4.Defense Voir Dire — Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, and Self-Defense
283 linesTHE COURT: Members of the jury, again, if you could please -- you can be seated. Thank you. If you could just raise your paddles to confirm that you have complied with the Court's instructions during this last break. Record will reflect that all paddles have been raised.
With that, Mr. Henderson, you may proceed, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes. May it please the Court, counsel.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. That was my first challenge in public speaking was -- I had been practicing all day that it's good afternoon because we're here in the afternoon and I'm used to saying good morning. So even I have challenges when it comes to public speaking.
I want to thank you for being here. Again, my name is Tony Henderson. It is my pleasure to represent Sarah Boone.
And I know the judge has told you, but on behalf of our defense team in regards to Ms. Boone, we would like to thank you. And I'm going to tell you why.
America is still great and the reason that America is great is because of systems like this that we have and it's our Constitution -- because in this country, our citizens are protected. In this country, we have limited government. In this country, based on our Constitution and the Sixth Amendment right that we have in our Constitution is the right to a jury trial.
Folks, in some countries they don't have that. In some countries you don't have a jury. In some countries they have professional jurors. In some countries only a judge decides. And some places you have to prove yourself innocent. We don't have to do that here.
This is the way I rank these things. And of course I have my biases as far as what you can do, the service that you can do for your country, I have this ranking, and I have a bias when it comes to this ranking and I'll tell you about it.
But, number one, I think by far is military service to your country. Number two, I believe, is jury duty. And my bias for the military service is the fact that my dad spent 22 years in the Navy --
THE COURT: Overruled for now.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you.
Number two is jury duty. Quite frankly, it's probably something I'll never be able to do because of the position I'm in, but I would love to do it. And it's truly, folks, it's you that make this system work, all right?
And, number three, I think everybody should vote, okay?
Now, I want to talk to you about the trial process, and this is voir dire. Voir dire means to speak the truth. This is my opportunity -- only opportunity that I will have to talk to you, okay? Because once these proceedings start, it is against the rules of conduct for us to have any communication with you on either side, be it on the State's side, be it on the defense side. So if you were to run into us or see us somewhere and we don't look at you or we don't acknowledge you, we're not being rude, okay? We're just following the rule.
And it gets ingrained in us because this afternoon when I came up the elevator there was a couple of people with jury badges on. I made sure I didn't say anything, okay? But that's the reason.
But for trial, I break it down to it being four fundamental rights, and these four fundamental rights apply to everyone. They would apply to me if I was on trial, they would apply to you if you were on trial, they would apply if you had a loved one or a friend on trial. Today, and for the rest of the trial, they apply to Ms. Sarah Boone.
And the first one of these fundamental rights you've already heard about. But sometimes people say things differently. And the first one is the presumption of innocence. We have all heard that term, correct? Raise your paddles if you've heard that term. You probably heard it enough yesterday. But prior to yesterday, I'm sure you've heard that term before; is that correct? Could you raise your paddles if that's correct.
And all of you have said that you can presume Ms. Boone to be innocent, okay? That means at some point in time -- and the judge is going to read you an instruction. I believe the judge already did yesterday. The presumption of innocence means that you have to presume or believe that she is innocent. Can we all do that?
Do we know why that's hard? It's hard. You want to know why? It's against human nature. Folks, we are not made that way. You want me to give you an example? Channel 9 news, 6:00 o'clock, 7:00 o'clock edition -- my time zones are thrown off because I'm from the Panhandle.
But John Doe arrested for the molestation of ten children under the age of 12. Is the first thing that you say, oh, I presume John Doe to be innocent? No. Do you? We don't. We just don't. How about this? They should put him in jail for the rest of his life. They should put him underneath the jail. They should kill him.
THE COURT: Yes.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Basis of the objection?
MR. JAY: There has been no pending questions. He asked one question out of the whole time we've been up here. Now we're going into his thoughts and beliefs about what the news is and talking about killing -- people should get killed on the news for being arrested for child molesting. Voir dire is to hear from the jury and what we're hearing now is we're hearing from Mr. Henderson.
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, do I get to do a setup before I ask them a question? The question is, is that they have to understand because everyone here -- everyone here said the presumption of innocence and how easy it was. After this -- and I've done it many times, there's going to be some people who might say, yeah, I can't do that.
THE COURT: Okay. But I've already given them an admonition not to watch the news.
MR. HENDERSON: I understand that.
THE COURT: And your hypothetical predicated on watching the news and what the news says.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
THE COURT: That's my only concern with that.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. I won't mention the news again, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's get to the point that you're trying to ask or ask as to their ability to follow that law and that constitutional protection, okay?
MR. HENDERSON: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. Overruled for now.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
MR. HENDERSON: Knowing that about the presumption of innocence and how we are, can we all set the way we think aside and presume Sarah Boone to be innocent? Paddles, please. Okay. Thank you very much.
The second one of these fundamental rights that I want to talk about is the burden of proof, okay? You heard about that yesterday. The judge told you in any criminal case it's the government, the State in this position, who has the burden of proof. Ms. Boone does not have to prove anything, okay?
Who is the juror with Paddle No. 6 -- Juror No. 6. Sir, do you know why the State has the burden of proof?
JUROR: Well, I guess they have to prove that she did whatever she did.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Why should it -- do you think it should be that way, the State should have to prove it?
JUROR: Well, if they're prosecuting her, yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Why?
JUROR: That's the law.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Can anyone else give a different reason?
First of all, does anyone here, by show of paddles, that believe that the State should not have the burden of proof? Is there anyone here who wants to tell me in addition why they think the State should have the burden of proof?
JUROR: She's been presumed innocent, right?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, ma'am. That's a very -- that's a very good point. Excellent point.
Is there anyone else who can add to that?
Okay. Let me ask you this. And I'm not talking about a crime or anything, I'm talking about something that could have happened to you at school, at home, at work. By a show of paddles, how many people here have ever been accused of doing something or saying something that they just didn't do? Paddles?
Okay. Was there anyone who didn't raise their paddle? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you.
All right. Folks, do we realize that sometimes the only thing that we can do if someone is accused or Said something about us, something at work or at the job, the only thing that we can do sometimes is just say, I didn't do it? I didn't do it?
So shouldn't a person who is making the allegations have to prove that you did it? Doesn't it make sense? Just common sense?
Okay. In our system, it's the government. The Information that was read to you yesterday or whenever you first read it, earlier this week, it could have been on different days. However, that Information that was read to you is produced by the state attorney, by the government. That's what the government has elected to charge Ms. Boone with. Shouldn't they have the burden of proving those elements against Ms. Boone? Do we all agree with that? Show of paddles.
Okay. Show of paddles, is there anyone who disagrees with that and feels that Ms. Boone should have to prove something? Okay. Thank you.
One more thing on the presumption of innocence, and you might -- if it's anyone who disagrees with me on this, just by show of paddles. It becomes easier for us if we have a loved one or a friend or something and you hear something about them and you just say, I don't believe that. You have to prove it to me. Does that make sense? Is there anyone that that doesn't make sense to?
Okay. Second one -- the third one, rather, what's known as the standard of proof. Beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime. So at the end of the case, and the judge gives you the instructions, the judge is going to tell you in the instructions what elements that the State has to prove, okay? And depending on the charge, the elements change and the number of elements change. However, the standard of beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt has to be applied to each and every element.
So let's say if it's three elements; element one, element two, element three.
Do we have Juror No. 12? Okay. Good afternoon, ma'am. I almost said morning. However, let's say you listened to the evidence and it's all been put in and there was evidence to you beyond a reasonable doubt as to element A. As to element B, there was evidence to you beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt, but as to -- as to element C, you have a reasonable doubt. What should your verdict be to that charge?
JUROR: Not guilty.
MR. HENDERSON: Excuse me?
JUROR: Not guilty.
MR. HENDERSON: Does everyone else agree with that? That is correct, ma'am.
Okay. Now this one, and the last one that I like to talk about with these fundamental elements, Ms. Boone has the absolute right, the absolute right not to testify. You were told that yesterday; is that correct? I think everybody said yesterday that they understood that and they would not hold that against Ms. Boone; is that correct?
Okay. My grandmother, she's passed now, but she used to think like this. If someone has accused you of doing something, then, by golly, you get up on that stand, you raise your hand, and you take an oath and you tell them that you didn't do it, okay? I used to try to say, granny, it don't work like that. But that was her fundamental belief, okay?
Is there anybody who feels fundamentally like my grandmother? Anyone?
And there's something that I forgot to tell you when I went into this voir dire and talking about it's to speak the truth, and why this is so important at this point in time, folks, because, guess what? I can't read what's in your mind, okay? I can't. But more importantly to me, I don't know what's in your heart. I don't. So you have to tell me. And if there's something I say that confuses you or you don't understand, raise that paddle and I'll try to clarify it, okay?
All right. So do you know what that means? Because the judge is going to give you an instruction about if Ms. Boone elects not to take the stand, and that instruction is going to include that you cannot consider that in any way in your deliberations. Do we understand that? Okay. Great.
So guess what, folks? You're back there and you're talking and it's close, and someone says, Well, we didn't hear from Ms. Boone. No. That's wrong. Do you understand? Because you cannot consider it in any way. Do we understand that?
Okay. Can we all adhere to that? Okay. Anyone with a problem with that? Okay. Thank you.
So none of my grandmother is out there.
All right. All right. I'm going to get into some more case-related questions, as I call them. I just want to make sure, is there anyone here who knows someone with the state attorney's office in any way? Is there anyone here who knows someone from the state attorney's office? Anybody who works at the state attorney's office? Show of paddles if you do. No one? All right. Good. Thank you.
All right. There was a question that was asked yesterday about interactions with law enforcement, or who knew people or related to or have friends with law enforcement. I remembered. We took them down. I want to follow up to that question that I just want to ask you, Okay?
Is there anyone who has such a close relationship with law enforcement that it would be hard for them, if they're on this jury, and after they've listened to the evidence and said to themself, the State did not prove this case and we had to find her not guilty because we followed the law. Is there anyone in a relationship that would have a problem telling that person that's what we had to do and that's what we did? Anyone in that type of relationship? Okay. Thank you.
Now, in the State of Florida, there are certain things that we have that are known as affirmative defenses, okay? One of the things that we know is an affirmative defense is the justified use of non-deadly force and also the justified use of deadly force, okay? AKA, meaning, also known as self-defense, all right? I think everyone is nodding now because they recognize that term, self-defense.
By a show of paddles, how many people recognize the term of self-defense?
Okay. Is there anyone here who disagrees with the principle a person has the right to defend themselves? Show of paddles, anyone.
Okay. Is there anyone who disagrees with the thought that a person has the right to defend others? Anyone fundamentally disagree with that? Basically what I'm asking is is there anyone who thinks that, slap my cheek and let me turn the other one to you so you can slap it? Anyone?
Okay. Has there been anyone in this panel who has ever been put in a situation where they had to defend themselves? Just show of paddles, please.
JUROR: Excuse me. Will that be fighting anywhere?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, anywhere. Those are all good questions. Anywhere that you've been in a position -- it could have been at school and someone's come up and started picking on you or hitting you or whatever. Do you understand? Okay.
JUROR: Just physically defending yourself, not, you know, saying, no, I didn't say that, or --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, we're talking about physically defending yourself.
JUROR: Like school, middle school --
MR. HENDERSON: School, middle school. It could've happened -- it could've happened when you were in diapers, okay? Yeah.
So, at any time in your life, have you felt or did you have to defend yourself? Can you show your paddles, please?
Okay. Could you hold them up -- we'll start -- because my arm would get tired. It was getting tired yesterday. You can -- this is my left side, so on the right side, correct? Okay. Yes. Just on this paddle -- that's Paddle No. 1, Paddle No. 2, Paddle No. 4, Paddle No. 5, Paddle No. 6, Paddle No. 7, Paddle No. 15, Paddle No. 17, 18, Paddle 32, Paddle 41, Paddle 43, Paddle 44. Then we're going to be -- and Paddle 47. I'm sorry, sir, were you holding it down low? I just missed you. Okay. Thank you.
Now, this side. Paddle No. 14, Paddle No. 24, Paddle No. 26, 27, Paddle No. 36, 38, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53. Okay.
Would you-all agree with me that each of those Situations would have been different? Anyone who disagrees with that?
Okay. So would you agree with me that each of those different situations -- if you disagree, just raise your paddle -- that each one of those situations would have to be determined on their own merit and their own facts? Would you agree with that?
Okay. Is there anyone who disagrees with this: A person has the right to defend themself even if it means using a weapon?
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Can you elaborate?
MR. JAY: It's vague and confusing because you don't have a right to defend yourself with a weapon and use deadly force when you are only presented with non-deadly force.
THE COURT: Response?
MR. HENDERSON: I don't understand that, Judge. And if I need to be more detailed with it, I'll be more detailed with it. But I just want their -- I'm just trying to weed out people who do not think you should ever be able to use a weapon in defending yourself.
THE COURT: Let's be specific with what the statute requires.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Objection is sustained, but I'll allow you to rephrase it.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Mr. Henderson, you may continue.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. As I told you before, there's two types of self-defense, okay? Self-defense with non-deadly force, we're not going to be talking about that in this line of questions, all right? The line of questions that I'm talking about is that self-defense with what's known as deadly force, okay? That's basically force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm, all right? Do you understand me there?
Okay. In that situation, you have to be in fear of that time -- a person has to be in fear of that time that there is going to be an action against them, or a threat, or an imminent threat against them of being harmed with great bodily harm or death, or a forcible felony is being attempted on them. Do we understand that?
Examples of forcible felonies are aggravated assault, aggravated battery, felony battery, some examples, okay?
In that type of situation, is there anyone who believes that a person should not be able to use a weapon in defending themselves? Is it confusing?
JUROR: It depends on the situation. I mean --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, please. I will.
Paddle No. 24.
JUROR: It depends on the situation. I mean, they can negotiate and walk away, if they're lucky. If they can't walk away, then what you -- but you always try to walk away as peacefully as you can.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Now, let me ask you a couple other questions, sir, Juror No. 24. Juror No. 24, when the Court reads you the law on justifiable use of deadly force, will you be able to follow that instruction?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Now, would you agree with me that every situation is different?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Is that correct?
Okay. Let me give you an example. If someone was to put a gun in your face.
JUROR: Right.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Do you think that you have to wait for them to fire it --
JUROR: No.
MR. HENDERSON: -- before you fired your gun?
JUROR: No. Self-defense first.
MR. HENDERSON: Is there anyone who thinks that you should have to wait it? Anybody?
Okay. So in certain situations, based on the facts, are you saying there would be times when you feel it would be appropriate to have to use a weapon? Or I don't want to put words in your mouth. You tell me.
JUROR: Well, if your life is in danger, you do what you can. It depends on the moment that you're in, but even though you try to look for peaceable solutions, but if your life is in -- if your back is up against the wall as like a knife at your throat, you do what you can. Not the intent to kill, but to resolve the situation, you know, of being killed. If you understand that part.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Would you judge it by each situation, sir?
JUROR: Yes. Every situation is different.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Let me ask you this: Would you consider physical ability when it comes to it?
JUROR: It can be physical and it can also be negotiating verbally. Sometimes that works, depending on what the attacker's motive is at that time, so, you know --
MR. HENDERSON: Well, let me give you this example and then you tell me about that. What if it's a male, 6-5, 200-something pounds, and a female 5-2, 105 --
MR. OWENS: Objection. Approach?
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir?
MR. JAY: Going into the facts of the case, given Ms. Boone's height and weight. All the records that I have been provided was she weighed about 105 pounds at the time according to the Orange County Jail when she was booked in. And she's about 5-2, 5-6, something like that. We're going right into her height and weight.
THE COURT: Response?
MR. HENDERSON: Judge, I didn't know that was her height and weight. That's what just came to me. If I need to change it, I will change it.
THE COURT: I'm going to sustain the objection. It's way too close to the facts at bar.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. So am I allowed to change the height and weight?
THE COURT: Do you have any objection in anticipation of that?
THE COURT: If you want to address a hypothetical scenario, just let's avoid similar heights and sizes. I can't speak for how large or tall Mr. Torres was, but I know he was about 103.
MR. JAY: What the facts of the case are going to show is he was 5-2, 103 pounds and she was 5-6 and about 105 pounds.
THE COURT: So let's use larger people or smaller people than that. I mean --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes. I got you.
MR. OWENS: My client is not 5-6.
MR. OWENS: That's not accurate.
THE COURT: Look, we're not here to quibble over that. The fact of the matter is, it's close to the instant facts.
MR. HENDERSON: How about we do this. Is it the size that you disagree with?
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Yeah. I got you.
THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Mr. Henderson, you may continue.
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
Sir, I need to change that. Male, 6-5, 200-something pounds, okay? Female, 5-9, 120 pounds, okay? Would you consider that when it comes time to how a person would have to defend themselves?
JUROR: Yes. If it's life and death, it's either their life or your life, so yes, it would be -- if that's the last resort and there's no other recourse, I would say yes in that situation, because it's either their life or -- their life or your life.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Let me ask you this. In looking at like -- when you're saying it like that, but would you be able to recognize the difference and probably the physical abilities of a man who is 6-5 and 200-something pounds versus a woman who is 5-9 and 120 pounds?
JUROR: Well, are you talking about the lady defending herself against the guy that's --
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sir.
JUROR: Well, in that case, it's Survival, you know. I mean, she can either run away or it depends on -- I mean, my point is, you try to avoid deadly force if at all necessary. I mean, if that's your last resort. But if you can, you don't use it. But if that means your life, then, of course, in that case.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you, sir.
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Juror No. 5?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: What's your opinion on that?
JUROR: As a woman, I would want to defend myself. It doesn't matter how big of a guy, I'm going to try to defend myself until he either hurts me or I take him out and get away.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Do I have Juror No. 10 here? No? You got me. Should have had my seating chart.
Juror No. 17?
JUROR: If you have a larger, more imposing person, it's a physical altercation with a smaller person and that smaller person is going to have to consider means to defend themselves other than their own physical presence.
MR. HENDERSON: Can we get the mic over there, please?
JUROR: Did you want me to repeat it?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes. Could you repeat that, please, Juror No. 17?
JUROR: Thank you. Does that work?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes.
JUROR: What I was saying is if there's a larger, more imposing physical presence there that you're fighting against, that could put you ina Situation where you have no choice but to use whatever is available to you, because in the example you gave, you're not going to win that fight 99 out of 100 times.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Is there anyone who disagrees with what Juror No. 17 just said? Hold your paddle up if you disagree.
Is there anyone here -- are you holding it up that you disagree, sir?
JUROR: Just only slightly. I just only disagree with the numbers he just -- I think it's more likely than 99 out of 100, that's all.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else who disagrees?
All right. How many people, show of paddles, who agree to what he said? Who agrees? Okay. Thank you.
Do you-all understand in the State of Florida, when it comes to defending yourself, either with non-deadly force or deadly force, that you don't have to wait for the commission of the act? Do we understand that? Am I confusing anyone?
Okay. Meaning, that if someone holds their hand up and fist up and make like they're going to hit you, do you understand that to use non-deadly force in that scenario you don't have to wait for them to hit you? Do we understand that?
Okay. Also, in the use of deadly force, if someone holds up a gun, all right, you don't have to wait for them to fire it. Do we understand that? Is there anyone who disagrees with that?
Also, in the State of Florida, if it's two people or someone has knowledge of a person or the other person who is exerting force on them, if they have had difficulties or events in the past, that could be considered in their use of either non-deadly force or deadly force. Do we understand that?
All right. If you understand that, show of paddles, please.
JUROR: I didn't understand what you said. I'm sorry.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Let me try to give you an example. A and B are school kids, okay? They go to school every day, let's say they're in middle school, all right? And for the past couple of weeks, A has been beating on B, okay? So A and B go to school again one day. Next thing you know, A comes up to B and B just automatically hits A.
THE COURT: Approach.
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir?
MR. JAY: We're getting into fuzzy areas of law under Quintana in what is an overt act and when can you attack somebody based on past, and we're getting really close to the facts of the case.
MR. HENDERSON: I'11 try to explain it ina different way, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. Objection is sustained. Thank you.
(In open court.)
THE COURT: Objection is sustained.
Mr. Henderson, you may proceed.
MR. HENDERSON: Let me try to explain it to you like this, ma'am. If you hear an instruction that you can consider past difficulties between the parties if -- in determining if someone was justified in using non-deadly force and deadly force -- or deadly force, could you follow that instruction?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Is there anyone here that could not follow that instruction?
JUROR: Can I ask a question?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
JUROR: I need a microphone.
THE COURT: Can we get Juror No. 13 a microphone?
MR. HENDERSON: I'm not doing a good job with the mic. I'm sorry.
JUROR: Okay. So like in your example, if I'm allowed to use the example that you were just using --
MR. HENDERSON: Not the example that I used before.
JUROR: Okay.
MR. HENDERSON: That was found to be wrong.
JUROR: Okay. So I guess my question is, even though there's been past events that have happened and they could weigh in with that, something still has to be happening in that moment for them to defend themselves in that way, right? It's not like --
MR. HENDERSON: You're asking --
JUROR: -- somebody walks up to you and you can just defend yourself?
MR. HENDERSON: You're absolutely correct, ma'am. Because what the statute is going to say and what the instruction is going to say, there has to be an imminent threat, okay? And imminent doesn't mean that you have to wait for it to happen, but you have to have reasons to believe that it's going to happen, okay?
But the instruction that I'm talking about, do you understand that past difficulties can be considered? Because that's what the jury instruction says. Can we follow that instruction?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Is that correct? Can you follow that instruction, ma'am?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
How many people here own guns? At least one gun. Okay. All right. Let's start on this side over here. Juror No. 4?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: I'm not going to ask you how many you own. That's your constitutional right. I'm not -- IT asked that one time and somebody said, I'm not telling you how many I own. So I learned that from that.
What's the purpose of your gun?
JUROR: My American right, number one. Self-defense. And then they're just fun to shoot, for recreational.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Juror No. 5?
JUROR: They're actually my husband's, and he had purchased one for me for that reason. If I was home -- or not home with -- I was by myself with my child, if someone were to break in, we have a self-defense.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Who else on the first row on this side owns a gun? Anybody else?
Second row? Yes, sir. Juror No. 15?
JUROR: For home defense.
MR. HENDERSON: Excuse me? You have to speak up, Juror No. 15. There you go.
JUROR: It's basically for home defense.
MR. HENDERSON: Home defense? Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else on the second row on this side? Juror No. 17?
JUROR: Exactly what he said, exercising my right, self-defense, and I like to target shoot, too.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else on this row? Yes, sir, Juror No. 19?
JUROR: Self-defense. So I don't really shoot, but I have it in case I need it.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else on this row?
Third row on this side, anyone owns a gun?
Okay. Last row on this side? Let's start with Juror No. 44, because she has the mic, I believe.
JUROR: Same reason as the lady up front.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Juror No. -- what's your paddle number, ma'am? 43, thank you.
JUROR: For self-protection. I live alone and also in my job I have drugs and so somebody could -- I'm a veterinarian, so if anyone knew that and people are kind of crazy, then they might want to break into my house and try to get -- or into my truck and get drugs.
MR. HENDERSON: In other words, if anyone gets froggy.
JUROR: I'm sorry?
MR. HENDERSON: I said froggy. It's a slang term. I'm sorry.
JUROR: Just, you know, it makes me feel safe.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
And, sir?
JUROR: Yeah, just old hunting shotguns. A hunting rifle from my father and grandfather.
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Thank you.
Anyone else on this side own a gun? This side. If we can have the mic come this way, it would be great. Oh, they have a mic on this side, too? That's great. It's like a relay team.
All right. Juror No. 23?
JUROR: For self-defense.
MR. HENDERSON: Self-defense. I like your juror number, sir. That was my football number.
JUROR: Home defense and recreation.
JUROR: Home self-defense and shooting practice.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else -- oh, did I get the first row? Juror No. 8?
JUROR: Sport and recreation.
MR. HENDERSON: Sport and recreation. Okay.
Now I'm on the third -- anyone else on the second row on this side?
On the third row on this side, anyone gun owner? Juror No. 37?
JUROR: Just for recreation and home defense.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Anyone else on this side? On this row, I'm sorry.
Back to Juror No. 51. Thank you, ma'am.
JUROR: I don't own a gun, but my husband bought one for target shooting. I don't even know where it is. So he's got it locked up somewhere. It's not for home defense, though.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Well, thank you, ma'am.
JUROR: Recreation, home defense, and my rights.
MR. HENDERSON: You're No. 49? Okay. Thank you, sir.
Anybody else? Anyone I missed as to gun ownership? All right. Thank you-all.
Folks, if you disagree with this, raise your paddle for me. If you disagree with this, raise your paddle, okay? Your home is a sacred place. Anyone disagree with it?
JUROR: A sacred place is the question?
MR. HENDERSON: Yes, sacred place. Your home is a sacred place, okay?
JUROR: If you agree?
MR. HENDERSON: All right. Let's do it this way. I'm sorry. I did it the wrong way. Let's do it this way.
If you agree with this statement, raise your paddle, please. Your home is a sacred place. Okay. Is there anyone here who believes that you can't defend yourself in your home? Okay. If you do, raise your paddle. All right. Thank you.
All right. It's going to be one other thing that I'm going to talk about, which is justifiable use of non-deadly force or justifiable use of deadly force, okay? And it ties in with the burden of proof because, remember, it's the State, the government, who has the burden of proof, all right?
However, folks, once the judge reads you an instruction saying that it is an affirmative defense of justifiable use of deadly force or justifiable use of non-deadly force, do you understand that Ms. Boone does not have to prove to you that she was acting in justifiable use of non-deadly force or justifiable use of deadly force? Do you understand that?
Guess what has to happen? Juror No. 3, I haven't picked on you. What has to happen, sir? Do you know what has to happen?
JUROR: The State has to prove it.
MR. HENDERSON: What do they have to prove?
JUROR: That she is guilty of what --
MR. HENDERSON: You're really close, but this one's tricky. You're really close. You almost got that. But you know why? The State has to prove to you that she was not acting in self-defense. Either deadly force or non-deadly force. Do we understand that?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Because it gets a little tricky when you think about it. So she doesn't have to prove that she was -- once the instruction is given, she doesn't have to prove that she was. They have to prove that she wasn't. Do we understand that?
Can we all follow that?
Is there anyone who thinks it should be a different way?
Is there anyone here -- and I think a little bit of this may have came up yesterday -- that has ever been in a situation that either they were abused or part of an abusive relationship, or they know someone who was abused and part of -- or part of an abusive relationship? Show of paddles, please.
Okay. And if I remember correctly, didn't we cover this yesterday and these things? All right. So I just have a couple additional things that I want to talk about when it comes to this.
Folks, is there anyone who disagrees with this, that sometimes people are just embarrassed and don't want to talk about those situations? If you disagree with that, raise your paddle, please.
Do we understand that?
Okay. Would you agree with this, that sometimes the person being abused tries to minimize the Situation? Is there anyone who disagrees with that?
Anyone here who either themselves, yourself, or knows someone who has stayed in an abusive relationship over an amount of time? Raise your paddle.
Okay. Is there anyone here who has ever tried to talk someone into leaving an abusive relationship? Raise your paddle. Okay. Thank you.
All right. We're going to start over here. Juror No. 2, without telling me who it was or what the Situation was, did they follow your advice?
JUROR: Yes, in the end.
MR. HENDERSON: In the end? Did it take a while?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: About how long did it take?
JUROR: There were a couple of different incidences. So one of them took about a year, and then another I learned about it as they were getting out of it, but that took -- they had been in the relationship for a number of years before I even met them. But they ended up leaving after about a year and a half to two years, I don't remember.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Anyone else on this front row who had their paddle up?
All right. Second row on this side, anyone? Yes, ma'am. Did the person listen to you? The microphone is right behind you, too, I'm sorry.
JUROR: No, they do not.
MR. HENDERSON: How long did you try?
JUROR: Over a year.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone else on this row? This second row on this side?
Matam? 21. Can we pass the mic down, please?
JUROR: I too found out late in the game, but when I did, it did take a little while, a couple months.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Anyone on the third row? All right. Thank you.
JUROR: She left the person after about 10 or 11 years, but it was not because of anything I said. And I talked with her the entire relationship.
JUROR: One girl, I tried to help her, let her stay with me and I brought her here to doa restraining order, but then it all fell apart, and then she was a mess, so I got her out of my life. But I don't think that it would have made any difference.
And then I also know quite a few clients, not very well, but you see it happen over and over and people usually don't leave.
MR. HENDERSON: Thank you, ma'am.
Is there anyone else on this row?
Okay. Let's go to this side. Anyone on this Side? Juror No. 8. Where is our mic here? Here it comes. Yes, sir?
JUROR: No, they did not leave the relationship.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. How long did you try to talk to them?
JUROR: Years.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else on this row? Yes, ma'am. Juror number, please? 13.
JUROR: Same, years. And I think in most cases that I've see, like, it just has to be them that finally makes the decision. It doesn't really matter what you say.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Anyone else on this front row?
All right. Second row, anybody? Juror No. 28?
JUROR: It was about two years. They actually left on their own accord, but I was there for their support, offered a safe place to go back and forth. It has to be their decision.
MR. HENDERSON: Ma'am, thank you very much.
Did you-all hear that when they said it has to be their decision? Is there anyone who disagrees with that?
Basically, it has to get to the point when they say they're done. Is there anyone who disagrees with that? Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Anyone on the third row?
Anyone on the last row? Yes, ma'am -- yes, sir. Where's our mic?
JUROR: Three years. They didn't listen. The guy ended up leaving her. She would gladly go back to him. She's that type of person.
MR. HENDERSON: And that was hard for you to understand, wasn't it?
JUROR: No. Not as I grew older.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
JUROR: The world was a much simpler place at that time.
MR. HENDERSON: That's correct. Well, simpler in some ways, harder in others.
Anyone else on this row? Yes, Juror 50?
JUROR: My cousin is off and on in the relationship. The family knows. We've tried to talk to them. It's ongoing.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am?
JUROR: A colleague, and I've talked to them for maybe a month, but they did it on their own years later.
MR. HENDERSON: Years later? Thank you.
Anyone here on the panel who has ever had an injunction filed against them for no contact, that you couldn't have contact with a person? Anyone here?
JUROR: Filed it against somebody.
MR. HENDERSON: Somebody else? But it wasn't against you; is that right, ma'am?
JUROR: Right.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Thank you very much.
Yes, sir?
JUROR: My wife, she didn't really have it filed against her or anything, but her and a neighbor got into it.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay.
JUROR: The cop told her don't have no contact.
MR. HENDERSON: And that was your wife, correct?
JUROR: Yes.
MR. HENDERSON: Not yourself? Okay. Thank you, Sir. Thank you for your candor.
Anyone else? Thank you.
And that was Juror -- what's your paddle number, sir?
JUROR: 15.
MR. HENDERSON: And, ma'am? 13. I got it.
This term came up yesterday, battered spouse syndrome. There were some people who said that they were familiar with the terminology, okay. So I know that and we've taken -- we have that information, okay? But this is something that I want to talk about.
Is there anyone here who knows someone -- who knows someone, a friend, relative who just knows everything about anything? If that makes sense. Anybody, show of paddle, do you know someone like that?
Okay. All right. So there's very few people who know someone like that. But we all agree that there are just things in life that we don't know about; is that right? Anyone disagree with that? Okay.
Just like when my car breaks down, I'm going to a mechanic because I don't know a thing about a car, okay?
Now, when my AC or air conditioner goes out in the summer, I'm calling the guy as quick as I can because I know nothing about the AC. Do you understand that?
Okay. So when the car guy says, Oh, Mr. Henderson, it's going to cost you about $2,000, you know, what do I want to do? The reasonable person, what's wrong with it? Okay? Well, guess what? It gets to a point that I have to rely on the car guy because I don't know about it. Do you follow me there?
If I get sick or if anyone gets sick, where do you go?
JUROR: Doctor.
MR. HENDERSON: Do we have any doctors out here? Okay. Thank you, ma'am.
Did you say that's the vet clinic?
JUROR: I'm a veterinarian.
MR. HENDERSON: You're a veterinarian? I have a german shepherd.
JUROR: The patients don't talk to you, so --
MR. HENDERSON: Yeah. I let him stay with some people who had dogs and he don't even miss me. I've been here in Orlando all this time.
But -- so what do you go to the doctor for?
JUROR: Try to find out what's wrong, expertise.
MR. HENDERSON: Yeah. Aren't you trying to find out what's wrong? Okay.
Folks, there are some people under the law who become experts or known as expert witnesses. Guess why? Because they know about a topic more than we know about a topic. Do you agree with me there?
Is there anyone who disagrees with me on that? Raise your paddle if you disagree.
Can you-all, by a show of paddles, listen to an expert testimony and weigh it accordingly? Can you do that? By a show of paddles. Everybody can do that; is that right?
And guess what? You're not going to hear me say anything else about an expert because I really don't know about the expertise. That's why we have the expert. The expert can talk about it, okay? We agree with that? Everyone agree? Okay. Thank you.
All right. There's been talk -- there's been talk about fear and fears and what kind of fears people can have, okay? If you disagree with this, just raise your -- let's do this. If you agree with this, raise your paddle, okay? That some people can have the fear of not being wanted. Do you agree with that? Okay. Thank you.
Anyone disagree with that? Okay.
Some people can have the fear -- excuse me. Yes? Thank you, No. 6. I'm not even going to ask you to explain it because I understand. Some things we just don't agree with, okay? All right. Thank you, sir.
All right. Some people can have the fear of not being good enough. Would you agree with that? Okay.
Is there anyone who disagrees with that? No. 6. Okay. Thank you. Paddle No. 6, thank you.
All right. Some people can have the fear of being hurt emotionally or physically or both. I said that all backwards. But do you know what I mean? I should have said emotionally, physically, or both, okay? Anyone disagree with that? No. 6, we good?
Okay. Anyone in the panel, by a show of your paddles, that's claustrophobic? Okay. Can you keep that up. We'll start on this side first.
Juror No. 3, thank you. Juror No. 34, thank you. Juror No. 44, thank you.
44, did you get it, Ms. Andrews?
MS. ANDREWS: Uh-huh.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. You can put your paddle down there.
Juror No. -- this side, paddles up, please. Juror No. 9. All right. Juror No. 40. Juror No. 51. Juror No. 53. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Is there anyone here -- maybe I asked this, but let me make sure -- who has a medical background? I don't mean a doctor, but just has a medical background. Okay. Let's do this. Could you hold -- we're going to start on this side over here. Could you hold your paddles up high, please.
All right. So we're going to go to Juror No. 5. Juror No. 16, Juror No. 18, Juror No. 21, Juror No. 31, Juror No. 43. Thank you. Anyone else on this side?
All right. On the right side. Juror No. 51. Anyone else on this side? Thank you very much.
All right. Have to talk about another topic here. Alcohol. It was brought up yesterday, okay? So this is what I need to ask you. If anyone disagrees with this, just raise your paddle. If you disagree that alcohol affects people differently. Is there anyone who disagrees with that? Let's do it agree. It makes it easier. I'm sorry. I'm confusing people. Let's do it over again.
Anyone agree -- who agrees with this statement, that alcohol affects people differently? Do you agree?
All right. Anyone who disagrees with that statement?
Okay. Now, would you agree with this? Who agrees with this, that sometimes people -- or certain people drink alcohol and they get happy and giddy? If you agree with that, raise your paddle.
Okay. Sometimes people drink alcohol and just get downright mean. Do you agree with that? Raise your paddle.
Okay. And anyone who disagrees with that?
All right. Folks, sometimes there's people who don't drink a lick of alcohol and are just happy and giddy. Would you agree with that?
Okay. Anyone who disagrees with that?
Folks, sometimes there are people who don't have a drop of alcohol and they're just downright mean. Do you agree with that? All right. Thank you.
Now, I think yesterday it was Juror No. 4 -- Juror No. 4, correct? You drink; is that correct?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: And we talked about drinking yesterday; is that correct?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Let me ask you a couple of questions about drinking. Have you ever drank and did something that you would not normally do when you are not drinking?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. Have you ever drank and said something that you didn't mean or regretted it the next day that you said it?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: You agree, has that happened? If you even remember saying it?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Correct? Has there ever been a time where someone had to remind you the next day ora couple days later you said something rude to me when you were drinking? Has that ever happened?
JUROR: I don't know if it was rude, but there's been times they have reminded me I said some things.
MR. HENDERSON: Said things that you wouldn't normally say?
JUROR: Yes, sir.
MR. HENDERSON: Okay. They could be nice things. You're right.
All right. So is there anyone who disagrees with those things? Do we all agree -- here's the thing. Do we all agree that people can do things after they have been drinking that they wouldn't normally do if they were sober? Does everyone agree?
(At the bench.)
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. JAY: Going into the facts of the case. Given that Ms. Boone, two days later when presented with her actions on video, claimed that she didn't remember. And it's also borderline confusing since voluntary intoxication isn't a defense and we're not getting -- we're not getting any tie into the legal qualifications of the jurors to serve and to follow the law. What we're doing is pretrying the case.
THE COURT: Response?
MR. HENDERSON: We're not, Judge, because yesterday the State got up and talked about alcohol and the effects of alcohol and what it does, okay? I'm going into the effects of alcohol and what it does. It's quite relevant in this case because the State has made plenty of pretrial arguments about -- one was this morning about in a drunken state or whatever. I need to know if people -- how they feel about alcohol and if they feel that people can act differently on alcohol. It's not getting into the facts of the case, it's just general because if someone doesn't know that, then that's something that I can use a peremptory challenge on if I want to.
THE COURT: Any further argument?
THE COURT: Objection is overruled.