5.State Voir Dire — Graphic Evidence, Prior Jury Service, and Impartiality
781 lines(In open court.)
THE COURT: Mr. Jay, you may proceed.
MR. JAY: So, Mr. 24, you-all will be given notepads. You can take notes and then there will be instructions about, you know, how to rely on them versus your memory, versus testimony. The judge will give you that instruction. And they will be destroyed at the end of the trial, they will not be published to anyone, if you want to take notes.
All right. Anybody else on this body language issue?
I am out of my memory of my script.
Some of the evidence in this case is going to involve pictures of a deceased person that were taken at the scene. Does anybody, knowing yourself, because you-all know yourself better than anybody, but knowing that that is going to occur in this trial, and I understand that nobody woke up and was, like, man, I really hope I get to see these types of photographs. That is not my question at all. My question is: Does anybody have any doubt in his or her ability to view that type of evidence and constrain your emotional reaction enough to do your job and decide whether those photographs help prove the State's allegations or don't help prove the State's allegations?
Anybody in the front row right have any concerns about your ability to view that type of evidence and use it as the judge instructs?
Second row, right?
Third low, right?
Fourth row, right?
Front row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Back row, left?
There may be in evidence a video of somebody inside of a suitcase and there will be audio of two people in the room. Does anybody feel like viewing that type of evidence is going to prevent you from being fair and impartial in doing your job?
Does anybody have a doubt in your ability to view that type of evidence and use it to decide whether the guilt of the defendant had been proven or not?
Front row, right?
Second, row, right?
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right?
Front row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Last row, left?
All right. There are going to be autopsy photographs, and if you don't know what an autopsy is, that's when a doctor, called a forensic pathologist, for lack of a better term, dissects the body and makes opinions about cause and manner of death.
Again, I know nobody likely woke up and said, I really hope I get to see these types of photographs, that is what I was really hoping for. The question is, you know yourself better than anybody, and when that medical examiner comes to testify on whichever day it is, it will be too late when the photographs go up on the screen to say, I can't do this and have an emotional breakdown. It's fine, but you just need to let us know now if you have any doubt in your ability to do that.
Front row, right, do you have any doubt in your ability to do that?
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Seat 34, how do you feel about that?
JUROR: I have a weak stomach, so certain things will make me really sick.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: Okay. Thank you.
Anybody else, third row, right?
Last row, right?
Front row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Last row, left?
Okay. Now, to lighten things up, which is done intentionally with my little script, we're going to talk about prior jury service. To make this go as quickly and as efficiently as possible, I'm going to ask the same questions of each juror so that we can zing through it.
Do not tell me the verdict. If you-all reached a verdict in your prior case, do not tell us what the verdict was, but I will ask if there was a verdict.
So, the way I'm going to ask that is, I'm going to ask if the form is correct, did you ever serve on a jury. If so, was it criminal or civil? Criminal is a case like this where the State of Florida or the federal government or some other -- sometimes it's cities and counties in other places, prosecuted a crime against an accused. A civil case is two people generally suing over money. Sometimes there is this thing called equitable remedies, but you probably didn't do that.
I'm going to ask if you were the foreperson, which means the leader of the jury, which, by the way, you do not get extra pay. And whether you heard any expert testimony and I'll ask what kind of experts. What the charges were if it was criminal. What it was about if it was civil.
Hopefully, we can zip through this and get on track for dinner.
So, Seat 6, have you ever been on a jury?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Civil.
JUROR: It was a slip and fall.
JUROR: Yes, we did.
JUROR: No.
MR. HENDERSON: Did you hear any expert testimony such as like permanency of injury?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Not that I recall.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Criminal.
JUROR: DUI.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Not that I recall. It was probably 20 years ago.
MR. JAY: All right. It would really only be the guys that can talk about the magic pen in your eyes. Does that ring a bell?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Criminal.
JUROR: It was a murder trial.
JUROR: I believe it was 2016, I believe.
JUROR: Here in Orange County.
JUROR: I believe I recall his first name, sir.
JUROR: Terrence.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: The prosecutor at that time was a female.
JUROR: We did.
JUROR: I was not, no.
JUROR: We did.
JUROR: There was a ballistics expert.
JUROR: That's all I can recall.
JUROR: It was a civil case.
MR. JAY: I was just making sure I had you. I don't have my chart. I'm just guessing my numbers at this point.
So Seat 16. Could we have the microphone?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Civil.
JUROR: Car accident.
JUROR: No. It settled before it got to that.
JUROR: About two and a half day's worth.
JUROR: I believe there was at least one physician.
MR. JAY: Anybody testify about, like, physics or all these words about bodies in motion and crashes or anything like that?
JUROR: No. It was mainly imaging.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: Did you-all reach -- no, no verdict. Never mind. You didn't get to be the foreperson either?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Criminal.
JUROR: I remember there was a guy and he was flashing at the police with a knife, and I don't know what he did prior to that, but, yes -- and I was the floor person.
JUROR: Oh.
JUROR: I did not know that.
MR. JAY: I think that's the golf word. So foreperson, t he leader. You didn't get extra pay, right?
JUROR: Correct.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Civil.
JUROR: A slip and fall.
JUROR: It was settled before we had a verdict.
JUROR: About one day's worth of testimony.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes. A long time ago. It was -- it only lasted ten minutes, but it was a mistrial.
JUROR: And I don't remember what it was, but it was Orange County here, years ago.
JUROR: I guess the lawyers were both arguing back and forth and the judge just -- I guess, he had enough and just called it quits.
JUROR: I have not. I was called to jury service -- this is my third time. First time called in, didn't need to show up. Second time, never made it to a panel.
JUROR: That's correct.
JUROR: Yes, I have. Counterfeiting and it was kind of a political --
JUROR: I have. It was criminal. Out of state a long time ago. And it was some kind of political fund misappropriation, something like that, and counterfeiting.
JUROR: We did, and I was not the foreperson.
JUROR: Lots.
JUROR: FBI investigations findings, things like that.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Civil.
JUROR: It was a dispute over a contract. Only one side actually showed up. The defendant was not present.
MR. JAY: Interesting. I promise you, everybody, a murder trial is going to be a far more interesting experience than a contract dispute. They make TV shows about this.
All right. Did you-all reach a verdict?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: I have.
JUROR: I'm sorry.
JUROR: Criminal.
JUROR: What were the charges?
JUROR: Guilty.
JUROR: Oh, I'm sorry. DUI.
JUROR: I was not.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Civil.
JUROR: The roofing or siding for a building.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: That seemed definitive. All right. I can't imagine. But was there expert testimony, maybe an evaluation of a roof?
JUROR: Maybe.
JUROR: Almost eight years ago. Right after my birthday.
JUROR: Does leader and foreperson mean the same thing?
MR. JAY: Yeah. I'm being a lawyer. I'm mixing up lawyer words and lay terms. So I'm sorry. Leader, foreperson, big boss man, whatever you what to call it.
39, were you ever on a jury?
JUROR: I was.
JUROR: I can't remember. I think it was criminal.
JUROR: I can't remember.
JUROR: No. We were dismissed because one of the attorneys said something in front of us that he wasn't supposed to.
MR. JAY: All right. That's a good reason to not remember what it was about. Thank you.
42, forget which side that was on.
JUROR: They didn't show.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Hello. Civil or criminal?
JUROR: Criminal.
JUROR: Breaking and entering.
JUROR: No. It was in Michigan.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Probably. It was about 40 years ago, but it did involve fingerprints, so I would say yes.
JUROR: Hi.
MR. JAY: I'm picking on you because your form doesn't say anything. So tell me about yourself. We're going to speed date for a minute.
JUROR: I haven't served on a jury.
JUROR: Oh, those weren't marked as mandatory. I'm a compensation analyst.
JUROR: Compensation.
JUROR: Analyze the pay and wage of people.
JUROR: About six years.
JUROR: No. No, I don't.
JUROR: Not personally. I had a neighbor.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Criminal.
JUROR: DUI.
JUROR: No. It was a hung jury.
MR. JAY: Okay. What did you feel about that experience of sitting through a trial and then being on an undecided jury?
JUROR: It was a unique experience.
JUROR: They wouldn't let us go home. We were there until 1:00 o'clock in the morning.
JUROR: No. Just selected to come in.
MR. JAY: Did either the form or me -- form or I. Did either the form or I miss anybody that has jury service?
All right. Front row, right, anybody know anybody in law enforcement? Close relative, really close friend. Does that apply to anybody in the front row, right?
JUROR: I know people. I wouldn't say they're close friends.
JUROR: Retired police officer.
JUROR: Brother-in-law.
JUROR: No. New York City Police.
JUROR: Yeah. I mean, he worked at One Police Plaza for 9/11 for a while.
MR. JAY: Do you feel like you've gained any specialized knowledge in criminal justice from your brother-in-law?
JUROR: I mean, just that stuff is ugly out there.
MR. JAY: All right. Do you feel your relationship with him is going to have any affect on your impartiality or your verdict?
JUROR: Oh, no.
JUROR: Retired, my dad, my grandfather, and my uncle.
JUROR: No. And it was in Wisconsin.
JUROR: I know, but they weren't.
JUROR: They weren't.
MR. JAY: And do you feel like you've gained any specialized knowledge from them about the criminal justice system?
JUROR: No, not really because my dad never talked about it.
MR. JAY: All right. And do you have any concern that your relationship with any of these folks is going to affect your impartiality or your verdict?
JUROR: None.
JUROR: Yeah. My wife's father was a career law enforcement. He was a conservation officer in Indiana. Her grandfather was a state police with the county she and I grew up in. My son-in-law is a deputy sheriff in Indiana and he just got his K-9 dog. I got quite a few. On my wife's side, not on my Side.
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: And do you feel like your relationship with any of them has caused you to have a greater understanding of the criminal justice system than an average person?
JUROR: I don't really think so. I mean, they talked about high-speed chases and stuff, shootouts they've been in, but other than that, you know, just the sensational stuff, not the nuts and bolts.
MR. JAY: Do you feel like your relationship with any of these folks is going to affect your impartiality or your verdict?
JUROR: No, it shouldn't.
MR. JAY: So, again, the airplane. Are you certain -- the real standard is do you have any doubt in your ability to do it?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: Okay. Anybody else in the second row, right?
Third row, right?
Real close friend, close relative, fourth row, right? Mr. 45?
JUROR: Yes. I have multiple uncles who are police officers and my father is a chaplain for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.
JUROR: The Orange County Sheriff's Department.
THE COURT: And do you understand from the witness list there are going to be several employees from the Orange County Sheriff's Office testifying?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: Do you have any concern about your relationship with one of the chaplains or the chaplain, perhaps with the sheriff's office, affecting your ability to evaluate a deputy's testimony?
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: Do you feel like your relationship with any of these folks is going to affect your verdict, like you would be concerned about what they would think if you voted not guilty?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: My cousin's husband.
JUROR: Not that I'm aware of.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: I don't.
MR. JAY: Okay. Do you have any concern about your relationship with this person affecting your impartiality or your decision on a verdict?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: My brother's a retired police officer in the suburbs of Chicago. He also pulled about a two and a half year rotation as a detective for the police department.
JUROR: Patrol officers get to go do rotations and he had about a two and a half year rotation as a detective.
MR. JAY: And my question is, some agencies, like the sheriff's office here, has specialties, like homicides, sex crimes. Was it a specialized assignment or just a detective for everything?
JUROR: Just detective.
MR. JAY: And that relationship you have, do you feel like you've gained any specialized knowledge in the criminal justice system?
JUROR: Well, I used to also be an Army military policeman when I was on active duty.
JUROR: Seven and a half years active.
JUROR: All seven and a half years.
MR. JAY: Do you feel like you have personal experiences in law enforcement or your relative's experience has given you any specialized knowledge in criminal justice that the ordinary person wouldn't have?
JUROR: Probably just the process.
MR. JAY: And if your memory of the process -- and I promise you, the military process is very different than this -- conflicts, will you be able to follow the law?
JUROR: Absolutely.
MR. JAY: Do you have any concern about your experience or your relationship with folks affecting your impartiality when you're evaluating the testimony and credibility of officers?
JUROR: No, sir.
JUROR: Not at all.
JUROR: I was a police officer.
JUROR: Two years with Waterbury, Connecticut, five years --
JUROR: I did two years in Waterbury, Connecticut and five years in Nassau County, New York, with the sheriff's department.
JUROR: That was Waterbury Police.
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: Do you feel like you've gained such a specialized knowledge of the criminal justice system that you would have any difficulties in following any of the instructions that the judge gives in this case?
JUROR: No.
THE COURT: Do you think it would affect your perception of testimony and evidence in this case?
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: Do you have any concern about it affecting your verdict or your impartiality in general?
JUROR: No, I don't.
JUROR: I do investing now.
JUROR: Yes. My stepfather, Metropolitan Police Officer.
JUROR: I don't think so.
MR. JAY: Okay. Your relationship with him, do you feel like you've gained a specialized knowledge of criminal justice?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Probably not.
JUROR: I don't have any doubt.
JUROR: I had back in the day cousins that were in the DEA.
JUROR: Christmas was interesting.
JUROR: I have both sides, like, criminals and DEA. But they just didn't talk about it is what my parents told us.
JUROR: We couldn't talk about certain things at Christmas. Well, they couldn't.
MR. JAY: Your cousins that were in federal law enforcement, do you feel like you've gained any specialized knowledge in the criminal justice system from them?
JUROR: No. My parents told them they couldn't talk -- both the criminals and the law enforcement couldn't talk about that stuff to us.
MR. JAY: And do you have any doubt in your ability to be fair and impartial despite your relationship with criminals and federal law enforcement agents?
JUROR: I think I can be neutral.
JUROR: Not a law enforcement officer, but my daughter is general counsel for the St. Petersburg Police Department. She told me I should disclose that to you.
MR. JAY: And do you feel like her role as general counsel at the police department is going to affect your ability to be fair and impartial in evaluating the testimony of officers?
JUROR: I do not.
MR. JAY: Do you have any concerns about your impartiality and your ability to return a not guilty verdict because of your relationship with her?
JUROR: No. She rarely talks about her work with me.
MR. JAY: All right. Anybody else?
Okay. We kind of covered it a little bit. Anybody else themselves have law enforcement experience that I have not covered?
All right. Any attorneys out there?
All right. I believe we lost the one we had yesterday.
Anybody have a social relationship with an attorney who practices criminal law? An attorney who practices criminal law is somebody who works for a government agency and prosecutes people, or it's somebody who represents people accused of crimes. Anybody have a close family member or close friend that is a criminal defense attorney or prosecutor?
Front row, right?
Second row, right? I saw a maybe. Seat 19, who do you know?
JUROR: My cousin is a defense attorney, criminal defense attorney up in Indiana.
MR. JAY: And do you feel like that relationship is going to have any affect on your ability to serve?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Brock Shields.
JUROR: He's a defense attorney.
MR. JAY: And once upon a time, was he a prosecutor? I think so. Anyways, your relationship with Mr. Shields, is that going to affect your ability to be fair and impartial to the State and to Ms. Boone?
JUROR: No.
MR. JAY: Okay. Anybody else, front row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row?
Last row?
Okay. Anybody yourself -- I think there are no psychologists left. I don't think we had any psychiatrists. But anybody have a forensic psychologist or a forensic psychiatrist for a friend or a relative?
Front row, right?
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Last row, right?
Front row, left?
Second row, left? Seat 27?
JUROR: I don't know if he's a forensic psychologist --
JUROR: I don't know the difference between a forensic psychologist or just a psychologist, but I have a friend.
JUROR: He's a psychologist.
MR. JAY: Okay. And do you feel like you've gained any specialized knowledge in psychology from your friend?
JUROR: Nothing.
MR. JAY: Perfect.
All right. Anybody else, second row, left?
Third row, left?
Last row, left?
All right. We'll expand it to, like Seat 27 said, any psychologist, any psychiatrist, not just in the subspecialty of forensic. Anybody know anybody like that?
Mr. 23, can you get the microphone?
JUROR: I just have a good friend that's a sports psychologist at Ohio State University.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: Do you feel like you've gained any specialized knowledge in psychology from your friend?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Absolutely not.
MR. JAY: All right. Anybody else out there know what the DSM-5-TR is? Seat 8, how do you know these things?
JUROR: I have an undergrad in psychology. Couple of friends that are practicing psychology.
JUROR: I'm a pharmacist and they teach us these things in school and in our practice.
JUROR: Psychology class --
JUROR: Psychology classes.
JUROR: I did.
JUROR: I think just general and abnormal.
JUROR: My undergrad is in psychology.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: I am an assistant principal.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: No, I did not.
MR. JAY: Okay. Do you deal with children that meet the criteria for diagnoses under the DSM and have to do individualized education plans?
JUROR: I do, yes.
JUROR: Also know about it from, like, psych courses as well in school, genders in the DSM TR.
JUROR: No. I don't think it was abnormal.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Anybody else know a psychologist, psychiatrist, or know about this mysterious DSM-5-TR?
Seat 2?
JUROR: I see a psychiatrist.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. I think we've covered it. There's nobody that I have not touched upon that has any training or experience in law enforcement or psychology or psychiatry that we have not already talked about?
I assume there are no forensic pathologists out there. Anybody friends or have a family member who is a forensic pathologist or what we call a medical examiner or a coroner, the type of doctors that do autopsies?
Okay. I think we touched upon it a little bit. Anybody have a negative experience with law enforcement or a close family member or a friend that had a negative experience with law enforcement?
I'm going to pick on you, Seat 8, only because I remember your comment saying you had no problem with the court with a family member's case. Did you have a problem with the State or the government or the DA or whatever it might have been or law enforcement?
JUROR: No, sir.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Back to the placards. Where is the microphone? Let's do 39 because that makes sense. 39?
JUROR: Your question was?
MR. JAY: Negative experience with law enforcement. You or a family member that we haven't already spoken about.
JUROR: I have.
MR. JAY: And what was your negative experience? If you want to talk about this in private I can afford you the luxury of everybody on this side still being here, but nobody on that side still being there.
JUROR: I would appreciate that.
MR. JAY: Okay. We'll do that.
That goes for everybody on any question.
Anybody else, negative experience with law enforcement, you, yourself, or a family member that we haven't spoken about?
Can we get the microphone to Mr. 48?
JUROR: I won't need one. I was on Pine Street and my now wife was a little bit ahead of me when two men approached her, ran up and touched her. I felt some kind of way about that, approached them, then a law enforcement officer approached all of us. I did not like his lack of professional courtesy and respect, respect to the situation. He didn't assess it.
And then I called him a city worker, at which point he took his hand like this, open handed, held it to the crown of my nose. Immediately -- I'm from New Orleans, you don't do that -- NOPD to OPD, I say that all day, because they are city workers. It's like, yo.
JUROR: And I put my hands -- I'm not resisting, I'm not resisting, way louder than I'm talking right now. I'm actually -- since you're young, so you could imagine how loud one of us can get when we need to. And after that, that was it, they let me go.
MR. JAY: Okay. Do you feel like that experience is going to affect your ability to be fair and impartial to other city workers that might come in and testify?
JUROR: No.
JUROR: Not all cops are like that.
JUROR: The one that pushed that woman on the video --
JUROR: -- recently.
JUROR: I know you know what I'm talking about.
JUROR: He said that she lunged at him and clearly the video showed that he was lying.
JUROR: 22.
JUROR: I was not going to speak. It's not the police over here in the United States, but I've been beaten by police in my country in Kosovo, yes. So IT had a bad experience. I'm afraid of -- because I was raised ina war, so I'm just --
MR. JAY: Do you feel like that experience that you've had with law enforcement that perhaps this isn't the best trial for you since there will be a lot of law enforcement testifying?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
JUROR: I'm just being honest.
JUROR: Not the cops in the United States. I never had a bad experience over here since I've been here for 25 years. But I'm just afraid because I was raised all my life in a war, so --
MR. JAY: I understand. Thank you.
Anybody else, bad experience with law enforcement that we have not touched upon, you, yourself, or a family member?
Seat 19?
JUROR: When I was 17, I was delivering some stuff for my father, and I got into a bad accident and the police just decided I was at fault, and when I told them I wasn't, he told me to shut up and get in the back seat. And they -- it was in the paper the next day. Everybody blamed me. I kept telling my dad, I said the light was -- I was turning left, the light was red, turned red, I turned left and a guy ona motorcycle flew into the intersection and spun the car around.
And so my dad hired a criminal attorney, went into traffic court and proved that I was innocent, that I actually had the right-of-way. It was really the first time I had ever been in court. The guy was a good lawyer.
But, yeah, I was just -- it was, you know, I'm around policemen enough to know that most of them are really good, but that night, it wasn't good.
So, yeah, I think it's more like I was a 17-year-old kid and, you know, when the officer got up on the stand, my attorney crossed him, I almost felt sorry for him because he just tore him apart, you know, didn't do a good investigation. All four lights were red for about four seconds. He goes, Did you block the intersection, time it? We have a witness, a lady came in behind me at the accident scene and said I'm trying to tell them that light was red. I said, yeah, it was red.
And the other guy said he didn't think the guy on the motorcycle had a light on and maybe that's why I didn't see him. I don't know, but --
MR. JAY: Let me stop you there. This experience, do you feel like it's causing any doubt in your ability to be fair and impartial when evaluating the testimony of a law enforcement officer?
JUROR: No, because I've got a lot of good experience with policemen. It's just it was a one off police officer just was sloppy.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Anybody else?
How about the court system? I'm going to go ahead and exclude divorces because I've never heard of anybody who enjoyed the divorce process through the court system. But bringing this up, does anybody have a strong negative experience with the court system that we have not discussed?
Anybody not drink alcohol for any particular reason? Front row, right? Seat 3, what is that reason, if you don't mind?
JUROR: I just don't drink.
JUROR: Yeah. I'm from Wisconsin and I had a lot of family members who were alcoholics and I didn't want to be one.
MR. JAY: All right. I had just seen a study that Wisconsin is the most heavy alcohol consumption state in the nation still, so --
JUROR: Everyone -- once they get old enough.
JUROR: My dad kind of on and off. He stopped.
JUROR: Not that I'm aware of.
JUROR: When my dad was diagnosed with diabetes, he stopped at that point.
JUROR: Just don't like the taste of it.
JUROR: I was advised by my doctor when I was teenager to not pick up drinking, so I just never did.
JUROR: Religious views.
JUROR: Religion.
JUROR: Single parent, so thinking about my kids.
JUROR: Yeah. I've seen what it does to my friends, family. Also, religious beliefs.
JUROR: Well, I have one family member that lost his kidney, liver problems. Other friends end up being MIA, so on and so forth. Friends I work with, wrong place, wrong time, mental.
JUROR: Too many calories.
JUROR: Recovering alcoholic, 1987.
MR. JAY: All right. Congratulations. That's many years.
Does that cover everybody, everybody that does not drink for whatever reason? Okay.
So that leaves the drinkers. Anybody feel like they have ever drank too much for our drinkers?
Front row, right? Anybody ever drank too much in your entire lifetime, even thought it was an accident?
Seat 4, how did you know that you had too much to drink?
JUROR: Which time? Just kidding. Just, you know, not be able to think properly or maybe throw up.
MR. JAY: Okay. So front row, right, does everybody feel like they would be able to tell by listening or watching another person whether that person had too much to drink or not?
Seat 1, can you do that?
JUROR: Sure.
JUROR: (Nods.)
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Seat 6?
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. JAY: All right. Out of all of our drinkers and our non-drinkers, is there anybody who feels like they don't have the skill set to see when somebody is under the influence of alcohol? You've never seen somebody like that, you wouldn't know if you saw it, smelt it, or heard it.
All right. So I'm taking that with no paddles that everybody believes that they have the sufficient life experience to tell if somebody is under the influence of alcohol to some degree. Is that fair?
All right. For our drinkers, is there any drinker that feels like he or she has actually never felt the effects of alcohol while drinking? So everybody has felt the effects when they drink?
All right. It's truth serum, I'm telling you.
We've touched upon it with a few people, so there's no need for them to repeat themselves. But is there anybody else who has seen somebody's life have negative experiences or negative consequences from drinking?
Anybody in the front row, right, ever seen somebody experience negative consequences from drinking? 3, 5, 6. Thank you.
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right?
The front row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Last row, left?
All right. And if we've already covered it, no need to re-cover it. But does anybody -- and we don't need to talk about it in front of the group if you don't want to, but if you want to, that's fine, too. Anybody, yourself, a close family member, or a really close friend who has or had a problem with alcohol that we have not already talked about?
Does that apply to anybody in the front row, right? All right. All right. Seat 1, who is that person if you care to share now?
JUROR: My grandfather.
JUROR: Well, when he died, I was a baby, but just from hearing stories, he really had a bad drinking problem.
JUROR: My sister. She went to rehab.
JUROR: She's better now.
JUROR: My mom's best friend's stepdaughter has a horrible problem with alcohol. She still has not got a handle on it.
JUROR: Mostly co-workers.
JUROR: My dad and my brother. My dad passed away already, but luckily my brother stopped, so he's good.
JUROR: But my dad's passing is more likely from alcohol.
JUROR: An ex-boyfriend, patients, and a friend of the family.
JUROR: My grandfather and my brother.
JUROR: Ex-boyfriend and a friend.
JUROR: My mother.
JUROR: Ongoing.
JUROR: Mom's ex-husband.
JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Last row, right? Seat 43?
JUROR: Parents, friends growing up.
JUROR: Ex-husband.
JUROR: Ex-husband and several people in my family.
MR. HENDERSON: Excuse me. I'm sorry. I --
JUROR: Ex-husband and several people in my family.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.
JUROR: My dad.
JUROR: No. He's still --
JUROR: Ex-girlfriend.
JUROR: I do not know.
JUROR: A lot of people with my family, all recovering except for my uncle who is fighting for his life right now.
JUROR: My brother.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Family members and --
JUROR: Family members and an ex.
JUROR: The ex went into rehab and came out and fell off.
JUROR: My sister.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Uncle, friends, and some co-workers.
JUROR: My father died of sorosis in his forties from alcoholism.
JUROR: I have a cousin who died of alcohol. His body just -- he drank himself to death. I have two children that are now recovering alcoholics. They've been sober, like, eight, five years, something like that.
JUROR: Almost my entire family. I'm the only one recovering, though.
JUROR: My father and a colleague. My father has -- it's a continual process, I think, but he's steadily improved and being a good example of what not to become.
And my colleague, God bless him. If you ever go to the Amway Center, you look up, he did all of that. And he no longer exists in the industry.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Given that topic, if there is evidence in this case that is presented that many people would determine to be excessive alcohol drinking by any of the people involved in this case, are your past experiences that we've just gone through, either personal, friend, or family, or a combination of both, does anybody have any doubts in their abilities to sit and hear about testimony about excessive drinking given these experiences that we've gone through? Just let me know if you have any doubts in your ability to be fair, because now is the time to let us know, rather than day three, four, five.
Front row, right, anybody have any doubts in their ability to be fair? If that is a subject in this case.
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Last row, right?
First row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Last row, left?
Okay. Again, if you don't want to talk about this in front of your 50-ish new friends, just let us know and we can talk alone.
Anybody, yourself, a close family member, or a really close friend ever been involved in an abusive relationship?
Front row, right? Seat 1, is that anything you can share?
JUROR: Sure. My mother and my father, they both went through domestic issues.
MR. JAY: I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing. Can you get a mic? And it's probably my fault that I can't hear.
JUROR: I said my mother and my father went through some domestic issues. And my grandmother shared some of her war stories as well of the things she went through when she was younger, so --
JUROR: Yeah. I was a lot younger. I can -- I have, like, faint memories, but not like complete, full memories of it.
JUROR: Had a friend in college who was in an abusive relationship.
JUROR: Two of my colleagues.
JUROR: My sister.
JUROR: It was probably like 40 years ago, so her first boyfriend.
JUROR: You want me?
JUROR: My grandfather was abusive when he got drunk and I got it secondhand from my mom. By the time I came of age, he had stopped drinking. I know him as a very gentle man, but he started a business and just stopped drinking. But I heard a lot of stories from my mom about how abusive he would be when -- he was a payday drinker. Got paid on Friday, came home, after going out with the boys and -- so --
JUROR: Myself, my sister, and my oldest daughter.
JUROR: One of my best friends.
THE COURT: Can you slide it over to Seat 21?
JUROR: I do volunteer work at the abused women's and children's center.
JUROR: All of the women on my mother's side of the family have either been in physical or emotionally abusive relationships. I have been in two emotionally abusive relationships.
JUROR: Served as a clergy at my local church and worked with individuals that --
JUROR: Served as clergy for my local church and worked and counseled people that have gone through domestic situations.
JUROR: Myself --
MR. JAY: Microphone. We're all getting tired. It's the end of the day. I promise I'm wrapping up.
JUROR: Sorry. Myself, my mother, and my grandmother.
JUROR: Yes.
JUROR: Yeah. My parents when I was ten years old, domestic.
THE COURT: Okay. Seat 28?
JUROR: My aunt and my sister-in-law.
JUROR: My sister.
JUROR: I'd rather off the record.
JUROR: My best friend.
JUROR: My mother was a victim.
JUROR: My father was a very severe disciplinarian and it got worse when he was drinking.
THE COURT: Seat 50 -- I'm sorry, 51?
JUROR: One of our sons and his ex-wife, there were some physical pushing, shoving, hitting. To my knowledge, no police or anything like that were called. I don't know any specifics of it.
MR. JAY: Okay. So I heard from some of the answers, I just want to clarify with the rest of the group. Does everybody believe that emotional abuse that's not physical can still occur to somebody? Is there anybody who believes emotional abuse is nonsense, what are we talking about? Okay.
Is there anybody out there that doesn't believe that a man can be a victim of emotional abuse? Raise your paddle if you believe a man can't be emotionally abused by a partner.
JUROR: Cannot be?
MR. JAY: Cannot.
Is there anybody out there that believes a man cannot be physically abused by a partner?
Okay. Now, out of all the folks that we just talked about, even if it applies to some of you folks that didn't have these abusive relationship experiences, if this case is about a domestic relationship that had violence in it, ultimately, there's a murder charge, as you know, does anybody have any doubts in their ability to hear about a domestic violence case, based on your personal experiences or the experiences of your loved ones that you've shared today? So let me just go row by row.
Front row, right, anybody, because of those experiences, can't be fair in a case that may involve domestic violence allegations?
The second row, right?
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right?
First row, left.
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Fourth row, left.
Madam 12, you're twirling your card. Is that Significant?
JUROR: No, it's not.
MR. JAY: Again, if you don't want to talk about it in front of all your new friends, just let us know. But we are getting towards the very end.
Anybody, yourself, close family member, or a really close friend ever had to physically defend yourself, or your friend, himself or herself?
Front row, right? You, yourself, really close friend, or really close family member that we haven't talked about? We've already talked about some family abuse and stuff like that, but new information.
Front row, right, any new information about self-defense? Seat 1? Maybe the microphone.
JUROR: If like growing up having to fight anybody count having to defend yourself.
JUROR: My sister and her first husband would get physical with her.
JUROR: My dad got assaulted outside of Yankee stadium after a game. I went to his defense. The officer showed up -- I did hit the guy and the officer showed up.
JUROR: I have a stepbrother that ended up shooting and killing a man.
JUROR: A stepbrother shot and killed a man that assaulted him.
JUROR: I was mugged in New York City.
JUROR: No.
JUROR: I fought back. I put them up. I kicked. I screamed. Someone heard me screaming about two blocks away and came over to help me.
JUROR: This may be under the last thing about family abuse, but I just remembered I have a sister-in-law who years ago was in an abusive relationship. Her husband did punch her and broke her jaw. I believe they're not married, but, you know, she was in that relationship, so maybe that was more of the domestic abuse thing.
JUROR: Twice at work, passengers.
JUROR: I'm a flight attendant.
JUROR: Yeah.
THE COURT: Seat 48?
JUROR: Growing up as a young man, I was involved in several fights.
MR. JAY: Okay. Are there any men that want to change their answers, not that women can't get into fist fights with their friends too in high school, but it's really only 1 and 48 that ever got into scraps in school?
JUROR: That's --
JUROR: Just saying, that's not what you asked.
MR. JAY: All right. Fair enough. Okay. Again, if you don't want to talk about this in front of the crowd, I understand. The best we can afford is just this side of the courtroom.
You, yourself, close family member, or a really close friend ever diagnosed or treated for anxiety?
Front row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left? Higher please. Thank you.
The last row, left?
Before we completely turn the page on that, for those of you that have used self-defense or you have a close family member or friend use self-defense, if the judge gives you an instruction about what the justifiable use of force is in this case and it differs from what you think justifies using self-defense, does anybody have any doubts in their ability to follow the instructions that the judge gives, even if you disagree with the law as he reads them? No paddles are showing.
Everybody -- no doubt in your ability to follow the judge's instruction on self-defense even if it differs from what you would do if you were elected to be on the legislature and could decide whatever you wanted as self-defense? Everybody can follow the judge's law?
Seat 50, what's your question?
JUROR: I mean, so my question was just, is self-defense situational? So given the context is the definition for what's feasible different? Is that what you're saying?
MR. JAY: You guys are going to decide facts and the judge is going to instruct the law, and then you apply those facts to the law that the judge gives you. The law is pretty sturdy. It doesn't change. So the judge is going to give you an instruction about, this is what self-defense is in Florida and then you decide -- if it comes up in this case, it may or may not, you decide if the facts fit what the judge says the law is.
Do you have any doubt in your ability to follow the judge's instructions, of course, not knowing what they even are, but --
JUROR: No. Thanks for explaining.
MR. JAY: Okay. Anybody else?
All right. On the anxiety issue, anybody living with somebody or a close friend or family member that perhaps needs treatment for anxiety that is not getting that treatment that we have not already discussed?
JUROR: Question.
MR. JAY: Yeah. Let me rephrase it again if it's -- does anybody believe or have somebody in their life that perhaps needs treatment for anxiety that is not currently getting that treatment?
JUROR: You asked that side --
JUROR: -- but you didn't ask this side.
JUROR: My mother.
JUROR: My daughter. She is getting treatment.
JUROR: My daughter. She's getting treatment.
JUROR: Myself.
JUROR: I'm not treated.
JUROR: My mother-in-law.
JUROR: Myself and I am getting treated.
JUROR: I've had the diagnosis years ago.
JUROR: Myself.
JUROR: Sister and mother-in-law.
JUROR: It was after 9/11 and it's fine.
MR. JAY: All right. Same question, different thing, though. Adjustment disorder. Anybody, yourself, close family member, or really close friend have one of those adjustment disorders?
Front row, right? If you don't know what it is then it probably doesn't apply.
All right. Seat 5, who is that?
JUROR: My grandkids.
JUROR: My grandkids.
MR. JAY: Okay. Seat 7, did you raise it? Okay.
Anybody else, front row, right?
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Last row, right? Seat 29?
JUROR: I have a question. Do you mean like a mood disorder or something separate?
JUROR: All right.
MR. JAY: Okay. Front row, left? We're almost done, I promise.
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Fourth row, left?
Same question that I asked about anxiety. Anybody know someone that you believe needs treatment for that disorder, even though you're not an expert, but you feel like that? Does that apply to anybody on the left?
Right?
Okay. PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder or any other stress disorder, does that apply to you, yourself, close family member, or a really close friend?
Front row, left?
Second row, left? 15, 16, 18.
Mr. 15?
JUROR: I was in the military, so --
JUROR: -- I pretty much struggled with it.
JUROR: My sister and my uncle.
JUROR: Myself and my oldest daughter.
JUROR: My sister from a motorcycle accident.
MR. JAY: Okay. All right. Sorry. That was the right.
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right? Besides 46.
Front row, left. Seat 8?
JUROR: Brother served in the military.
JUROR: From the war. Living in the war.
JUROR: Two nieces.
JUROR: Oldest brother coming back from Vietnam.
JUROR: My father fought communist guerrillas in the jungle of Guatemala.
JUROR: My daughter. I'd like to speak privately if you want details.
MR. JAY: All right. Anybody feel like they know somebody who needs treatment for a stress disorder that is not getting treatment that we haven't talked about?
Anybody familiar with the term "battered spouse syndrome"? And do you, yourself, a close family member or a close friend suffer from that?
First row, left?
Second row? It's the right. I'm tired.
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right?
First row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Fourth row left?
JUROR: That's the same one I told you previously about my sister-in-law, so I don't have to Say 1t again?
MR. JAY: Yes.
Anybody familiar with that term? We'll just separate it from the second part. Anybody familiar with that term, ever heard it? Just raise your placard.
All right. If what you believe you learned about battered spouse syndrome is different from what you hear in this trial, if it comes up in this trial, does anybody have any doubt in their ability to listen to the testimony about battered spouse syndrome, or is somebody so married to their previous understanding before joining us in this trial that they may not be able to set aside their previous understanding of it?
Okay. All right. It has been a long day. This is the last -- next to the last next topic.
Personality disorders. We're not going to do mood disorders. I'm sorry, Madam 29.
Personality disorders. You, yourself, close family member, really close friend? Front row, right?
Second row, right? 21?
JUROR: A niece.
JUROR: All I know is it's called personality disorder, and I make sure that she talks to her psychologist.
JUROR: Does bipolar count?
JUROR: Sister-in-law. I can't recall what it's called.
JUROR: I'd like to speak privately.
MR. JAY: Perfect. Okay.
All right. With all of these things that we've just discussed, from anxiety to adjustment, to personality to stress disorders, if these topics come up, because of your personal experience or the experience of your close loved ones, friends, or family, does anybody feel like it's too close to home, this isn't the trial for me, I will have doubts in my ability to be fair and impartial if I start hearing about these things in evidence because of the experiences, either yourself or your loved ones have had?
Front row, right?
Second row, right?
Third row, right?
Fourth row, right?
First row, left?
Second row, left?
Third row, left?
Fourth row, left?
All right. I have two questions left, but before that, do you have any questions for me about anything that we have talked about, any concerns you have? This is the job interview. We are all interviewing you.
49?
JUROR: I apologize. It just came to my memory through the discussion of everything. My oldest brother was killed by his wife --
MR. HENDERSON: May we approach?
THE COURT: One second, sir. Just hang on one second.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: I would rather not just tell the circumstances in front of everybody. If we can just call them up.
THE COURT: Yeah. All right. I'll advise them that we'll call them in and we can address that privately. Thank you.
MR. OWENS: He's about done or --
THE COURT: We'll pick up tomorrow. We may deal with some of the private stuff this afternoon. I mean, we're here. What do you want to do? Do you want to address 51 and 29 today or tomorrow?
THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. Very good. Thank you.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Sir, we're going to bring you in to address the circumstances in a more intimate setting in a little bit, okay, sir? Record will reflect thumbs up was provided by Juror No. 49.
JUROR: General concern. If we're going to be going over 5:00 o'clock, if I can't leave exactly at 5:00 or before, I'm going to have an issue with childcare.
JUROR: Just -- that's a concern.
JUROR: I remember you asking questions about law enforcement. I don't know if this is relevant, but I do plan on going into the law enforcement academy at the beginning of next year. So I don't if that was relevant.
MR. JAY: Thank you.
Anybody else? Last time to ask this lawyer for free. Tomorrow I'm going to be a different lawyer.
Okay. Who here has seen a high school, college, or Olympic wrestling match?
All right. Who has seen a professional wrestling match? Doesn't have to be in person, just TV.
All right. Who has seen both?
Seat 33, picking on you. What's the difference between an amateur wrestling match and a professional wrestling match?
JUROR: What I do recall -- what I do recall from high school, that's competition. Hulk Hogan, The Crusher, that's more professional, fake in my opinion.
MR. JAY: All right. Strong language has been thrown out there. Fake, choreographed, scripted, okay. Everybody agree that that's the difference between a high school, college, and Olympic match versus a professional wrestling match that has ropes and you jump off the ropes and you do really, really crazy tricks?
Can everybody agree to set aside what they think they have learned about the criminal justice system, from Law & Order, from all those CSI shows, and from documentaries that claim to be true and true crimes, and all of these shows, set them aside as the professional wrestling of criminal justice and just listen to the facts that come in through the witnesses and the exhibits and the law that the judge gives in this case, if you were chosen to serve? Can everybody set aside all the television and books and social media?
All right. Thank you for your attention. I know it was a long day. We're just about done.
THE COURT: Can the parties approach for a moment?
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Do we want to address those individuals who have private concerns, 51, 39, and 22, or --
MR. OWENS: I say we do it in the morning. It's 5:15. We said we'd break at 5:00. We've got all day tomorrow.
THE COURT: Fine by me. What time do we want them to report back so we might be able to address the objection issues in the morning?
MR. OWENS: 9:00 o'clock.
THE COURT: You want them back at 9:00? My only concern with that is I don't know how long it's going to take to weed through the objection issues.
THE COURT: It's substantial. And about a quarter of them -- ballparking it, a quarter of them, a third of them at most the State doesn't have an objection to, but the balance of them they do. And assuming two minutes apiece, do the math, that's an hour at least. At the minimum it's an hour.
MR. OWENS: You want them here at 11:00?
MR. HENDERSON: I'm really thinking -- the way things go sometimes, I'm really thinking after lunch, and the only reason I say that is if they get here at a certain time and we start, what time are we going to stop?
THE COURT: I've read the State's objections. I mean, some of them are -- these documents haven't been produced. Those will not take a substantial amount of time to address. Other of them are hearsay. The State's objections are poignant and direct. So I can't imagine it will take us more than an hour, maybe an hour and a half tops to weed through that.
I have arraignments tomorrow. I don't know how many notices and waivers have been filed and I have one reset plea.
So let's plan on kicking off at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. I'll advise them to be here at 10:00, and that way we can bring them up at 10:30. They can report downstairs and we can bring them up at 10:30. It gives us a little bit between an hour and 15 and an hour and a half to address all those --
MR. HENDERSON: It should give me enough time to get to my part.
THE COURT: All right. Very good. All right. Thank you. I'll give them the same instruction that I've given our panel the last couple of days as well.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Members of our jury, thank you so much again for your time, your sacrifice, and your service. It is 5:15. We're going to break for this evening. I'm going to ask you to return here back to the Orange County Courthouse no later than 10:00 a.m., tomorrow morning. Please report to the first floor, jury services, they will direct you where to go. We may be here, we may be back in 12A. Jury services will let you know where you're going to report.
I have an instruction to read to you before I discharge you for the evening.
Jurors, you must not conduct any investigation on your own. This includes reading newspapers, watching television, or using a computer, a cell phone, the internet, any electronic device, or any other means at all to get information related to this case or the people and places involved in this case. This applies whether you are in the courthouse, at home, or anywhere else.
You must not visit places mentioned in the trial or use the internet to look at maps or pictures to see any place discussed during the trial.
Jurors, do not watch local news or read local newspapers.
Jurors must not have discussions of any sort with friends, family members, or even your fellow jurors about the case or the people and places involved. So do not let anyone make comments to you or ask questions about the trial.
I want to stress again, that just as you must not talk about this case face to face, you must not talk about this case by uSing an electronic device. You must not use phones, computers, or other electronic devices to communicate. Do not send or accept any messages related to this case or your jury service. Do not discuss this case or ask for advice by any means at all, including posting information on an internet website, chat room, or blog.
With that, members of the jury, again, I thank you and we'll see you tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m.
(Venire Panel 5 exited.)
THE COURT: You-all could be seated. Thank you.
The only other question that I have is where do we want to pick up tomorrow morning, gentlemen? Do we want to be here or do we want to be in 12A? It is indifferent to me.
voir dire.
THE COURT: Mr. Henderson?
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, as long as Ms. Andrews can sit up here, too.
THE COURT: I don't have a problem with that. Then we will -- let's start in 12A for us, because my arraignments already know to go there and my docket already knows to go there for tomorrow. And when it comes time for jury service, we'll come up here, okay?
All right. Thank you-all very much. We will see you tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.
Court's in recess.
(Proceedings recessed at 5:19 p.m. on October 16, 2024, to be resumed on October 17, 2024.)