5.Defense Voir Dire — Alcohol Use, Phone Restrictions, and Juror Attention

MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.

Anyone who disagrees that people act differently when they drink?

Okay. Now, Juror No. 26. Yes, sir. Do you drink?

MR. HENDERSON: Quantity? Okay. Good.

Is there anyone here who drinks more at home than they do out socially? Okay. Thank you.

Juror No. 38, you drink more at home than you do out socially?

MR. HENDERSON: Hey, man, that's A plus. That's exactly it. That's exactly it.

Is there anyone here who disagrees with that? Okay.

Juror No. 49. Sir, first of all, I'd like to say congratulations to you, okay, and continued success. All right. And I actually appreciated the story that you shared with us. I have a couple of questions, though, okay? How long have you been a nondrinker?

MR. HENDERSON: Is there anyone here who disagrees with the fact that there are people who are in denial about a drinking problem? Anyone who disagrees with that?

All right. Let me ask it this way. Would you-all agree that some people are in denial that they have a drinking problem? Thank you.

All right. This is what I need to ask you now as a panel and want you to understand. Because we've talked about how people act differently when they drink or they'll say things differently or they'll do things differently when they drink. Do we all understand that being drunk is not an excuse for your actions? Do we all understand that? Yes? Raise your paddle if you agree with that. That being drunk is not an excuse for your actions. Do we understand that?

Okay. Do we understand that in the State of Florida there is no defense for voluntary intoxication? Do we understand that?

So you can't come in the State of Florida and say, well, I did it because I was drunk. Do we understand that?

Okay. Is there anyone here that would not hold someone accountable for their actions merely because they were intoxicated or drunk? Anyone here? Anybody going to do that? Okay. All right. Thank you.

You ever heard -- has everyone here heard the term, by show of paddles, rush to judgment? A rush to judgment?

Okay. Is there anyone here who has a story that they can share about them rushing to a judgment and it turned out that they were wrong? Anybody?

All right. I have one. Tell me if you can agree with this. I was in a building one day, come out from the building, I had done my shopping and stuff. I go out to the parking lot and I'm walking up to my car, and as I get closer to the car, I see that there is a dent, a big dent in the back driver side of my car, on the bumper. So guess what? I'm mad now because it wasn't there when I left. So I'm going up to it and I see, man, someone hit my car. So I'm looking for a note and I don't see a note to see if the person left a note or information.

So then I get to the point where, now, let me put this in here, let me go and see if they have any video footage inside so I can see who hit my car, okay?

So I'm putting in -- I click my key fob and the door wouldn't unlock. Now I'm really mad because they done damaged everything. Can't even get in my car.

I go to the handle and I push with my thumb the button to get in and I can't get in. I said, oh, man, this is just bad.

So I walk back to the back of the car and I happen to look and I said, that's not my Florida State University license plate. As a matter of fact, that's not my car.

At the time, I was driving a black Nissan Maxima. At this time, it was -- this car was a black Nissan Altima without a Florida State license plate.

Would you agree with me, folks, that sometimes everything needs to be investigated? Is there anyone who disagrees with that?

Okay. Would you-all agree that there should be a full investigation before a decision is made? Would you-all agree with that? Anybody, by show of paddles, who would disagree with that?

By a show of paddles, who agrees with that?

Okay. You know, when I found my car, too, which was behind me, over there, I was relieved, but then, you know, I thought, maybe the car was like that beforehand.

All right. Now, I have to talk about one of my -- well, it's one other thing I have to talk about. Remember yesterday there was conversations about you being the -- as a juror, you sit in the position of determining what the actual facts of the case are, okay, what the actual evidence of the case are and you have the great power of giving evidence its weight. Some you can consider -- consider greatly, some you can give less weight to, or some you have the power just to ignore it all and you don't even think it's important. Do we understand that? That's your power as jurors.

So it's talking about -- one of the things we're talking about -- one of the things, too, you're going to have to determine credibility of witnesses, okay? Credibility of witnesses.

And they talked about some things, the State talked about things, would you like to look at them, would you just be able to hear them, or could you be comfortable with that? All right. The judge will read an instruction when it comes time, and I want to know if everybody can follow this instruction. It's going to be Weighing the Evidence. And the judge is going to give you a series of things that you can use in determining which evidence is the best evidence, which evidence isn't so good, or which evidence you don't find credible at all. Do we understand that?

Okay. But I want to focus on one of those. I'm telling you, it's more, but this is the one I'm focusing on, Weighing the Evidence. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case? Do we understand that?

Okay. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other evidence -- the other testimony or other evidence in the case? Can we do that? Is there anyone who feels they're not capable of doing that?

All right. Now, when we say other evidence, we're just not talking about other testimonial evidence because evidence comes in different forms, okay?

There could be physical evidence. Do we understand that? There could be scientific evidence. Do we understand that? Or there could be expert opinion. Do we understand that? Can you weigh all those things, follow the law, and make a fair and impartial decision based on the law? Is that correct?

And based on what else? That high standard of proof. The highest that we have in our country, beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt as to each and every element. Can you do that?

Okay. Two more things, I think. I'm going to check with co-counsel, too. But two more things basically. One is this. I'm going to date myself here. I'll just go ahead and tell you. I'm 63 years old, okay? So -- and, in fact, when you-all had the opportunity to meet Lauren Henderson, okay, she's not my wife, she's my youngest daughter. We are related, Okay? So -- and actually, she's an attorney now. She just finished law school and passed the bar, so that's why she's assisting in this case today, okay? So that's the relationship.

But when it comes to weighing the evidence, this is -- no, I'm sorry, I'm past weighing the evidence. I was getting emotional.

Anyway, this is one of the things, and she has to help me with it, that's where the age difference comes in. It's called social media, okay? Guess what, folks? I do not have a Facebook page. Quite frankly, until it started to become prevalent and people looking at them and stuff, I added it onto my voir dire thing because they had to tell me -- my staff had to tell me what the forms of social media are because I don't know them. Facebook, I guess, YouTube is one, too. I thought that was TV. But Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, okay? So I've become familiar with these things.

But I'm looking for something. I'm looking for someone who lives their life on any type of social media, all right? And that's what I'm talking about. So if you're this kind of person, I want you to raise your paddle.

MR. HENDERSON: Well, you'll see with this example, okay? Some of you-all are getting nervous. I can tell. You're getting nervous. Here we go. Here we go.

6:00 a.m., just woke up. 6:10, headed to the bathroom. 6:20, man, I really don't want to go to work today. 6:35, darn it. Let me go in here and see what I can have for breakfast. 6:45, and it looks like either Froot Loops or eggs. 7:05, darn it. I still don't want to go to work, but those eggs I had were really good, okay? 7:30, I better head to work so I don't get caught in this traffic. All right.

Anyone who leads their life on any form of social media or texts anyone to that extent, would you please raise your paddle. Okay.

Remember that word "voir dire," to speak the truth. Now watch this. Is there anyone who knows someone that does that? I always get a yes to that part. I always get a yes to that part. So no one who knows someone that way; is that correct? No one who does it? Okay.

Judge, may I approach a minute? May we approach a minute?

MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, Your Honor.

All right. The procedure. When you get here -- if you're on the jury, when you get here, you're going to have to turn your phone off. You're going to have to leave your phone off, okay? I think they've been having you-all do that now; is that correct?

All right. During deliberations, you've got to check the phone at the door, okay? You're not going to have them. Everyone understand that?

Who's gonna go through withdrawals? I need to know. Who's gonna go through withdrawals? That means you're not going to be able to text someone, you're not going to be able to get on the phone and see who's trying to call you. You know what? You're not going to be able to put that last post on there. Do we understand that?

I mean, back in the day, guess what? We used to have to ask this question about cigarette smoking, okay? I think they allow breaks for cigarettes, I don't think they allow phone breaks, okay?

So is there anyone who is that tied to their phone that they're going to be worried about that phone and not worrying about the evidence in the case and the testimony and everything else? Yes, sir.

MR. HENDERSON: I'm back on? Okay. I'm back on. You know, in our little courthouse in Santa Rosa County, you don't have to wear a mic. Just -- everybody -- oh, we got a new courthouse, but it's nothing like this.

All right. Great escape clause. I don't really think anyone has said today that they couldn't be fair, but I know you've been responding to questions. This is what I want you to do. I want you to think about it. And if for some reason, it could be anything, okay, that you don't feel comfortable about sitting on this case, if you'd raise your paddle and let me know. But let me give you some examples because I don't really -- before you do that, it could be the fact that you don't like the fact that I move around, you don't like the fact of how I look, you don't like the fact of how I sound, okay? You don't like the fact -- darn, Mr. Henderson, what were you thinking about when you got in the mirror this morning? Okay. That don't match. It could be that. Folks, it could be as simple as this, that you think my hair is way too long, okay? Or it could be something that you don't like about Mr. Owens, that you don't like about Ms. Boone, that you don't like about Ms. Henderson, and that you don't like about Mr. Beck. Ms. Andrews is a little sensitive, so I won't say it, but you can consider that, too, okay?

So, at this time, if you feel uncomfortable, would you please raise your paddle at this time. Okay. No. 40. All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Anybody else?

All right. Folks, I want to thank you. I want to thank you on Ms. Boone's behalf, I want to thank you on our team's behalf. People here have made us very comfortable. Sometimes it's hard going to a different place, but everybody has been very friendly. You-all have been very attentive to me and I really appreciate it. And I want to thank you on behalf of me, our team, and especially Sarah Boone. Thank you.

Judge, that's all the inquiry I have.