason as her, just negative, and I'd rather use my time reading other things.
JUROR: Same reason, too negative.
JUROR: I just find it overwhelming for the most part, leading to the negative aspect. Also, there's just so much information. So I'll keep up to date with the weather and things like that, but for the most part, I try to stay away.
MR. JAY: Okay. Is it fair to summarize it as overwhelming and negative? So that everybody can hear.
JUROR: Uh-huh.
JUROR: No. I just don't -- I prefer to not watch the news.
MR. JAY: All right. Is there any particular way you find out what's going on in the world and the community around you other than the news?
JUROR: I'm just left out of the negatives. I just don't pay attention.
JUROR: Yes, exactly.
JUROR: Local or national?
JUROR: Okay. Well, then, I don't --
JUROR: If that's the case, I don't avoid it. Only avoid local.
JUROR: I find it uninteresting and irrelevant.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Not mainstream --
COURT REPORTER: I cannot hear.
JUROR: Citizens Free Press, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, Red State, Real Clear Politics, FrontPage Magazine.
MR. JAY: Okay. I take it from one of those names, at least one source is right leaning; is that fair?
JUROR: Quite a few are.
JUROR: Real Clear Politics has a pretty good blend.
MR. JAY: Okay. How do you go about resolving conflicts and stories? One source may say X happened, another source says Y happened, is there any way you go about resolving that since get your news from multiple sources who may lean in different directions?
JUROR: Sometimes time plays out. Eventually the truth comes out. Sometimes corrections come out.
MR. JAY: Do you ever actively seek to do your own research and find the answer between the two different -- or more than two different possibilities?
JUROR: Rarely, because you really can't trust Google.
JUROR: It's kind of like the same as some of you were saying where it's just like overly negative. And I also think there's like such an overwhelming amount of information. It can be kind of hard to tell which sources are reliable.
JUROR: I think that's kind of the hard part. I don't really have a good reference point, so I usually kind of see some information and, like, I don't really know if I believe that, but then just not look into it any further and just move on.
MR. JAY: Okay. So part of your job application to join us for two weeks, which I know is what everybody deeply wants, is you're going to have to decide what is reliable testimony and evidence. So if we're going to ask you what in your skill set makes you a good applicant to become a juror and join us, it would be an honor and a privilege, what makes you good at discerning whether somebody is giving you a reliable version of events?
JUROR: Well, I think I probably have like a pretty critical eye. I think the problem I have with most news, I don't just put the time in to really dive into it, but I do think, like, given enough time, I probably would be able to kind of accurately, like, assess information.
JUROR: Don't necessarily avoid it, just don't really watch much news at all, if any. Just in time, other things I want to watch, like baseball.
JUROR: The Rays. We won't discuss it.
JUROR: Very similar. I don't watch TV in general.
MR. JAY: Okay. So, like your compatriot right in front of you to your left, how is it that you figure out what's going on in the world around you, whether it's near or far?
JUROR: Yeah. So I just have people in my life that tell me the important things that I need to know versus everything.
JUROR: 46.
JUROR: Mainly, my parents. So, like, hurricanes and things like that, I need to know.
JUROR: No -- well, unless you count Pinterest.
MR. JAY: Pinterest? I don't know. Do news stories make it between the cheese boards and the charcuterie?
JUROR: No. I'm house hunting right now, so it's a lot of house stuff.
JUROR: Correct.
MR. JAY: All right. All right. Anybody else on the right side before I come over here?
Front row, left, do you avoid the news?
Mr. 8, why do you avoid the news?
JUROR: I don't particularly avoid it. There are so many hours ina day. I only have so much news to go around.
MR. JAY: All right. How is it, if at all, you figure out what's going on in the world near and far?
JUROR: Trusted sources.
JUROR: People that I trust. If it's important enough for them to bring up, I'll typically ask.
JUROR: Family members, certain close friends.
MR. JAY: Close friends.
So same question. Ms. Boone and the State of Florida are looking for people to determine what evidence is reliable. What skill set do you feel like you're bringing to the table to determine what's reliable testimony and evidence?
JUROR: I think it just comes down to comparing testimony and evidence with the facts.
JUROR: With the law, right? The evidence against the law.
MR. JAY: Okay. And how are you going to determine what testimony is more reliable than other testimony?
JUROR: I'm not sure. That's a good question.
MR. JAY: If the judge gives you a series of instructions about how to evaluate witness testimony and evidence, do you believe you'd be able to follow them --
JUROR: I do.
MR. JAY: -- as a guide?
So you're not coming in with your own guide is what I'm getting at, right?
JUROR: Correct.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: I have enough to worry about in my own little circle.
JUROR: I guess big things I happen to see on social media, although I don't really look at too much of that. And, also, like, my mother texts me if there's a hurricane coming. That's how I knew about the hurricane.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: I feel like it's -- my day to day, I don't have no kids, so when I'm off of work, the TV is on some wonderful show. And then at night, it's just mentally exhausting sometimes to watch it. So I learn if there's a hurricane coming, the schools are closed, I flip it on and we watch the weather channel all day. Go Tom Terry.
JUROR: Yeah, of course.
JUROR: Not as much anymore, no.
JUROR: Not like when he shows up.
MR. JAY: That's when you know you're in trouble.
What do you do to unwind and relax your mind when you flip on the TV?
JUROR: I watch a no-brainer show, not a reality show, just a 30-minute sitcom that I can fall asleep on. Or the sounds of Monday Night Football.
JUROR: Sometimes crime shows.
JUROR: I fall asleep to Law & Order, Dateline, CSI, Criminal Minds.
JUROR: Probably 20 percent.
JUROR: I cannot say I don't like news. The news watches me because I don't pay attention to them. Because even if I have to cook or exercise or clean the house or tend to my boys, I got two teenaged boys and --
JUROR: Yes. And all they do is scream with those video games and I hear screaming and say shut up, shut up.
JUROR: For 17 years I never been away from them.
JUROR: One night.
MR. JAY: All right. Well, we won't keep you overnight. There's no danger of being sequestered like that. That's not this.
JUROR: The truth.
JUROR: So, I have two kids and I'm a teacher, so if I have some free time after that, I watch Love is Blind.
JUROR: I have limited views. I usually just watch for the hurricane notifications and what's going on with that. But for entertainment, I'll flip through my Yahoo and YouTube. Not I'm usually looking for facts -- the reason I don't watch the news is because it's more agenda-based than fact-based. It needs to be more factual, less opinions.
JUROR: Yeah. It's mostly weather reports and I try to avoid watching it because the crime rate is so high these days and overwhelming, so I try to avoid negativity. Focus on the main things, you know, politics versus weather reports.
JUROR: May probably listen to the different news sources, weigh the facts, make up your mind.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. So Mr. 49 mentioned something. He mentioned that his opinion is that the news has gotten more opinionated over the years. Does anybody agree with Mr. 49's opinion that the news got more opinionated?
All right. Does anybody disagree? Okay.
Maybe, 23? You don't think the news had gotten more opinionated?
JUROR: I think there are more news outlets to give different opinions. I think there are historically less options that pretty much say the same line. Now with more options, you have more sides to the story.
MR. HENDERSON: If you could speak up, please. Take the mic.
JUROR: I just said that there are more options today than there were. At least in my background, we went from three networks to countless options defining different news. You can certainly find the opinions that you're looking for, you know, from different outlets.
MR. JAY: So, now you mentioned that, I was actually going to hop right into. How many people with our opinion news driven society actively seek out opinions that they agree with? Anybody going to be honest enough to say, when you go looking for news, and you know it's going to be opinionated, you want the opinion you agree with? Does that apply to anybody in the front row on the right?
2, how do you feel about that?
JUROR: I generally want to get both sides, so I actively search out one side that I know I already agree with, then I also actively search out ones that I know I don't agree with.
JUROR: Generally, ask other people, but try to figure it out or just totally ignore it because who cares.
MR. JAY: So if you get selected to be here on the jury, you may hear conflicting facts and you may have to resolve them. The only other people you're going to be able to ask are going to be your several new friends in the back jury room with you. You're not going to be able to phone dad like on the Millionaire. How do you -- do you think you're going to be able to sit in the jury room and resolve conflicts? Do you think you have the skill set to do that?
JUROR: Yeah.
JUROR: (No verbal response.)
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Anybody else on the front row, right, seek out news and opinions that you agree with?
Second row, right?
Third row, right -- second row, Seat 17, how do you feel about opinion news and seek it out?
JUROR: Well, I feel like every news organization is opinionated to some degree at this point. I tend to lean right, so I tend to lean more right sources. I also tend to read a lot of left sources because I want to try to find the middle. It seems to be closer -- it's not just closer to what is actually true, but often one side will only report certain things that are interesting to their narrative. So if you want to hear everything, you have to look at both sides.
JUROR: I mean, looking at both sides for one. Trying to stay objective about things. In some cases, like I prefer to study, go back and read the preface and things like that.
MR. JAY: All right. Going to kind of move on, but does anybody else have anything that they feel like they want to share about news and opinions and how you kind of resolve the conflicts that sometimes get presented by our news media?
Madam 43?
JUROR: I think common sense, because, obviously, every channel has their own lean and spin, but I just ask myself if it makes sense or if it doesn't make sense.
JUROR: If I can add something to that. If it aligns with the other facts that I see, right, like the other things that I could -- how close is this to home from what I can see.
MR. JAY: Okay. Does anybody actively challenge themselves to find opinions that they know they'll disagree with? All right. Let's hold up the placards for one second.
All right. 2, 3 -- you can put them down unless you want a workout -- 16, 17, 29, 31, 41, 14, 26, 48, 51, 52, 53.
All right. Seat 14, how do go about actively seeking opinions you disagree with?
JUROR: Well, as some of the other folks have said --
COURT REPORTER: He needs a microphone.
JUROR: Sorry.
JUROR: As some of the other folks have said, I kind of have my go-to news sources, but I always make sure I balance it between both conservative and liberal sources and I tend to lean more liberal, but I'll actively seek out conservative viewpoints or talk to my conservative friends to make sure that I am getting as full a picture as I can before I form my own opinions on things.
JUROR: I have many friends and relatives even who have very different political leanings than I do, and they send me lots of sources and I read them to understand what they believe, and I even research the issues on my own. I'm a retired teacher and part of the curriculum I had to teach was critical thinking and how to look at multiple sources.
MR. JAY: Okay. And anybody have anything to add on this topic before we move on?
All right. The reason I'm asking about this is presumably nobody knows any of our witnesses, because we each read witness lists and, of course, there's only one person on earth with those names and everybody remembers names. So I understand that you may realize you know a witness when the witness is up there, but presumably you don't know these witnesses, so you do not have a baseline with these people about having talked to them before and watched them talk and listened to them talk to decide a credibility level. You're going to be asked to evaluate the credibility, the truthfulness, how much weight to give what they're Saying, like, do they deserve a lot of weight because they're an expert or not.
So does anybody feel like this job of being asked to evaluate the credibility of strangers is just not in your wheel set of skills?
Front row, right, does anybody feel like they just can't do that, evaluate the credibility of strangers?
All right. Second row on the right, anybody feel like they have a doubt in their ability to evaluate the credibility of strangers?
Third row, right?
Last row, right?
Seat 44, how do you feel about that? And maybe get the microphone.
JUROR: I feel -- pardon me. I feel there's a lot in lack of integrity and character in people today and that people lie when impunity. And I don't feel like I could have the confidence that I can believe contradictory information. And, additionally, in regards to professionals, anybody can be bought with a price.
JUROR: Not me.
JUROR: Cannot be bought with a price, but I feel people who want to give, quote, professionals, whether it's a professional -- like, won't give an example, but because it happens all the time, even in government, the government wants a steady -- get the right people and you'll get the result you want.
MR. JAY: Okay. So this is going to be an adversary proceeding. The State has the burden. We have to do it all. And so to use another sports analogy. The defense can put zero people on the field and wait and see. Does the State of Florida make it to the goal line and get a touchdown or are they like the New York Jets, they fumble along the way, they step out of bounds, they put 12 men on the field, they do something incredibly stupid?
Do you feel like given this adversary setting where people -- each side has an opportunity to challenge each other's witnesses with questions -- cross-examination has been described as the greatest engine to discover the truth ever invented.
Do you feel like you can do that or do you feel like you just have this presumption that most people lie and are corrupt and if they're an expert and getting paid for sure?
JUROR: I won't say a general statement that everybody is corrupt and everybody lies, but I would struggle with the reasonable doubt issue.
MR. JAY: Okay. Thank you very much.
Anybody else agree with Madam 44?
Okay. All right. Front row, left, anybody feel like evaluating the credibility of strangers is just not in your wheelhouse?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Fourth row, left?
All right. Kind of the same spin. We've talked about it a little bit, particularly with Madam 44. Does anybody believe that when a witness comes in, raises his or her right hand, swears or affirms to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that that means nobody would ever lie because nobody would ever lie under oath?
Does anybody believe that in the front row, right? Raise your placard if you believe that.
Second row?
Third row?
Fourth row? I know your opinion, Madam 44.
JUROR: Okay. That's a double negative on the question. Repeat the question.
MR. JAY: So if somebody raises their hand, his or her hand, swears to tell the truth, takes an oath, does anybody believe that -- that nobody would lie under oath? Anybody believe that? That is my question.
Front row, left, anybody believe once you take an oath, there's no way anybody would lie to you-all in the jury box?
All right. Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Fourth row, left?
So do we all agree you have a job to do? You cannot guarantee somebody is telling you the truth just because they come in and take an oath. Does everybody agree? Raise your placard and let me know you're alive.
Okay. Is there anybody that believes that they would want to close their eyes or wear blinders like you're going to sleep and not watch the witness testify, you would just listen?
Does anybody in the front row, right, feel like they wouldn't want to watch the witness testify, just listen?
Seat 4, you look dumbfounded, so I'm calling on you.
JUROR: Sorry.
JUROR: I was trying to think if that would make a difference, whether you saw them or not.
JUROR: I don't know. I think, personally, I don't know if it makes a difference. I think I would want to see them, so maybe, yes.
JUROR: I think I can see them or hear them either way. It wouldn't determine my --
MR. JAY: Does anybody feel like it's crucial, it's really important to see body language?
All right. Let's pick on Seat No. 1. How do you feel about that?
JUROR: Yeah. I think --
JUROR: Yeah. I said I think body mannerisms play a huge part being able to see how someone reacts to questioning and how they respond is a big part, so, yeah.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Is there anybody who agrees with Madam 5 who says, I can live without body language?
JUROR: No, I didn't say that. I said I can do either or.
JUROR: I prefer to see the body language, absolutely.
JUROR: I mean -- I mean, we're also gonna have access to all the transcripts, so -- at the end of this for our deliberations, so we kind of have to be able to do it without the presence of body language.
MR. JAY: So let me help you understand the criminal justice system. You will not have transcripts. You're going to listen to live testimony. There will be physical exhibits, which you will be able to see if they are published during the proceedings. If they are published during the proceedings, they will go back with you to the jury room and you can look at them, hold them, whatever you want to do with them, with limits, as much as you'd like for as long as you need to deliberate.
So I don't want anybody to be under the impression that you're coming back and doing our trial by transcripts. That's not even how civil cases work.
So knowing that, that you're not going to get transcripts, are you going to watch the witnesses to see their body language as they testify?
JUROR: Not all the time.
JUROR: I have a question.
JUROR: Yeah. Can the juror take notes during the --
THE COURT: Can you-all approach for a moment?
JUROR: Or take notes or write notes?
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: I didn't want to steal your thunder. Yes, the practice is I do allow note-taking, but I give the instruction that you rely on your memory as opposed to notes and don't be unduly influenced by the notes of another juror. So, yes.
THE COURT: Yes, sir?
MR. OWENS: Isn't that the standard --
THE COURT: Yes, it's the standard instruction for note-taking, yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: One question.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Something close to that. How about questions because if someone asked if the jurors --
THE COURT: It's not a must, it's a may in criminal concepts. I don't plan on implanting that into their mind if they want to ask questions.
THE COURT: No. For the juror members to provide written questions. It's a shall in civil cases. It's a may in criminal cases. I don't plan on --
MR. HENDERSON: I've never asked for it.
THE COURT: I don't plan on planting the seed for them to ask any questions.
THE COURT: Okay. Excellent. Thank you-all.