Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MARION COUNTY, FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL LAMAR WOODS, Defendant. --------------------------x CASE NO.: 2010-CF-4287
JURY SELECTION BEFORE THE HONORABLE JUDGE BRIAN D. LAMBERT VOLUME 5 OF 21 (Pages 523 - 679)
DATE: LOCATION:
REPORTER:
_____________________________________________________ JOY HAYES COURT REPORTING Official Court Reporters 407 Courthouse Square Inverness, Florida 34450 Bus:(352)726-4451 _____________________________________________________
524
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
APPEARANCES: ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF: ROBIN ARNOLD, ESQUIRE JANINE NIXON, ESQUIRE Office of the State Attorney 110 Northwest 1st Avenue Suite 5000 Ocala, Florida 34475 ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: JAMES T. REICH, ESQUIRE 303 SW 8th Street Suite #2 Ocala, Florida 34471 TERENCE M. LENAMON, ESQUIRE Lenamon Law, PLLC 100 North Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3070 Miami, Florida 33132 TANIA Z. ALAVI, ESQUIRE Alavi, Bird & Pozzuto, P.A. 108 North Magnolia Avenue 6th Floor Ocala, Florida 34475 Defendant Present ALSO PRESENT: Kathleen O'Shea, Mitigation Specialist Brooke Butler, Jury Consultant Lenamon Law, PLLC
525
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
volatile situation with the family members because of the alleged abuse or whatever. We need to be
able to have access to our client at the jail and the problem with having access is they require a two-day letter to get in to see him. I was wondering if you could order something so we -- or write a letter and not have to wait two days to see him like tonight and the nights of the trial so we can go back to the jail and visit with him or in the alternative spend 15 minutes with him here in the holding cell. THE COURT: So if you wanted to go back and
see him tonight they wouldn't let you see him? MR. LENAMON: MS. ALAVI: It's normally -- Tania?
that we have to send a letter two days in advance what time we're coming and who's coming, and while we've been able to do it up to this point -THE COURT: Who would be coming? Kate, our mitigation specialist.
526
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So
we did a letter anyway, but one time when we did it like that they said they couldn't accommodate us. So that's why we've done the procedure of two
days in advance, but during trial it's -THE COURT: Well, I don't -- so why can't they
see their client during a daily basis during the trial at the jail? MS. ALAVI: My understanding is they have to
position two guards, one at one entrance and one at another when we see him. And so I don't know
if that takes somebody away from another post or how that actually works. Although, I can tell you
after they told me that, when I've gone there, sometimes they don't have two people there. They
just have the one that they've always had and then once or twice they had another person outside the other door. So I don't really know -Who is the person you have to
MS. ARNOLD:
Poe, but recently Connie, I don't know what her rank or what she is there, has been calling us to confirm things or see if we can switch things because I would overlap with Jim or something like
527
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that and needed to space them apart or whatever. THE COURT: Well, I don't understand why they If they want to see this
guy every night after the day of the events and say, Here's what happened, here's what we're going to talk about tomorrow, that seems perfectly reasonable for defense counsel to talk to their client during a trial. MS. ALAVI: Well, and that's why we're asking
is because during trial to follow that procedure is difficult. We may not need to see him every
night, but there may be nights that we obviously need to see him or they need to see him. Sorry, not the state for the record. THE COURT: captain? MS. ALAVI: THE COURT: MS. ALAVI: I did ask him -And what did he say? -- earlier before lunch and he Well, who's -- where's the Not you.
said to contact the watch commander down at the jail and we tried to do that. Maybe because it
was lunch or something, we were unable to get in touch with someone. So we did a letter anyway for
this evening and faxed it there. THE COURT: Can you send something to the jail
528
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to let them have access to Mr. Woods every day during the trial. MS. ALAVI: this point. THE COURT: We'll send an e-mail here saying I mean, it's worked out fine to
Mr. Woods needs to be available to his counsel every night during the course of the trial. MS. ALAVI: or investigator. THE COURT: right. Counsel and support staff. All Let's Or for the mitigation specialist
We're on record.
Mr. Lenamon and Ms. Arnold and Ms. Nixon are present. (Prospective jurors enter courtroom.) THE COURT: fine. Okay. That's fine right there. They're
and Ms. Buhrts, we've talked after the morning session and based upon our discussions with counsel and your answers to the questions and your concerns, we're going to excuse you from jury service. So you four are all excused, free to go and go on your way. I thank you for your time and
529
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Okay.
86, and 90, excused for cause without objection. THE BAILIFF: -THE COURT: One of the jurors? -- and said he felt uneasy He was He's I had a gentleman come up to me
THE BAILIFF:
because they used the names, their names. a victim of a case and was not too happy. not happy.
used and I -THE COURT: Who was that? I don't know which number he is.
THE BAILIFF:
You want me to go have him come before we start, especially now since the photographer's here? THE COURT: Yeah, he can raise that -- if he
has some issue he can raise that. THE BAILIFF: I suggested that he tell -- when
he comes back into court to bring it to the attorney's attention. know. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel enters the courtroom.) THE COURT: record. Okay. Have a seat. We're back on So I just wanted to let you
All right.
530
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
My name is Terry Lenamon and I'm one of Michael's attorneys and my responsibility in this case, in this part of the trial, is to talk about the death qualification, death penalty issues, that involve this case. The only time that I will be involved in this case is if the jury, you, find Michael guilty of first-degree murder and we have to go into the second part of the case. His lead counsel,
Mr. Reich, is here and he's going to be talking to you a little later on, probably tomorrow. But we have distinct responsibilities and what makes this part complicated is that this is not normally the way we do things in a civilized society. We don't start talking about punishment But because of the way
the law is designed, and we'll talk about that in a minute, that I'm going to talk to some of you who have expressed concerns about your belief against the death penalty, that in order to sit on this jury, you cannot have an extreme position one way or the other and we're going to talk about that a little more also.
531
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
But, you know, what's interesting about this issue is that normally, and I use boards a lot because I'm a very visual person and that's the way I learn, so I try to represent information and I have some blowups that we'll be referring to and I'll be drawing and I also will be writing on these boards throughout the presentation, is that if we were to define the normal criminal justice system here, every case that is a non-death penalty case would fall in this rank here. That means that there would never be a question about your moral position, either for or against the death penalty. But what happens in
our jurisdiction, in our state, and around the country, when you're dealing with death penalty issues, they narrow the venire, meaning you, that's a fancy word for jurors, of who can actually sit and follow invocation of judgement, okay. So does everyone follow me on that?
So essentially if you take an extreme position that you're for the death penalty in all cases, you're excludable under the law. That means I'm a
So forgive me if my spelling's
532
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you have taken that you're against the death penalty or morally opposed to it and could never under any circumstance impose the death penalty, you're excludable under the law. And that's why the prosecutor who asked you questions basically stopped asking you questions, those of you who said I am -- you know, I can never find the death penalty under any circumstances. But that's a little bit of a
misnomer because what really matters here is following the law. I'm going to come back after I ask a lot of questions to all of you to those jurors who have taken a position against the death penalty and I want you to think about as I'm asking questions and exploring individual juror's opinions about the death penalty and various issues, I want you to be thinking to yourself, Is there a way that I can take my moral position, my moral position as a member of this community, this is Michael Woods' community, this is what we're talking about, Michael's community. Can I take a position that
doesn't oppose what I believe and still follow the law and I suggest you can. I think you can set your beliefs aside because
533
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
what the law really says, I think the prosecutor had indicated this on numerous occasions, if the judge instructs you, if the judge instructs you, if the judge instructs you, that that's the law, can you follow it. Well, that's kind of in a
roundabout way of technically getting past it, but what the law says is that you only have to engage in the weighing process and give it due consideration, due consideration. So if you can tell me at the end of this that you believe Michael is entitled to a fair composition of his jurors and if you're a member of this community and believe that you should be part of that composition and you can set aside those extreme beliefs and come back into this box and follow the law, then we need to talk and make sure you communicate that to me. okay with that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: Okay. The second issue that I I'm going to (Affirmative Is everybody
spend probably the rest of the afternoon asking you a lot of tough questions and sharing a lot of challenging emotions with you. Not my emotions,
534
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
your emotions, because you're going to get to see a graphic photograph of the victim today, not in the context of the first part. Remember, we're In the context
of what's called victim impact evidence and we'll talk about that much later on. We're going to be sharing a lot of different information, but the difficult thing that you have to kind of really firmly root yourself in is that everything that I do and say may in the context of the back of your mind because this doesn't make a lot of sense be saying, Well, he's talking when they find him guilty, he must be guilty. He's
talking about when they find him guilty, he must be guilty. And that's the unnatural process in this case. There is no natural process in this case. Because
the natural process is is that once a person, they're assumed -- presumed innocent before they are convicted and that we know the standard, and my co-counsel will be talking to you in detail about the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, that they have to be found beyond a reasonable doubt before you can even convict. So the process is presumption of innocence,
535
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
That's the
normal process we follow, but we're not following that right now. So the reaction that you're going
to be thinking naturally is, I wonder if he's guilty. He must be guilty, he's preparing for He's preparing that. He knows he's
this process.
there is smoke, but that's not the case. The case is that we have -- I have a responsibility to identify those jurors who are not only able to follow the law, but able to fairly follow the law and to identify for you the process that you're going to be going through so you understand that if you ultimately get to that process, that I am able to relate to you in a way that you're comfortable, that you're confident that there's trust. So when I present what's considered mitigating circumstances, evidence of mitigation, that you listen to what I have to say and that you can listen because some people we know cannot list en to some evidence. And having said that, to some extent it puts Mr. Reich in an unfair position going in to this case because he has to deal with a jury that is
536
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
what is normally considered much more pro-Florida, pro-state. And historically what that means is
jurors who are on death penalty juries are going to be more statistically able to side with the prosecution than the defense naturally because there's an elimination of this group of jurors, the one we had just talked about. The jurors that
clearly need to be part of Michael's community. So we need to fare that out over the next few hours so we can discuss that in detail. everybody good with that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: Okay. So before I get into the (Affirmative Is
death penalty issue, there's one side issue I want to get into. At the beginning of this case we had
discussed in a questionnaire about this homicide that occurred in 2007 and we know that the young woman who was murdered in this case, her name is Toni Centracco, and her body was found outside a house and she is -- she was a beautiful woman. May I approach the jurors, Judge? THE COURT: Yes, sir. I'm going to hand out a set to
MR. LENAMON:
the rows and you can just kind of figure out, just
537
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I think
And there's no question that she was shot by somebody. At some point her family, because the investigation continued on for sometime, her family put a reward out there and offered a reward and it was done through in part these billboards that went up. Now, a lot of times people who
identify -- I'm just going to hand out these photos. I want you to take a very close look at the photo of the billboards and search in your mind if you remember this case. I know we asked you by And for those who
are sitting here for the most part did not, but I'm trying to put some information in front of you that you didn't have before. So let me know if you remember this. If you
remember it, I just need you to raise your hand so we can identify you. a moment, Judge. (Prospective jurors reviewing photographs.) MR. LENAMON: memory? Did that refresh anybody's I'm just going to give them
538
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Raising hands.)
we'll talk to you a little while later, okay. Anybody else? row, your name is? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Susan Thompson. Thank you, ma'am. Sir? And In the back? Okay. First this
Pamela Pittman.
I'm sorry, ma'am? Pamela Pittman. And over here? Randy Larkin. And I think,
Randy Larkin.
Mr. Larkin, we talked to you already, okay. Anybody else on this side that we haven't talked to? Okay. So we'll talk to you in a little while.
The thing that I'm going to talk about first is I'm going to give you kind of an overview of what
539
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
our -- a very basic overview because we'll get into more detail later of what our system consists of in terms of the death penalty so you kind of have a general idea so when I start asking you specific questions about the death penalty, you understand the concepts that we're talking about, okay. Everybody good with that? (No response.)
So essentially what
happens is on any first-degree murder, which is either premeditated or what's called an enumerated felony. Enumerated felony. An example, would be It's a
burglary and although the person may have not wanted to kill the person, they ended up dying and the state charged it as what's called a felony murder. Enumerated felony is there's a list of enumerated felonies. So all you got to know is
there are two ways the state can actually seek the death penalty. Those are the two ways. Either
premeditated or through enumerated felonies. Once they decide they're going to seek the death penalty, then the case is divided into essentially two trials. The first part is called
540
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the innocence/guilt.
convicted to the first-degree murder, then there is a penalty phase. several alternates. And in order to sit on this jury, as we talked about, you have to indicate that you're willing to follow the law. Even though you may have an There are 12 jurors and
extreme belief one way or the other, you're willing to say that you would consider it. So let's talk about the innocence/guilt phase. The decision on the innocence/guilt phase, and I'm not going to get into it a lot because Mr. Reich will spend a lot of time talking about this, is that it's a decision based on kind of the evidence, kind of the weight of the evidence. It's not really morally driven. component to this. There's no moral
The penalty phase is, although it's fact driven where you make factual findings about the aggravating factors and the mitigating factors, which we'll talk about in a little while, it's also driven by a huge component of morality, of personal decision making, of personal responsibility. based-decision. It is an individually
541
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
The first part of this case, the innocence/guilt requires a unanimous verdict. Twelve jurors have to say not guilty or guilty. It has to be unanimous. If it's not unanimous, And much to the
knowledge of many people, when you have what's called a hung jury, all it means is you're starting over again. The person doesn't get off, So if all 12 jurors
can't agree on a verdict, guilty or not guilty, then the case has to be retried. The penalty phase is much different. The
penalty phase is based on individual votes and it's based on what's considered a bare majority for a death recommendation. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, ma'am? If it
I have a question.
gets retried, is it the same jurors over again or you pick new ones? MR. LENAMON: No, no, start all over again. In
order for you to get a life recommendation, which as the judge indicated he would follow, you need six or more life votes. That means six
individuals from that group of 12 individually say, I want to find life and recommend life and
542
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the law pretty much says that the judge is going to follow your recommendation and give life. requires seven or more. Now, the interesting thing about this -- the jury instructions and the jury verdict form is when you have a guilt phase instruction, as I indicated, the jury has to be unanimous and there's no numbers. So it's either guilty or not That
guilty and there's things called lesser includeds which are not relevant here, but may be relevant in Mr. Reich's presentation. individual count. Here, if you vote for life, you will have a verdict form that doesn't require individual count. It just says, Six or more of us have So there is never an
agreed that life is the recommendation and you sign off on it. If you vote for death, you're
required to give a number showing that it's seven or more of the juror that agree on it. everyone understand that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. (No response.) Does
essentially consists of evidence that's put on by the state and by the defense. Some of the
543
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the state in the penalty phase may come from the trial. So everything that happened in the trial
is the only thing you may get to consider when you're looking at the aggravating factors. The defense gets to put on whatever evidence they feel is necessary and usually includes a lot of evidence that deals with expert witnesses, family members, life history. Because remember,
you're making a moral decision based on someone's life, so we all want to get the big picture when we're talking about looking at a person's life. So the defense gets to put on whatever evidence they deem necessary and the state then -or the -- there's an opening statement and a closing statement just like in the regular trial, witnesses testify for both sides, and then ultimately what happens is the jury gets to deliberate and the law essentially says you get to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances. And as the prosecutor indicated, aggravating circumstances have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances are a lesser doubt than that. And the jury
instruction points out both of those. But defining aggravating circumstance beyond a
544
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
reasonable doubt doesn't address the next issue is the weight you're going to assign that aggravating circumstance. And that's an individual
responsibility for each of you, as is the aggravating factor. If the state presented three or four or five aggravating factors, you, as a juror, could consider all or none of them. And if you're going
to consider them, you have to make sure that each of them are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And
then once they're proven beyond a reasonable doubt to you, then you have to decide what weight that you're going to provide it and you get the choice in what weight to decide. be a little. Could be a lot, could
And also in consideration, a lot of times some of the mitigation that you will hear about factors into the weight that is used in addressing the mitigating circumstances. weight. So it lessens the
into a car and someone surprised them and they got in a fight and the person got killed and it happened in a matter of seconds, that's a big difference than if somebody thought about killing them before, planned it, put it all in play.
545
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Those are the kinds of things that you consider when you're looking at the weight and mitigating circumstances as to the weight on some occasions. In some of the -- some of the stuff
you will see, you will hear from experts that play directly into state of mind of an individual. not going to go into a lot of great detail on those issues, but we're going to be talking about some of this stuff a little later on. So I want to first now because I know the judge is saying, Ask a question, Lenamon, ask each of you questions and I'm going to go juror by juror and the question is going to be the same for each of you, so listen to the question. I'm going I'm
to go in an order this way going back and then this way all the way back to the end. okay? Okay. So some of you I'm going to skip over. How are Is that
I'm going to start with you, Ms. Smith. you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Good.
doing here so you know with the question so there's no confusion, I'm stripping -- I'm stripping away any possible defenses in your mind
546
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that make you think that this was not a premeditated first-degree murder, done in cold blood, okay. So when I say to you, I ask you the question and you hear me say to you there's no defense, no insanity, none of that, that means I am telling you based on these circumstances what is your opinion. Are you okay with that? Yeah, I'll do my best. Let's assume, Ms. Smith,
that we have an individual, you're on the jury with 11 other jurors and you have decided through deliberations that this person is guilty of first-degree murder. first-degree murder. It's premeditated There is no issue of
insanity defense, any defenses at all, accident, misfortune, none of that. What do you think about
the death penalty for a person in that situation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: other circumstances? MR. LENAMON: No circumstances. It's that You are not supplying any
circumstance where it's at the very least premeditated because I know you had asked the question, it was conveniently your first one, you had asked a question about felony murder and I
547
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
think you had talked about and she -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I was unclear on what the
term of first-degree murder was. MR. LENAMON: you. Yes, and she explained it to
That there are two types as I indicated, the But in this case it's premeditated. So
felony.
the person thought about it ahead of time. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: death penalty automatic. That doesn't make the In all this discussion,
I understand that we will be presented with aggravating circumstances that are proven and mitigating circumstances that are shown by overwhelming proof in terms of that and I, as a juror, would be weighing those conditions against each other. Because it's premeditated does not
automatically assume a death penalty. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And I -- and maybe I I'm not asking you to I want
you think you have to say that's the right thing. I want to know how you feel to someone because you remember, Ms. Smith, and I'm being frank with you, my client here is facing the death penalty. I only have one shot to talk to all of the jurors
548
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
here and get their opinions on how they feel truly about the death penalty. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It's like asking me for a
feeling with -- I can't think of a good example, but in all this discussion, we're not going to just take that one factor and make a decision, but yet that's what you're presenting to me. So I
feel in the penalty part of it that the law requires those other items that we've already discussed to be present to make a proper balanced decision. MR. LENAMON: penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I believe if a person Why do you believe in the death
takes a life as we've discussed in all of this and goes through this whole process, then that possibly is the proper answer for that act. MR. LENAMON: from? from? Okay. And where does that come
Where does that feeling, that thought, come Where does it originate from in you? Do
Is it a punishment?
It's definitely a
549
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So
I believe that it has its proper place in the law and -MR. LENAMON: Do you believe it's a deterrent? Yes, I definitely do. And on a scale of 1 to
10, if I was to ask you where ten is completely pro-death penalty and one is being against the death penalty completely, where would you gauge yourself on that scale? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would be in the middle.
As I've iterated twice, I would need all the factors in this penalty phase to do it properly. MR. LENAMON: Ms. Smith. candor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you,
Ms. Hamilton, how are you? Doing fine, sir. Now, I know that you and
Ms. Thompson talked about, I don't know if she necessarily agreed about following orders, but you had mentioned that you were good at following orders. But this is really an individual
responsibility thing and I kind of really kind of need to gauge on how you feel about the death penalty.
550
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
And, you know, the best way that I can do that is present to you this hypothetical where you're presented with someone who is clearly culpable from a premeditation stand that they really believe -- you believe they did this, they thought about it, and relate that to how you feel about the death penalty. Is that okay? Sure.
and I know what the law is and I raised my children, the law is to be obeyed. And if the
judge ordered me to follow the law, I will follow the law. MR. LENAMON: I appreciate that, but I'm
really interested in knowing about how you feel about the death penalty. If you know someone is
guilty of killing someone and thinking about it beforehand? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, and I need -- I need
to be presented with the case and see and determine why he did it and then I will decide if
551
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
he should to be -- to have the death penalty and be punished or not. MR. LENAMON: Now, why is it important for you
nothing for no reason unless he felt he was insane and if he's not responsible in a certain term. lot of -- a lot of insane -- we thought, Well, he's insane, but he does have a little -- a little conscience right there. But like I said, I need A
to be presented the case and determine if he should be punished, fully punished, or punished other way. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And we know that in this
case if he's convicted of first-degree murder, the only two possible sentences are either death by lethal injection or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes, sir. So having said that, You understand that,
let's say hypothetically we're sitting down at dinner and I say to you, you know, What do you think about this person who killed this person in cold blood? Do you thin they deserve the death
552
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
penalty?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
with someone's life and I don't deal real well with hypothetically. MR. LENAMON: I deal with the facts. But I guess I'm asking
Okay.
these questions because I really want to know how you feel and I don't know how you feel. You're
telling me things that are what I consider kind of like they're not -- you're not telling me your true feelings. You're telling me things like I
can't tell you how I feel, I'm not sure how I feel unless I see the facts. How am I going to judge you and say I really want this woman on my jury because she's being honest and straightforward? That I'd be angry if
that person killed someone in cold blood, but I still could -- I would not completely disregard the possibility of life sentence. I'm hearing. That's not what
I'm just hearing you say -Okay. But how can I tell
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
you that this person deserves the death penalty if you come with the hypothetical? MR. LENAMON: they deserve. No, I'm not asking you whether
553
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
person is -- they premeditated, they thought about it ahead of time, about killing this person. Do
you think they should automatically get the death penalty? Do you think that, you know, it really
bothers me, but I would never automatically -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Hypothetically? MR. LENAMON: Yes, ma'am. Well, I need to come up to All right. I understand.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
that bridge to see how am I going to cross. MR. LENAMON: you, Ms. Hamilton. Okay. I'm going to come back to
understand my question? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: thoughts are? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, there's a lot of You know, what -Okay. Yes. Can you tell me what your
I don't think anybody heard about the case in Minnesota where a couple was killed by their children, their child. That was my best friend
and Matthew who did it, he's still here. And all his aunts and uncles and aunt stuck by him. Whether he killed, you know, their sister,
554
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
his mother and dad, it didn't matter to them. was still their family.
It
And there were lots of other people thinking he shouldn't be in there for life, but you know, it's whatever the jury decides to do. You have to
listen to everything and I think in that case, they went by the age because Matthew was pretty young. MR. LENAMON: Now, this may be something that
Jim talks to you about, but did you put that on your questionnaire? questionnaire. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No. I don't remember that on your
want to talk to you outside the presence of the jury. Okay. And I understand completely what you're
saying, I agree with you, but here what I'm trying to really kind of define is how you feel about the death penalty in kind of extreme situations. Do
you think that -- you know, how do you feel about it? You're given this set of circumstances that you know. And I'm not incorporating -- we're So I'm
555
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
get a sense of how people really feel about the death penalty. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I used to think I really
wasn't for the death penalty, but lately I'm more on the other side. On your scale of 1 to 10, I'd
be more like a seven. MR. LENAMON: Now, why is that? I am a cancer survivor, so
purposely kills someone else, they have no value for that and I don't think they should be allowed to keep their value since they took someone else's away. Every day is a gift and you have to treat
it as such. MR. LENAMON: Ms. Hamilton. Thank you very much, Or,
Ms. Thompson, I really appreciate your honesty. Ms. Woelfel, did you understand the question about -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes. How do you feel? If I had a choice, I would
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
556
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
think I would have a little bit more empathy for people. It would be hard for me to go all the way I would rather do the life. Okay. I appreciate that and
to say death.
MR. LENAMON:
that gives me the lead to actually bring up something that we're going to talk about a little bit today and if we ever have to cross the road again, this is -- this is language directly from the jury instructions that you will be receiving and this kind of opens up the door to get into some of the issues about more details regarding the death penalty. Florida actually -- the law as it exists in Florida favors life. It favors life. You are
never required to vote for the death penalty under any circumstance. Even as the prosecutor pointed
out in her jury selection, even when you find that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you are never required to vote for death under any circumstances. And this is part of the instruction: "Regardless of your findings in this respect, however, you are neither compelled nor required to recommend a sentence of death."
557
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So all you folks who have said that you're going to sit on this jury, that you believe in the death penalty and end up sitting on this jury, be aware that you are never required under any circumstances to vote for life. And you can come
up with whatever reasons, whether it's mercy or some kind of moral decision to vote for life, whatever reasons you want. to vote for death. Now, I say that in context of a bigger picture. And this is -- this is the one that I You are never required
really kind of -- this is kind of -- this squares it all out. You can't see it? Okay. I'm going
responsibilities when it comes to the death penalty here in Florida: "The sentence that you
recommend to the Court must be based upon the facts as you find them from the evidence and the law." And this is right from the jury instruction. This is the jury instruction that you will get if you end up having to go to that point in this case. "If after weighing the aggravating and
558
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
mitigating circumstances, you determine that at least one aggravating circumstance is found to exist and that mitigating circumstances do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, or in the absence of mitigating factors, that the aggravating factors alone are sufficient, you may." That's the most that the legislature has gone to require a death verdict in this state. complete discretion. must. You may. Your
You are never compelled to vote for death. Jurors who have
voted for death and studies have found they didn't understand the law. there's no excuse: for death. You may recommend that a sentence of death be imposed rather than a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. the part that I had talked about. And this is Regardless of Well, here's the law folks so You're never required to vote
your findings in this respect, however, you are neither compelled nor required to recommend a sentence of death. talking about. And then it commands you when you can't That's the language I'm
559
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
hand, you determine that no aggravating circumstances are found to exist or that the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, or in the absence of mitigating factors, that the aggravating factors alone are not sufficient, you must recommend imposition of a sentence in life in prison without the possibility of parole rather than a sentence of death." So if you remember three things out of this: May, never required, and must. You may vote for
death, you're never required to, and you must vote for life if you find these factors exist. everyone understand that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: Okay. today? Thank you. I appreciate it. How are you (Affirmative Does
Did you understand my question? Yes. And what is your opinion? Premeditated, it's
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
still -- you have degrees I guess of premeditation, intent, and without all those facts from the trial in my head, I can't say yea or nay.
560
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
that and I'm not trying to put facts from this trial because we're not allowed to talk about this trial. I'm asking you like on a hypothetically. On your hypothetical,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
premeditated, been found guilty or she. MR. LENAMON: And assume that that person, it Like, you know, went
up to someone and just shot them cold-blooded, premeditated. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: penalty. MR. LENAMON: Death penalty, okay. Well, why They deserve the death
do you feel that way? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: life. Because they didn't value They
didn't value that person's life. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Okay. And is there
anything that would change your position on that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: killing. MR. LENAMON: thoughts? Okay. Mr. Turner, what are your It Not for a cold-blooded
What are
561
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
It being philosophical, I
wouldn't have any problem with the death penalty, but on the magnitude I'd still vote five. You
know, whenever you asked one to ten, I'd still be a five until -- it is difficult, as you know, as everybody else has alluded to. MR. LENAMON: bit? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm sorry. It is Can you just speak up a little
difficult, as other people have alluded to, to have to find on unless they've seen all the facts. So, you know, answer -- answering philosophically, I wouldn't have -- if it was premeditated, that means the person planned it all out like you said, right? MR. LENAMON: Right. And they took a life,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
then, yes, I feel I wouldn't have any problems instituting the death penalty. MR. LENAMON: way? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I guess if it were my Okay. Why would you feel that
family member I'd probably feel a little stronger about it. I look at it kind of in the scenario of
562
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
children or threatened my life, I would feel like the death penalty would be appropriate for that person, essentially if they planned it ahead of time. MR. LENAMON: And it's real -- obviously, we
would never be able to sit as jurors on our own family member's demise for obvious reasons, but, you know, now we're talking about as a member of the community and what your thoughts are generally as a duty as a juror. that situation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: duty of a juror. I feel the same way as a I mean, how would you view
penalty is appropriate, especially under the law. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And my question is not
about the appropriateness of the death penalty. My question is, you know, really how you feel about the death penalty in a given circumstance of heighten premeditation. And I think you had said
you certainly feel strongly about it, but can you kind of define it a little more for me because I'm -- I see that point, but -A.
563
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Right.
Okay.
So you feel
you're kind of in the middle and could find yourself, that you can go either way? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. That's correct. Now, here's -- here's
something, and I'm going to be -- I'm going to be straight with you, folks, I'm not going to try to hide or shift anything because we have responsibility as lawyers and we have a very fine trial judge, who if I do anything that shifts away from that, is clearly going to pull me back in. So we're going to talk about something called mitigating circumstance. We're going to talk
about it briefly and I do this in relation to because I want to be straight with you on this issue. The problem we have in this situation, we
come into this courtroom, we are given the responsibility of this great civic responsibility. Now we're being tossed this extra responsibility, that someone's life is in, you know, our hands. And more so, we also have victims who are very well represented here by the state who you saw this beautiful, young woman. I mean, we're going
to talk about how we relate to her and some of the feelings that brings forward in us.
564
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So we have this kind of overarching theme that we want to be fair, we want to be fair. And so a
lot of the questions I'm trying to ask is I want you to be honest with me. I want you to be honest Like, Ms. Coons,
you were honest with me about your feelings in terms of the premeditation and said it would be difficult to set aside. Now, in that context the law says, the law says, Well, if you're going to sit on this jury, you have to be able to consider both the aggravating and the mitigating. about the extremes, okay. death penalty. And let's talk
have taken a moral position that they can never impose the death penalty and they may stick to that position, they may change it. I'm going to talk to them about it at some point in relation to some things I said early on. But they have taken a position that even though the law says, I could never do that because I take a moral position XYZ. So here we have this general position where the law says, You need to consider, you need to consider, but that doesn't mean you have to
565
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
consider because you may not be able to consider. And so that's where I come back to you, Ms. Coons. The law says that you -- to sit on this jury you would have to be able to consider mitigating circumstances. And I know you've taken an extreme position on this first-degree murder premeditated that you believe you would always want the death penalty in that case, but would that cause you to put aside conscientiously because you're telling me you'll never be put in this position of compromise because if you say, I cannot in good conscience do that because I truly believe what I believe. It's okay. It's okay to do that. Just like
it's okay if the people who don't believe in the death penalty, don't believe in the death penalty. So would that -- would you be able to in that situation consider mitigation or would your feelings be so strong in favor of the death penalty that you would not even consider the mitigation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: with your hypothetical. hypothetical facts. MR. LENAMON: That's correct. Well, I prefaced my answer We don't have all the
566
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
aggravation or mitigating. MR. LENAMON: Mitigation. You know, so, again, you
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
wanted a straightforward answer -MR. LENAMON: I appreciate it. -- and I gave it to you.
to you because I want to make sure that before we get to everyone else that everyone else understands that my questions are poised in such a way that your feelings in regards to the death penalty have to be able to transcend a number of different levels. And so I'm being honest and straight with you. You've told me what your feelings are with a first-degree premeditated heightened murder. Would that preclude you from considering mitigation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. You need those facts. And we'll get back And, No.
Thank you.
Thank you.
567
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Okay.
Mr. Kargus, how are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm good. How are you
doing? MR. LENAMON: on that issue. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: the death penalty. Like I said, I believe in Tell me what your thoughts are
the person's not caring for the other person's life to begin with, what they've done, I'm not saying it's a hundred percent fair for them to be put to death. My exact feelings I cannot say
because I've never had that asked me before. MR. LENAMON: Okay. It would be something I
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
would have to stop and think about. MR. LENAMON: Okay. What about in terms of
your thoughts and in regards to premeditated, heightened first-degree murder? Would there be
any way that you would recommend anything but the death penalty in that case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, because I would have I
568
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Okay.
into that category of 1 to 10? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I put myself in the middle
because you can switch back and forth due to the circumstances. THE COURT: Let's be clear with his answer. So you --
if you -- if it was a premeditated murder, would you consider mitigating factors before imposing the death penalty or would you always impose the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: right. THE COURT: You seem to -- your answer to I didn't hear you quite
Mr. Lenamon's question seemed to be two different things. You seem to say you would just -- you
would impose the death penalty if it's premeditated, but then you said but I have to listen to other factors so I wasn't sure. Are you
telling me you automatically would impose the death penalty if it's premeditated, heightened? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Oh, no, I wouldn't
automatically go against it or I wouldn't automatically say yes or no. THE COURT: Okay. All right. Go ahead,
569
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
kind of fall in the middle on that scale of one to 10 -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Thank you, sir. Yes. Okay.
about, I'll be frank with you, Mr. Turner, I mean, your comment about the tree. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: statement. MR. LENAMON: No, just kidding. though. You made it. You can leave. I mean --
be honest with us because we all come from different walks of life and all have our life experiences that we bring with us and we're trying to get through those. Some people, you know, are great jurors for this kind of case. Some people are better on You really can't say. But
it seems like what you were saying is that you have really strong beliefs in the death penalty?
570
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
level of automatic on every first-degree murder? Like if you know someone committed a premeditated murder, do you automatically believe that they should get the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Your question I believe
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
person had to randomly pick somebody? MR. LENAMON: Yes. Think about it?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
they do -- they would deserve the death penalty for the reason of there's apparently something going on, they're not going to make it in society, and being -- sitting in prison for the rest of their life, if -- without possible -- with a life sentence with no possible way of getting out, parole or whatever, I just don't feel that -- I
571
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
feel that person should be just removed from society, in your hypothetical question. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And in that hypothetical,
exactly as you laid it out there, would you -would any mitigation be able to change your mind on that person? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Well, yes.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
interjecting different scenarios because you're talking mitigation. There's -- now you're adding
that factor of what happened, what was the reasoning. So, yes, that could sway if I chose
the life sentence or the death penalty. MR. LENAMON: What kind of things would you
think would be important to sway you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I don't know.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
scenario that you're presenting, there is none. So to answer that question with true feelings, I don't know that I can. MR. LENAMON: No, but I'm asking you this
because it seems like based on your original statement you made and kind of in conversation
572
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
we're having now, that you have very strong feelings and to me that puts you very close to the edge of where someone will always want a death penalty in a first-degree murder case and I'm trying to figure out if -- that's why I gave you this option of the mitigation issue because I'm being straight with you on that. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: And I feel if you have
that option of there being a reason which changes the whole scenario, I think that that would -that would -- depending on what the mitigation is, it would -- it could possibly sway my -- my choice of life sentence or the death penalty. MR. LENAMON: Okay. What are your thoughts?
Because you started to say something, but you didn't actually go down that route. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: impediment. MR. LENAMON: No. I do. I have a speech
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I have to stop and think about what I'm saying before I continue on. for me. Public speaking is not easy
573
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
a group of people that feel that housing someone for life is a waste of taxpayers' money. Is there Can I
anybody in this group that feels that way? see hands? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
(Raising hands.)
me go through the rows. you feel about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: society. MR. LENAMON:
society for someone to be put in prison for life? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: With no possibility of
parole, if they're un-rehabilitative, it's a drain. THE COURT: There is no parole in Florida, so It's as
Mr. Lenamon indicated, it's either death or life in prison without parole. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Right. I mean, that's it.
There's life and there's no parole, what is he going to do to contribute to our society? MR. LENAMON: Okay. So then I guess the
574
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
important -- and I'm going to get to everyone on that issue and then we'll come back to you, sir, I'm not leaving you, I just want to follow up on this issue. Then we get to this issue where there's two options here that are possible sentences and one is death and the other is life without parole, and you feel that this is a waste of resources and you're thinking to yourself, You know, this guy killed somebody and now I'm going to be paying for square meals, prison time, healthcare, whatever, time in the yard, so forth and so on. How is that
going to factor in your decision-making process with the death penalty if you really kind of are disconnected with the second choice? normal thing was give them death. right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I already said that in I mean, the
It's cheaper,
your hypothetical, yes, death. MR. LENAMON: be thinking of? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: A death penalty? So is that something you would
about the cost of putting him in prison for life without the possibility of parole?
575
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
time someone's sentenced to life. MR. LENAMON: with her? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. (Raising hands.) Okay. Who else is in agreement
back row and that's going to be Ms. Munsell? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: right? No. Ms. Munsell,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
planned out that they were going to kill someone for whatever reason and they done it, that their life is not worth anything more than the one they took. MR. LENAMON: I think you said that before,
you said an eye for an eye? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yeah.
stuff about the law, but I don't want to talk about the law. I want to talk about how you feel
about the prison payment issue that, you know, you're going to have to be paying out of your pocket to house someone, pay for their healthcare,
576
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and in our hard times with society it's just struggling in and of itself. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: It's a waste. So are you going
It's a waste.
to take that in consideration when you're considering his sentence of life or death? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Lyle, do
you agree with that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: had a question. I didn't agree. I just
long and living in other states, when people are given life in prison, it doesn't really mean that much because it seems like five, six years down the road they have a reason to get out? MR. LENAMON: Well, that's a good question and
we're going to get to that next and I will make a note on that because the judge already instructed you on that, but you must not have heard it. There is no parole. That means if Mr. Woods is
convicted, he dies in prison. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: right? MR. LENAMON: Well, appeal is different. If But they can be appealed,
577
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
whatever reason, lack of evidence, technical issues, whatever, then he would get a new trial. It doesn't mean he doesn't -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: board in this state? MR. LENAMON: cases. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. I see. So is there anybody Not for first-degree murder They don't have a parole
who -- who heard what Mr. Lyle said and doesn't understand -- yes, ma'am? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't mean to interrupt,
but I really cannot wait any longer. MR. LENAMON: Restroom? I need to be excused and I
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
do have an opinion about the cost. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. We'll get to you. We'll take a
Okay.
All right.
break and come back. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel exits the courtroom.) THE COURT: Where is his family? I don't know if they stepped
578
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
don't want them associating with -MR. REICH: We got another two hours, Judge.
About two hours this afternoon, break about five? THE COURT: are. MR. REICH: me nodding. I just don't want the jury to see They I don't know, we'll see where we
probably already seen a little bit of it. THE COURT: While the jury is out of here in
light of our discussion about contact between Mr. Woods and his attorneys, etc., e-mail to the Joe Ross, a lieutenant at the sheriff's office, says, "The judge would like the defense attorneys and their associates to have access to him during the trial. Evidently there's a letter and a
two-day waiting period involved in a request to see him. The judge would like this procedure to If you are not the
person who handles these types of matters, would you please direct me to the correct person. you for your time." Response from Lieutenant Ross: "Latoria, I'm Thank
going to forward this to the watch commander so they will know. waiting period. I'm not aware of a two-day If there is an issue, then the
579
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
attorney can call the jail and ask for the watch commander." THE BAILIFF: THE COURT: Ms. Smith was taken care of.
(Whereupon, the prospective jury panel entered the courtroom.) THE COURT: All right. Okay. Have a seat.
MR. LENAMON:
asking Mr. Lyle a question and he brought up the parole issue. group there. So I need to address that with the Some people no matter what they hear
because of TV or whatever don't believe what -what's read to them in jury instructions and what's told by this Court, which is there is no parole in Florida, and if you get convicted of first-degree murder today, you will die in prison. There's no parole system. doesn't believe that? Is there anybody that
about the cost of prison issue and I finished up with Mr. Lyle and I wanted to see if anybody on that row had an opinion about that, the row behind
580
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
on the wall?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
words you laid out that it was premeditated? MR. LENAMON: Yes. Cold-blooded, there was
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
actually no reason or mitigating circumstances? THE COURT: No, he didn't say that. I didn't say mitigating
I'm talking about premeditation, he really thought about it, he did it to kill, this is the hypothetical, and there's no -- and it was cold-blooded. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Right.
opinion on that and then we got to the mitigating circumstances. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Then we went from there to
581
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
prison and whether it was a waste of money? MR. LENAMON: Yes. And just weighing over the
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
years what I've read, you know, from prisoners who have spent their lives or a great deal of their life, it's miserable. death penalty. They would rather have the
to form an opinion, that's my opinion. would -MR. LENAMON: appreciate it. Okay.
want to talk, but anybody in the front row? Ma'am? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: consider that? MR. LENAMON: Yeah, will you consider it? Consider it. I mean, I Well, you did say would we
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
would think about it, but I don't think that would be a big factor in choosing death or not. MR. LENAMON: factor. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: would think about it. To me that's not. But I The issue is it can't be a
I have to be honest, I
582
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
would. MR. LENAMON: about it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: all the time. about it. MR. LENAMON: So how can you -- if you're Because you hear about it Okay. And why would you think
thinking about it, how can you eliminate that from your decision process when you're considering the two opposing sentences, one being death, one being life without the possibility of parole, and as part of that, even if it's tagging on just a little bit to that life without the possibility of parole, it's gnawing at your stomach that you think that you're going to have pay for this guy's -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, because even if I had
to pay out of my pocket, if I believe he did not deserve to die, I would pay for it out of my pocket. That would not be -- but I would -- it
would cross my mind just because you hear it all the time. MR. LENAMON: consider that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, but it probably would Okay. But you would not
583
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
cross my mind.
be something that I would consider as to whether or not -MR. LENAMON: One sentence over the other? No. Because that's an illegal
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
cross my mind because, you know, just like I saw the paper, I had to say I did see it. cross my mind. It would
would cross my mind and I would think about it, but, no, that wouldn't be something. MR. LENAMON: Anybody else? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: (No response.) Okay. Anybody in the front row?
Ms. Loose, you said you had an opinion? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, I wasn't sure. Are
you saying that factually the cost to the society is more for the life sentence comparatively? MR. LENAMON: I'm not saying -- I'm not saying I'm saying that
some people believe that paying for someone to stay in prison their life over the death penalty
584
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
is a consideration they give in giving the death penalty. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So you only want to know
if that belief would deter them from following the way the law's written out according to what we're supposed to weigh? MR. LENAMON: Exactly, because it's not --
it's not a legal reason for you to give death. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. So the personal Only if
belief isn't necessarily inferring that. it's going to change? MR. LENAMON: Right, right. Okay. So, no.
knowledge about it and an opinion, but it's not going to make any bearing towards what is required as a civic duty. MR. LENAMON: it at all? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: side? Yes, ma'am? It would cross my mind Okay. No. Anybody else on this So you're not going to consider
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
585
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
only because of the burden and that he would be or she would be receiving something that a lot of our citizens do not receives. Meals, housing, But as to whether I
could say that it would sway me either way, it would not. MR. LENAMON: all? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It would be there, but -Okay. So it would not weigh at
conscientiously it would be there, but it would not persuade me saying he's going to get death because I don't want to pay for him. thought happen. MR. LENAMON: ma'am. Okay. Thank you very much, That would
Did you have -- did you talk about your opinion on that issue or did you have an opinion? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: you -MR. LENAMON: I jumped way from you? Yeah. My opinion it's not No, it came up, but then
who's going to die in prison, they obviously cannot -- the state feels that they can't be
586
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
rehabilitated and turned back loose into society, to me why house them for the rest of their life? If they can't be -- our prison system was designed for rehabilitation I believe. If they cannot be Why -- I mean,
No, I understand.
understand your question and it may be a good question, but the question, what's important to me is how are you going to relate that to your decision-making process in terms of death penalty versus life imprisonment? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: hypothetically? MR. LENAMON: No, your real -If I'm truly sitting on Are we still talking
you're going back there, you have to make a decision, there's aggravating and mitigating circumstances and you have this belief that you've already laid out that -- that prison's supposed to be for rehabilitation. rehabilitation. purpose? This is not a
587
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that going to factor into your decision-making process in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I guess it's going to have
thinking life, you're recommendation is life -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Right.
you've listened to and the law that you've been instructed on, you say, Well, but he's just going to die in prison anyway, that's what the judge or Mr. Lenamon said, that's just a waste of time. Let's just give him death because why waste the time him living the rest of his life in prison? Would that be something you would factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, to restate what
everybody else has stated, depending on the whole situation. You know, what -- whatever led up to I can think of
several scenarios in my head that, you know, if that's -- if the charge -THE COURT: My question to you is you factored
all that in already and you've come to the conclusion back in the jury room that life's appropriate and that's your recommendation, but
588
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
then you say, Why would I want to do that because I'm looking at him and he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison and that's just going to be a waste of time and money. So I'm going to
switch my life to death because I don't want to waste the time and he's not going to be rehabilitated and in your view he's not going to get out. Is that going to be a factor? No. I know I said that,
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
but I'm still -- I'm still stuck in the hypothetical and in the real life and, you know, with the hypothetical which led up to that part of the conversation, I don't -- maybe I don't know. Now that we're sitting here talking about it like everybody else, you've never really been put in the situation, so maybe I don't know. MR. LENAMON: on that issue? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yeah. Thank you, sir. You don't know which way to go
Mr. Conner, how do you feel about what Mr. Turner said? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I kind of agree with him.
I feel like if somebody takes somebody else's life with no regard, then I would lean towards the
589
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
death sentence. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And you say lean towards
the death sentence, would you automatically impose a death sentence if someone was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: everything. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And how do you feel about No, I would look at
the issue of paying for someone to spend the rest of their life in prison? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. I don't like it. And so now you are in a I mean,
situation where it's kind of about 50/50. we're talking 50/50 here, you're leaning
50 percent life, 50 percent death, and you have to go one way or the other and now you have this nagging thought that this guy who you heard murdered this beautiful woman -- murdered this beautiful woman, you're going to have to pay for him to stay in jail. problem? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: If I knew for a fact he Is that going to be a
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
590
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
probably be out the door. MR. LENAMON: Out the door? Yeah. Is that because your
feelings about the prison cost or just looking at her? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: later. too. Looking at her.
going to be talking a lot about this because, you know, we all love beautiful flowers and when we lose one, it really hurts us. So we're going to
need to talk about this deep down if we can really sit on this jury and make this tough decision, okay. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Can I ask a question?
throw a hypothetical.
591
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
If you're listening to
everything and you want to go, you know, to the circumstances, say if I had a daughter and she was raped and I premeditated, knew who the guy was and went out there and killed him, now I'm sitting there and my past has been, you know, nothing -nothing there, I didn't do anything wrong. MR. LENAMON: Right. But yet I did that and I
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
there was a case like that, you would have to really sit and really think about it. really want to put that person away? there's circumstances. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That scenario I would pay Do you I mean,
for her to sit in prison. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Thank you. But, see,
that's where -- you're asking these hypothetical things, but all this stuff comes into play. MR. LENAMON: It does come into play. So you have to know
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
592
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Right.
a certain amount of flexibility of what we can talk about in terms of what you can know about the case at this point because we're not at a stage where the state is putting on a burden of proving their case and we're defending the case. We're
not at that point of the case right now, so we are limited to what we can talk about. And the focus really is, the bottom line is can you sit on this jury and be a fair and impartial juror? language. Now, that's the general
that that's not -- that's not always true because we come here with our life experiences. And a perfect example is that if, you know, this person was a different color or if this person was older or if this person was a male, then that would not invoke the kind of sympathy, the empathy, that we have because we relate this to our wives and daughters and as men we are protectors of both of those. So the reason we're showing this photograph is because we want to really know if you can sit on this jury because you may not be able to because
593
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of -- because of certain circumstances in your life. So the hypotheticals are is we can't ask a
lot of fact-driven questions as lawyers involved in this case. We have to kind of scoot around
that to try to get you to open up and be honest with us. There's no right or wrong questions here. I
appreciate everybody being honest and frank with me about what -- how they feel. or wrong questions. There's no right
talk to you about how you feel about this case and the circumstances that are leading us there that we know that you're going to hear about in the weeks to come. Does that answer your question? Yes.
what Mr. Lenamon's asking you is if you simply say, Ms. Thompson committed a cold-blooded murder, you should get the death penalty. You know, the
reaction, Okay, you say, Do you want to know about Ms. Thompson before you impose the death penalty? Do you want to hear what happened? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: I would want to know.
594
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
makes that decision and he's basically asking you can y'all do that? weigh it? Can you do that? Can you
calculated, premeditated, whatever term he's using, can you sit and listen and say, Well, what else do I need to hear before I automatically impose the death penalty or do I not automatically do anything and I wait and listen? here today. So your hypothetical is exactly right. say, Well, here's why I did that. before that. time. You That's what's
Here's my life
first-degree murder do I deserve to be put to death or will you consider other things when you decide whether to impose life upon me? That's
kind of the theme for all that's happening here. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That's what we all keep
saying, you have to listen to the whole thing. THE COURT: Okay. Continue. Ms. Ferreira?
MR. LENAMON:
Ferreira.
Fine.
595
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
death penalty in regards to your position of the death penalty in relation to someone who you know committed a cold-blooded killing. How do you feel
about the death penalty in those circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: leaves out an awful lot. Well, your hypothetical You're also talking
about fairness, but we're looking for justice. MR. LENAMON: Well, see, you're absolutely
right, but my hypothetical leaves that out and you answered that question exactly the way I would like to hear it because justice is what we're here for. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Right. And you can't make
a decision on the hypothetical you gave us because it doesn't have all the parameters in it. MR. LENAMON: this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Is finding whether the How would you define justice in
person was guilty or not. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Now, you had mentioned How old are they now? My oldest one is 47, my And
believe me, there were a couple of those things where the death penalty was pretty close.
596
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Laughing.) PROSPECTIVE JUROR: all there. MR. LENAMON: I have three boys. I know As parents I think we're
exactly what you're talking about. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yeah.
would you place yourself with the death penalty? How do you see yourself? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That's a difficult
question because in your hypothetical where it's premeditated, cold, say someone burglarizing and you just shoot someone cold, then I would probably go for the death penalty. There was no reason. But how do you know
someone didn't plan out a murder, like she said, someone who raped your daughter or killed her daughter? MR. LENAMON: Now in that circumstance, ma'am,
would you -- again, as you pointed out as limited the amount of information I was providing you, I kept away from talking about any mitigation, if mitigation is something that is required to be considered, in that circumstance would you be able to give consideration to mitigation if you knew
597
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
someone killed -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: cold-blooded -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah, but I mean, you It's Okay. Yes. So even if it was a
not only did he kill someone cold-bloodedly, but he shot him 14 times before he actually killed him. I mean, it could be -- there's a lot of room
in between. MR. LENAMON: That's right, and that's a good Here the
state alleges a number of aggravating factors. One of them is what's called cold, calculated, and premeditated which we've been talking about. It's
a little different than the premeditation that is charged in the first-degree murder case. It
requires an additional proof of heightened premeditation. So the jury instruction that applies in the first part of the case may only require momentary thought for it to be considered mitigation -premeditation. As in the penalty phase, it's a
598
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that's one of the aggravating factors. talking about that all along.
We've been
The second one is what's called an avoid arrest aggravating factor. And the avoid arrest
aggravating factor is in essence is the state's alleging that to avoid getting arrested a person was killed. That's one of the statutory
aggravators that could be considered. There's like 16, 19 aggravating factors. The
state has alleged a number here that you're going to hear. Some of them go into the original crime.
For example, they claim that this was done in the course of a burglary and that it was done for pecuniary gain which is money. Those are factors that may just slide into the case that you're not going to be thinking about like the avoid arrest. The avoid arrest and CCP
are something that jurors go, Wow, you know, this is something I got to think about. So I guess my question is, is there anything about the avoid arrest aggravating factor that I talked to you about that makes you pause to say that, I could not consider mitigation if I heard that particular aggravating factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think the age of the
599
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
perpetrator would be into consideration. MR. LENAMON: factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes. Okay. That's a mitigating
isolated and I'm going to be asking several people this question. and mitigation. Let's assume we have aggravation Let's assume on the aggravating
side there is something, whatever it is, and I think somebody mentioned it here earlier, if a child was killed, we treasure our children, that if a child was killed I would probably, and I don't think anyone took any extreme position on, but there are some people who will, you know, if a child is killed, they'll sentence someone to death all the time no matter what. consider mitigation. They could not
mitigation was, no matter how strong it was, they couldn't consider it. So my question is, is there anything that causes you pause when you hear the avoid arrest and stop you in the tracks and say, You know what, I don't care what mitigation is out there. The
fact that he killed her to escape from this crime and avoid arrest is so strong to me that I would
600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
give it so much weight and I would never consider mitigating circumstances. I couldn't -- I would Does
never consider mitigating circumstances. that exist in your mind? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. No.
panel where that exists in their mind? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
(No response.)
Mr. Washington, how are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I'm very well. Thank you.
about in the beginning, the difference in penalty and guilt is that you essentially are the decision maker in the second part of the case. and you alone. I mean, you get to go back there and deliberate, talk amongst yourselves, and do whatever you want to do in terms of talking, but the instructions really set out that it's an individual responsibility and the reason obviously is we talked about is this is really a moral decision as opposed to a factual decision. really a moral decision involving a lot of It's It's you
601
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
complicated issues that we're going to talk a little bit more later about. Do you have any problem handling an individual responsibility like that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. No, sir. Now, there is some
information out there that there are certain jurors that get back into juries and they try to bully other people and try to push people around and try to, you know, kind of step on their parade and interfere with their own decision-making process. You're not going to allow that to happen
if you're on the jury, right? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: someone to bully me? MR. LENAMON: to happen? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: You're asking am I going You're not going to allow that If I'm going to allow
to allow that to happen to me? MR. LENAMON: protect someone? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I certainly would, yes, I Or anybody? Are you going to
and that's why I wanted to talk about it. wanted to talk to you about that as well.
602
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
anybody in the jury? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. I have five brothers, no. No.
that would allow that to happen or try to step on someone else's own personal decision in the second phase of this case? That they would respect that
person's opinion and let them vote whatever way they wanted to vote? that? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: their head. THE COURT: Nodding their head. Nodding their head. Thank you, I'm seeing everyone shaking (Affirmative Can everybody agree to do
So I'm going to switch over here Ms. Pittman, I want to talk to you
for a second.
a little bit about what we had talked about in terms of first-degree murder. premeditation. Heightened,
603
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: everybody else. No. I agree with
would and could vote for the death penalty if it warranted, but there's always -- people are people, you know, living their lives and we just have to hear the whole story. what happened. MR. LENAMON: Okay. I don't think I could ever We have to hear
Ms. Ewers, how are you? are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
your opinion of the death penalty, sir? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think it's an
unpleasant, but somewhat necessary, mentally effective deterrent, but is a deterrent in our society in general. To enforce it, unpleasant.
But I think, again, necessary for society to have a deterrent, some kind of punishment out there for those people that choose not to follow good
604
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
practices of society without a deterrent. MR. LENAMON: Now, is there any circumstances
that you would consider never considering mitigation? Like there's certain acts, a certain
thought process of someone who's committed the murder where you would disregard your responsibility, what the law says your responsibility is, and consider mitigation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: mitigation. MR. LENAMON: And what kind of mitigation do I would also consider
you think would be important in a death penalty case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I guess reasons leading --
you know, reasons behind actions. MR. LENAMON: behind actions. Okay. Okay. And you say reasons One of the things that
we're going to be discussing is mitigating circumstances, and as you brought up, reasons behind the actions are something that you think would be important to consider? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: come from? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm not sure exactly what Yes, sir.
605
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you mean by that as far as where do I think they come from? MR. LENAMON: actions? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yeah. Well, certainly if I What kind of reasons? You're saying reasons behind
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
thought that the person felt threatened say from another person outside of what they were doing, that my contribute to their actions. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Maybe that would be
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
something to consider, something life threatening in some way. MR. LENAMON: little direction. That's good. Let's take a
somewhere else and you tell me how you feel about this. Did you ever hear the phrase "product of
environment"? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: How you were raised or if Okay. Yes. What does that mean to
606
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
Okay.
are shaped by things that happen to them in their lives? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
raised around bad decisions they're going to make the same bad decisions? MR. LENAMON: Maybe.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
people making bad decisions, they may make the same bad decisions. MR. LENAMON: Is that something you would be
able to consider in mitigation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Ms. Pittman? Okay. Yes. And what about you,
able to consider? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't -- I think that You know the law
and you certainly know instinctively to value life, to value others, and hopefully to put them before yourself. So I know that's not the rule in
everybody's life, but I think that we all have a responsibility towards one another and because
607
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
we're raised in a poor environment, it may have affected us, but it doesn't -- shouldn't cripple us from making good decisions and valuing life. MR. LENAMON: Okay. So what you're saying,
what I'm hearing you say is that people are responsible for their actions. Even though they
had a bad life or a tough life or whatever, they're still responsible for their actions? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes. And now I want you to
kind of transpose that over into that you are the decision maker in a penalty phase where your only decision has to be whether the person gets life or death. It's no longer that they're going to be They're not walking away from
sentence without the possibility of parole versus a death sentence and you have to decide that. How's that thought process you just told me going to play into that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would have heard and I mean,
understood all of the circumstances. nothing's black and white. don't think that way. that impression.
I don't think -- I
608
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
that led up to an action, to the thought process of how we react to life situations. So I guess
you would just take that into account. MR. LENAMON: And this is -- this is what I'm
hearing, again, this is kind of what I do so maybe I'm a little bit jaded, but what I'm hearing you say is that a person is responsible, and although things happen to them and it may offer an explanation, I don't think I'm going to give it that much credence? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: opposite. MR. LENAMON: Oh, you did? Yes. No, I meant the exact
Let's say someone had a history of Let's say it was simple -- a It was
mental illness.
significant depression and under what's called the DSM-IV -- who knows what the DSM-IV is? the DSM-IV? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: The diagnostic and What is
609
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
statistical manual. MR. LENAMON: And what is it? It's used -- psychiatrists
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
and psychologists use it to diagnose many types of disorders; mental, behavioral, physical. MR. LENAMON: Okay. It lists out all
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
requirements, a number of factors that have to be checked and evaluated before a label is put on a child. MR. LENAMON: that. Okay. Wow, you got an A on
depression, would you be able to give that consideration? Now, we can't ask you to establish
weight on anything because you obviously have not heard the evidence, you don't know what you're going to hear, and so forth and so on. But there are some people that just cannot consider that the depression in regards to a mental illness is mitigation. Is there anybody
here who cannot consider that as possible mitigation? can't do it. sir. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't think I could Some people just say just -- they Anybody here can't do that? Yes,
610
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
consider that. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. Great. We'll talk later.
I didn't hear what he said? Say it again. I don't think that would
MR. LENAMON:
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
be something that I would consider as mitigating. I don't believe that would hold any weight in my decision. THE COURT: Okay. So I'm understanding, we're
past that he's guilt -- we're now past guilt. He's not saying I was depressed, therefore, I'm not guilty. He's guilty. So now we're talking
about the state -- as Mr. Lenamon's outlined, the state's going to have aggravators and the defense is going to put on mitigators and maybe the hypothetical mitigator is depression. Would you
consider that in deciding what the sentence would be? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Well, yes. Sorry.
I have a question?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
611
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
of a mitigating factor.
different things and we're going to talk about that in a few minutes, but I'm just talking about depression generally. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Thank you.
I think I was talking to you, Mr. Ewers, who believe that drug use is not considered a mitigating factor. Is there anybody here in the
panel who does not consider drug use as a mitigating factor? Okay. And, Ms. Pittman, back
to you, can you tell me about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. It's a choice. And would you not be able
to give it any consideration? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: illegal drugs? MR. LENAMON: Yes. Illegal drugs? Are you talking about
612
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
talking -- not about guilt or innocence -MR. LENAMON: Penalty phase. -- life sentence? I'm only here for the
Right.
Mr. Reich will be dealing with the Is there anybody else who
Yes, sir.
lives and then you -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: problem. It's not my problem.
Okay, the state's put on these aggravators. Here's the mitigation: alcoholic and -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: that. No, our country's full of You choose to I've been a lifetime
613
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
sympathy for you or an alcoholic. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. I agree with that. I appreciate it.
Mr. Turner says he agrees with that, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Anybody else agree with them?
MR. LENAMON:
Over here, ma'am, tell me how you feel? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: direction. I'm leaning in that
but to me, I get the feeling that sometimes it's a cop-out. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And when you say it's a
cop-out, would that -- would you -- you say you're leaning towards, but we obviously have to kind of work this through. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: entirely. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Well, if you were on a I haven't got there yet
scale of 1 to 10, where are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Middle of the road.
614
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
I might not.
Let's be -- I mean, consideration Would you at least consider it and I'm going to
consider this when I decide whether to vote life or death as opposed to, I'd consider it but I don't give it a whole lot of weight? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would consider it, but I
wouldn't give it a lot of weight. THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else feel that way?
penalty and this heightened premeditation hypothetical that I had talked to at the very beginning with the jurors. thoughts on that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, as I said in the I would have to Can you tell me your
hear all the evidence and hear all of the circumstances. I would give weight to mitigation
615
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
that the death penalty is appropriate for? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, obviously murder,
but as some other people brought up, there sometimes are reasons behind it. So I cannot say
at this point that I would be hard one way or another. I would want to hear everything. Where would you place yourself
MR. LENAMON:
on a scale of 1 to 10? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Ms. Palmer? be placed? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Probably about a five. I Five. Five. What about you,
can honestly say a hundred percent I wouldn't automatically do death penalty. MR. LENAMON: And in a situation where we have
heightened premeditation, is that something that would cause you pause to consider mitigation? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: mitigation. MR. LENAMON: Is there any circumstances that I'd definitely consider
you wouldn't consider mitigation on? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. No, sir. And, Ms. Oldberg, what
616
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
well, but the circumstances also would play into it. Like if someone was a serial killer type
mentality, I think that I would not go more for the life option. I think I would possibly be more
towards the death penalty because if they were completely unhelpable and killed multiple people and that's just what they crave, I don't feel that they should be here. But at the same time, I It's I
once again going back to my religious beliefs. don't want to play God, but I don't know. MR. LENAMON: Okay.
Now, this makes reference to a jury instruction of one of the mitigating factors that may apply in this case, it will apply in this case if we get to a penalty phase, and that's existence of any other factors in the defendant's character, background, or life or the circumstances of the offense that would mitigate against the imposition of the death penalty. Well, what that is, it's called a catchall and essentially what that means is that when you're viewing someone's life, I mean, if we're in the
617
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
situation here where you're having to make the ultimate decision on whether someone gets the death penalty, this is the person's life at the time of the event. So assuming hypothetically, and remember we're talking in this cage of hypotheticals that I have to talk about all these questions and all these issues, the issue becomes, as many of you talked about, rightfully so, you want to know the facts and circumstances of the event, leading up to the event, and then you want to track a person's life in their entirety to explain. Because these aren't excuses. explanations. These are
moment in time when they're doing this tragic and thoughtless act. That's what we're really talking Mitigation isn't
that point in time where they commit this tragic and senseless act. that? Okay. more. So let's break that down a little bit Does everybody agree with
So to get to this point, we know that a I mean, they were born What do
618
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you think is important to look at when we're talking about the birth of a person, Ms. Oldberg? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: you mean? MR. LENAMON: You have to speak up. What do you mean, I'm I don't understand what
when you're looking at someone being born into a family? What are some of the things you would
want to know about to get to this point where this person is committing this tragic act? some of the things you want to know? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I guess how they've been If the family is a -What are
the parents were abusive physically, mentally, in every way, they could truly damaged. I mean,
people don't realize how scarring on a person things can be and maybe had they been in a different situation, they could have grown up and been a wonderful person, but having that abuse on them, that could change them. And it may be in a way not their fault that they feel the way they feel. the murder. Not that it excuses
619
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
wouldn't say they deserve to die because they have depression, because they have all this pain, because maybe they killed someone because that person was hurting them or they wanted that pain to go away. Like there's a thousand things that could play into it. So, I mean, I would consider him guilty,
but whether I would sentence him to death, there's just so much that could play into it like everybody's been saying. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And we're not talking
about the decision of whether to convict because at this point in time -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: penalty situation. Mr. Elliott. I know.
back to the question that she asked originally, I can find for someone to serve life as easily as I can for the death penalty. Like I stated earlier,
620
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
my biggest criteria really comes to babies and kids. MR. LENAMON: So that would be important to
you, would it not, in terms of mitigation to understand what kind of environment that Michael was born into? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely, but I also do
believe as someone else said over here, I think that you grow. Even coming from a background,
there's a certain time in your life when you make certain choices and everybody's responsible for their own choice. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And that's what we want Because of your
belief in that responsibility that a person had, do you feel that that would -- would cause you to set aside consideration of mitigating factors? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I think it would cause me
to look at his track to see his young life up until his adult life and what happened. I think If
you're asking me could I provide sympathy for that or would I consider it as to a lighter sentence, I really don't know. I couldn't tell you that until
621
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
was. MR. LENAMON: in your mind? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. It would be life. So you automatically What would the lighter sentence
believe that death is a justified sentence? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I believe that death is In certain
now is that life is a lesser sentence in your mind, a lighter sentence, and so death is the primary sentence? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't think that life in
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
personally and I knew I was going do spend 50 years in the penitentiary, I'd just as soon jump out a window. MR. LENAMON: Okay. That's my personal belief.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I don't think -- when you ask if it's better to kill them or better to just torture them for the rest of their life. I don't see where there's a
622
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
win-win situation period. MR. LENAMON: But how does that play out in
your mind when you're considering the death sentence knowing that a life sentence is more of a heinous punishment? Are you going to favor -Yeah, I would have to go
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
back to the point where I don't believe that death is any more heinous than locking someone in a three-by-three cage for the rest of their life or 40 years. MR. LENAMON: favor death? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, it doesn't cause me to Is that going to cause you to
favor it one way or the other until I had everything that was connected. MR. LENAMON: Okay. Now, let's go back to You had talked about
having -- being very pro-kid and now I'm presenting you with evidence of -- let's say I present evidence of what's considered in the psychiatric field as complex trauma. That there
are events that caused significant complex trauma throughout Michael's life that he suffered from. Are you going to be able to give that consideration?
623
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
that I thought it was due. MR. LENAMON: Okay. But you wouldn't ignore
I don't think anybody can come to any fair judgment unless you look at everything in the picture. You can't just say, This is it and I mean, you have to weigh everything
MR. LENAMON:
Okay.
feel about considering mitigation of his mental health base? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, everything should be
considered start to finish. MR. LENAMON: And we're going to start with
you and we're going to address, folks, a very touchy issue that may make you very uncomfortable, but I think it's important that you share this information with me. I think you're required to
and if you don't want to do it in front of the other juror members, then we need to do it outside the presence of the other jurors. There's an issue that's going to be discussed at some point that there was an abusive family
624
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
member in Michael's life that may have been involved in sexual abuse issues. And because that
is an issue, I need to ask you either yourself or someone close to you has suffered sexual abuse? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you, Mr. Elliott? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I believe that one of my Not to my knowledge.
daughters was molested by her mother's boyfriend after our divorce. don't know. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And how old was your Again, this is hearsay, I
together, so I guess she was about 16. MR. LENAMON: She ran off with the boyfriend? Yeah, they ended up taking
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: off together. MR. LENAMON: older? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Okay.
what were your feelings about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I certainly wasn't happy.
625
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
they decided to go to a different state because he knew that I'd like to ask him questions. other than that, that was about it. MR. LENAMON: Thank you, sir. Ms. Oldberg, do But
you have someone in your family or yourself a victim of sexual abuse? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Not that I know in my
family and not myself, but I have a friend. MR. LENAMON: You have a friend? (Nods head.) And we can talk to you
privately about that. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes, sir. Ms. Palmer? No, sir.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
unknown rape 25 years ago. MR. LENAMON: your family or -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Myself. Okay. And was that somebody in
Yourself? Uh-huh.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
626
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
that have been abused because I work for or have worked in the school system for 20-some-odd years, but I do not have knowledge of anyone, close family members, friends or myself. MR. LENAMON: Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Shehan?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Mr. Lyle? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:
Yes, sir.
someone close to you who was sexually abused? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No. Ms. Prince?
Thank you.
627
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
some of you because various reasons. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: private? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes.
Mr. Oswalt?
My sister.
Ms. Hamilton?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you, Ms. Roberts? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: privately. Okay.
Yes, okay.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
628
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
there anyone that cannot consider the possibility of trauma in relation to sexual abuse as part of one aspect of my client's life, would you be able to consider that as a mitigating circumstance? there anybody who could not consider that as a mitigating circumstance? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Anybody else? Okay. (Raising hand.) Thank you, sir. Okay. Is
629
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
But
there's going to be experts, psychologists, psychiatrists, a number of doctors who are involved in this case that may come in and testify. Is there anybody who cannot give
consideration to -- to mental health experts because of their personal feelings about mental health experts? Anybody? (No response.)
So we were I think I had Ms. Roberts, how are you? I'm good.
talk to you about another issue that I'm going to bring up. It's important. There is something Let me put this
here because I'm going to come back here in a second. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: it? No? Can't see it. Can everyone see
How about over here. That's good. Okay. Tania, you want to
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: just hold this up? a second. Okay. No?
630
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
jury instruction that's going to be given to you at the end of the case if we get to the second phase of this case. And why this is important is because we know that one of the things, as we've seen already here by example, that one of the biggest impacts we have on making decisions is our connection to people. We have a very young, pretty white
female, we have a light-skinned African American defendant, and we know through studies that there's some problems with that issue. to talk about that. So we need
problems generally and then we need to talk about specifically as to how you're supposed to follow this law. In a few minutes I'm going to be passing out some pretty horrific photographs of Ms. Centracco after she was murdered. to pass it around. One photograph I'm going,
you to look at this, but I need you to try to at least glance at it. It's something you're going to see, the state is going to introduce it at trial, and I need you to just look at it so we can talk about that in relation to the other photos that we had shown
631
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you. So, again, I'm going to be handing this to you. it. It's very graphic, but I need you to look at It's a gunshot wound to her head. (Prospective jurors reviewing photographs.) MR. LENAMON: Deputy. Just pass it to the back row,
Thank you. Oh, you got the third, okay. I apologize for you guys having
alone going to cause them pause to be able to sit fairly on this jury? Anybody? (No response.)
says rightfully so that we have a right to honor the victim in any case. going to be here. The victim's family is
the jury just like Michael's family is here. both families are going to be here.
If we get to a penalty phase case, then the Court is going to instruct the jury at the end of the penalty phase about something called victim impact evidence. We anticipate that Ms.
632
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
friend, is going to testify and get to read information or explain information about her life so we can honor her. The statute says that, "You have heard evidence about the impact of this homicide on the family, friends, community of Toni Centracco. This evidence was presented to show the victim's uniqueness as an individual and the resultant loss by Toni Centracco's death." Those are the important parts of this jury instruction. The first important part, it goes to
her uniqueness as an individual and the loss of her to the community. We honor her with her You'll see
pictures and you'll get to consider that to honor her. But the law also makes it absolutely clear that you may not consider this evidence as an aggravating circumstance. Your recommendation to
the Court must be based on the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances upon which you have been instructed. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Did you say that would be
presented after the penalty phase? MR. LENAMON: It will be part of the penalty
633
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
because the state puts on their case first and then the defense puts their's on. of the penalty phase. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Prior to deliberations? So you It will be part
Prior to deliberations.
would hear from her mother and her friend I believe, if that's going to be who's testifying. They'll get up on the stand and testify about how she contributed to the community and so forth and so on. You get to consider things out of the first part of the case that you'll hear about as to her uniqueness as an individual and resultant loss. But really her uniqueness you'll hear in the first part of the case, but that's not at issue here today. What's at issue is that you cannot consider this as an aggravating circumstance which goes against contrary to what we want to do. I mean,
we just saw this horrific photograph of this beautiful, young woman whose live has been wasted. This beautiful woman there whose life has been
634
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
wasted and we don't get to use that in consideration of the death penalty. trouble anybody? Does that
Tell me how it troubles you, ma'am? Well, I don't understand What, again, is
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
the reason it's presented then if it can't be used? MR. LENAMON: Yeah, the reason it's presented,
as the jury instruction indicates, it's presented to show -- it's an honoree. It's -- we get to Now, the
aggravating factors that enhance the penalty for death are statutorily limited. So, for example, the premeditation, the heightened premeditation, the legislature has said you can use that to factor in whether you want to give weight to that to consider death, but you cannot do because of a loss of her to the community. reasons. And I know people have trouble with that. That's why we're talking about it now. So the You only can consider specified
635
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question I have is, is that going to trouble you so much that it's going to interfere with your ability to deliberate in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: consider it. Not if you tell me I can't
they present it if it's not a key piece of something to make a decision on something. MR. LENAMON: There's -- I'm sure there's a We
all want to be able to honor the victims and there are certain cases that, you know, you get to look at certain factors that are considered aggravating facers, but this is not an aggravating factor. So the question I have for you first is are you going to be able to put aside that trouble that you're having and follow the law because the law says you cannot consider it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: just surprises me. MR. LENAMON: I think I would be, but it
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
aside, but it's just surprising to see that. MR. LENAMON: Okay. I understand. I thought --
636
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it because I get questions from jurors all the time. I don't want you to be surprised out in the
hallway afterwards when you're the deciding vote for death and you considered this as an aggravating factor. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
moment in time you can't consider that as an aggravating factor, you would have been, Well, I would have decided differently, Mr. Lenamon, and he probably would be getting life as opposed to death. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: follow that law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:
that's the law and that's what has to be applied? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: response.) MR. LENAMON: their head. MS. NIXON: Nodding. Nodding their head. Okay. I see everyone is shaking (Affirmative
MR. LENAMON:
637
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Ms. Simpson, how are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I'm fine.
you had said that you would hold the state to a higher burden in the penalty phase because a life was involved. Do you remember that? Right. Now, the law is, is that
burden of proof is they have to prove their aggravating factors beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. understand that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: law? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: After listening to Okay. Yes. Could you follow that No higher. You
everything, yes, I could. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And then you wouldn't put
a higher burden on the state in the penalty phase? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: any doubt. MR. LENAMON: today? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Good. Okay. Mr. Larkin, how are you As long as I didn't have
638
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
death penalty in certain circumstances. those, sir? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Premeditated.
What are
Premeditated? Yeah.
about the death penalty, do you think that you would in a situation where there was heightened premeditation, you absolutely knew someone was guilty of first-degree murder and they thought about it, they planned it, would you be able to present or to consider mitigating circumstances? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Oh, I would consider it.
mitigation of complex trauma. something you would consider? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yeah.
let's say if there was issues related to Michael's being raised in an environment where his grandparents were different race than he was, would you be able to consider that if we showed you how that's relevant? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: (Nods head.)
639
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes. Because I
know when we talked to you yesterday you were -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: It's fine. You may hear She's
grandmother, Lannie and grandfather, W.C., they are white and that she grew up in pretty tough times in the '60s to '70s and Michael kind of made himself into that through issues that we can't really discuss right now. Would you be able to
consider if we can present to you race being a mitigating factor? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: consider that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: consider that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: to consider that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes. Yes. Yes. I could, yes.
Ms. Bertone?
640
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Yes.
problem with the death penalty, but like we all kind of said, you know, it's not black and white. MR. LENAMON: Okay. I would have to hear
and you were sitting at a table and I said, you know, Tell me how you really feel about the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: way. I'm not that strong either
able to accept and understand like the mitigation in childhood all the way through the event. you understand how important that is? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you? Okay. Absolutely. Why is that important to Do
641
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
product of how we've been raised and our environment and our life. MR. LENAMON: how are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Fine. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Harris,
time and I know that your position way back when was that you were opposed to the death penalty and going back to this chart that I had talked about, I'm going to go back and talk to all the jurors, and this is where you were, sir, when you talked to the state attorney. You were outside the box.
This is automatic for death penalty and this is never impose the death penalty. So my question is, and we talked about this in detail, is there any way that you can see yourself placing yourself in a situation where you could engage in the weighing process and give consideration to the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: do that. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, sir. I think I would possibly
642
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
Well, if -- if I had
friends who were victims or family members, I would consider that. THE COURT: What if everybody was unrelated to
you and you were sitting on a jury? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: consider that? THE COURT: Correct. Now, here's my question, The question was would I
are -- the new -- you said if it was family members or friends? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Yes.
imposing the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: difficult to do that. THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, Counsel. What about I would find it very
MR. LENAMON:
you, Ms. Westbrooks? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I would still impose.
643
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
cause you to alter that opinion? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I will never enter that Okay. No. And, Mr. Sessler, can
box under any circumstances. MR. LENAMON: Judge. THE COURT: I'm sorry? I'm almost done. Okay. Okay. I'm almost done,
MR. LENAMON:
issues, including at the very beginning we talked about being able to fit into that box, and in spite of your moral opposition of the death penalty, do you think that you could set aside that to engage in the weighing process and offer consideration? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I could not under any
circumstances vote for the death penalty. MR. LENAMON: Thank you, sir. Ms. Prince, you Can
heard what I talked about and described it. you alter your opinion at all?
644
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: could not? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.
No. Hold
on one second, Mr. Tolbert, I'm sorry, staring right at me. Can you alter your opinion? No, sir, not at all.
Oh, yeah, take your time. That's all, Judge. All right. We're going to
Okay.
take a break here and I'm going to talk with the attorneys in a little bit here. back together soon. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel exits the courtroom.) THE COURT: with privately? Who are the ones we need to speak Pete, there are some that want to Mr. Oswalt, Ms. Victory, We'll have to get
she had something about the billboard, No. 94. MR. REICH: Judge? Can I put something on the record,
645
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
What's that?
Was she one of the ones we need to talk to? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Yes. Well, she can stay. Was there anyone
All right.
Mr. Oswalt.
she recognized the billboard. MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: And Thompson, too? The billboard people I had were
Ms. Thompson, Mr. Ewers, Ms. Pittman, Ms. Victory, and Mr. Lyle. THE COURT: Okay. So you want them to come up
and approach so they can speak with us privately? MR. LENAMON: THE BAILIFF: in? MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Thompson, Ms. Pittman. Yes, Judge. Is there any more I need to call
646
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Barboza. Mr. Ewers. Barboza. You want them to come on up You want to speak with
Okay.
(The prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: Yes, sir. You indicated it was
your sister was sexually abused? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Yes, sir.
about when that was? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: very young by an uncle. THE COURT: How old? I was like five and she That was whenever she was
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
was -- she's three years older, so she was eight. THE COURT: Okay. So that's some years ago? That was in the '60s,
Do you want to ask any questions? So when did you find out? Actually a long time
MR. LENAMON:
647
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON:
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
30s when she told me and the reason I remember is because I actually saw them kind of engaging around in a lake we lived close to and I told my father and he kind of shrugged it off. I was so
young he didn't believe me and I saw them kissing and I asked my uncle why were you kissing my sister and he kind of just shrugged it off. think nothing more became of it. So I
She confronted
me and her and I went out to dinner together and she told me about it and it brought back that memory. MR. LENAMON: Did she ever go to therapy? Yes.
to go into too much detail, but probably in her 30s or 40s, but it's affected her life. MR. LENAMON: How did it affect her life? She just stopped dating
She has a trust factor now. MR. LENAMON: Okay. That's all the questions
I have.
648
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
ability to be fair and impartial in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No, sir.
alluded to that in the penalty phase, if you hear evidence about sexual abuse of Mr. Woods and family members at his age at the time or younger, is that going to affect your ability? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: step outside. No, sir.
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) MR. REICH: Judge, Mr. Woods has written you a
note indicating that he agrees with me leaving. THE COURT: MR. REICH: THE COURT: Okay. I'm about to fall out. Just for the record, Mr. Woods has
given or Mr. Reich has handed me a note that he agrees his attorney will leave a little bit early because of circumstances of Mr. Reich's not feeling well. MR. REICH: tomorrow, Judge. THE COURT: Okay. Okay. Who is -- who do you I will be here with bells on
649
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: You indicated that you recognized
after you saw the billboard that you recognized that billboard? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, my mom lives off of
Northwest 44th Avenue and there were several posted in that area. THE COURT: Okay. But I don't remember any
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
details other than they found her murdered and no suspects. THE COURT: Okay. Is that going to affect
your ability to sit here that the billboard was there? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: the family? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No. Huh-huh.
photograph and the other photographs, did it bring any strong emotions that caused you concern or pause to sit on the jury?
650
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: wrenching, but no. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: what it is. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay.
Uh-huh.
photograph I guess and you'll be asked to look at it in evidence I guess and you're able to do that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Uh-huh.
or sway you one way or the other? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Ms. Victory? moment. No.
Okay.
Thank you.
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: see. MS. NIXON: THE COURT: Ms. Pittman is out there. Where is Ms. Pittman? Who else do you want? I can't
(Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: indicated? Okay, ma'am -- what had she
651
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
afternoon, that kind of refreshed your memory? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh. I seen it, but I
don't know anything about it. THE COURT: Does it affect your ability to be
fair and impartial in this case if there's a billboard? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: about it. THE COURT: billboard? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No, I don't. You don't know anything about the I don't know anything
recognize you might have seen it. sex abuse, ma'am? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: of hearing. THE COURT:
ill, so I won't get too close to you. about sex abuse in your family? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
652
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Okay.
Anyone else?
MR. LENAMON:
need assistance to hear? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do. But he gave me one If I can see
of those things and it didn't work. you I can hear you. MR. LENAMON: of. THE COURT: ma'am. Okay. All right.
Thank you,
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: Do you want to have Ms. -- what's
the young lady, what's her name? MS. NIXON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: Oldberg. Oldberg? Ms. Oldberg. What was she about? A friend of hers. Sex abuse?
(Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: close. Okay. Come on closer. Not too
You had indicated a friend of yours suffered from sexual abuse? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.
653
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it in front of other people because she asked me to keep it private. THE COURT: You don't have to tell us her name How long ago was it? Actually, I didn't even
know her at the time it happened, but she's been through lots of foster care. She's finally
officially adopted the year before I met her I think she said and in a stable home, or was, now they divorced, but it's been crazy. But she's an amazing girl, but her story is heart wrenching and she's been abused by several of the people she's temporarily stayed with and a family member sexually abused her, but it would not make me biased against like -- I wouldn't -it wouldn't affect me in deciding the death penalty like in a bad way. Like I wouldn't say, Well, I know what she's been through, so you're dying on the chair or whatever. Like it just makes me more open minded
654
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
there'll be mitigation evidence about that and I think they'll probably want to argue if we get to Phase 2 that supports life. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I guess that would allow
me to consider them more as opposed to if I didn't know about them I might not have considered them as much, if that makes sense. MR. LENAMON: No questions. Is that okay? Thank you very
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: MS. NIXON: Who is that lady right there? Ms. Thompson.
(Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: Come on up, Ms. Thompson. Yeah,
Ms. Thompson, you indicated I guess that you had seen the billboards after you saw that?
655
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I did.
here I saw them on the boulevard. THE COURT: moved out here? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I forget. THE COURT: Does that bring back any memories Oh, God, it's 2007, 2008. How long ago was that that you
about anything that was going on in that case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No.
here fairly and impartially after seeing that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: couple? MR. LENAMON: Yeah, what happened with the No, sir.
situation with your friends who were murdered? THE COURT: In Minnesota. Their son murdered them.
son's name is Matthew. MR. LENAMON: Okay. And when was that?
656
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and I would call Patty's sister, Jean, to see how everybody was doing because I went to school with Patty's brother, Mike. So I would just call and
check on the family, make sure they were okay. MR. LENAMON: How is that going to affect your
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
talking about the black and the white and all that, my aunt married a black man way back when and my uncle, my grandfather, disowned her. So I It
don't -- and I met her years and years later. doesn't have any affect on me. MR. LENAMON: Okay. I don't judge anybody. If you're green I
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
No
657
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: All right. Mr. Ewers?
(Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: waiting. Okay. Mr. Ewers, thanks for
the billboards? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Was anyone in your family
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
saw the pictures they just looked familiar, but I couldn't tell you any specifics about them. THE COURT: All right. Anything that's going
to affect your ability to be fair and impartial because you saw the billboards way back when? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No.
658
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
No.
No questions.
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) MS. ARNOLD: sexually abused. THE COURT: Ms. Gadson. THE BAILIFF: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: MS. ARNOLD: didn't she? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. NIXON: THE COURT: who is he? Oh, yeah she was crying. Ms. Gadson? And Ms. Roberts. And Ms. Roberts. What about Ms. Roberts? She said she was sexually abused, Yeah, is she here? Pete, Ms. Gadson's cousin who was
Tania. Ms. Alavi? Yeah, we got from Clinton Bohen, All right.
Latoria, jail
personnel will accommodate all requests for visits from Inmate Michael Woods' defense attorney. Captain Bohen. MS. ALAVI: Yeah, I just talked to them.
659
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: Okay. Ma'am, you indicated that
you wanted to speak privately with us about some sex abuse in the family or something like that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: abused. Yes, three of my children.
because the two -- two of them were abused by -molested by someone who's not a member of the family and one of them was the one that abused was in my family. ways. So I have very strong feelings both They've gone through a
lot of counseling.
pain in our family because of it. THE COURT: If we get to the second phase like
660
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
hear detailed information about grandfather was alleged sexual abuser of Mr. Woods and -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would find it just
because of my faith, it would be very, very hard for me to find someone -- to vote for the death penalty would be very, very difficult, but I would do it if I thought it was -THE COURT: on the inside. I've written down you were shaking Are you still shaking? Oh, I'm still. I'm very
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
extremely emotional because I feel very -- I have kids. I have a 21-year-old, a 20-year-old, and an
18-year-old and I -- I'm very -- I love people. THE COURT: Yes, ma'am. I care very much for life
All right.
Anybody want to
ask her anything? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: wait back out. No.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
661
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
Who?
I couldn't.
got to that point? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: with you. THE COURT: Okay. But at the same time when No. I have to be honest
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
I looked at her picture I thought I would have to. THE COURT: You would have to vote for death? I mean, I would have to.
feel very strongly that there was -- I mean, I don't know how to put it. THE COURT: Okay. So I just feel I have to
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
and I would have to have very strong reasons. THE COURT: Mr. Lenamon, any questions? No questions.
MR. LENAMON:
662
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: up? (Prospective juror approaches the bench and the following was had:) THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, you had indicated that Okay. Ms. Gadson, can you come on
you or someone in your family had been a victim of sexual abuse and wanted to talk privately about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: privately. I didn't need to talk
her stepfather for like seven years and charges were never pressed or anything. THE COURT: How long ago was that? She's 20 now. So It's been
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
probably -- it's been a couple years. at least three or four. THE COURT: That it ended?
heard Mr. Lenamon allude to sexual abuse issues that may come up in Phase 2, is what you've heard and you've experienced or through the family, is
663
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that going to affect your ability to be fair and impartial? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Oh, no, sir.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
No questions.
(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: Is that it? Yeah. So y'all are going to
Okay.
(Attorneys going over list of prospective jurors.) THE COURT: Okay. So we're going to address So we'll go
just challenges for cause right now. down the list here. about him? MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
but now you have your backs to me. MS. ARNOLD: We ask that Mr. Perella be
664
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
excused for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: cause. Smith. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No. I agree. No objection. He's stricken for
All right.
MR. LENAMON: at this point. THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
Okay.
State?
Nothing from the state. All right. State? Nothing from the state. Nothing from the defense. No. 12, Susan How about Sylvia
All right.
Thompson, defense? Defense? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:
Nothing.
Okay.
665
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Defense cause.
Ms. Coons, the one who's concerned about the cost of housing in prison? MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Okay, cause. No objection. Okay. Thank you. All right.
All right.
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD:
State? Nothing from the state. Okay. Mr. Tolbert, No. 23?
Mr. Tolbert for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection. He's
indicated he will never impose the death penalty. All right. do you think? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: No. No. 25, Mr. Kargus. Defense, what
666
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
cost of the life imprisonment. MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: for cause. I don't have any objection. All right. Mr. Conner is stricken
MS. ARNOLD:
Ms. Prince for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection. Stricken for cause. No.
Okay.
32, Ms. Munsell, eye for an eye? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: No. 33? Move for cause.
He kind of cuts both ways, doesn't he? I'll move for cause on that one.
All right.
667
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Ms. Lyon?
Mr. Lenamon's witnesses here. the DSM-4. MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: at this time. THE COURT: Ms. Westbrooks? MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No, I agree.
All right.
No. 41,
All right.
Ms. Westbrooks indicated she's opposed to the death penalty and wouldn't consider it under any circumstances. All right. 47, Ms. Ferreira.
State, anything? MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Mr. Sessler? MS. ARNOLD: for cause. State moves to strike Mr. Sessler Nothing. Nothing. How about No. 50,
Okay.
668
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: doesn't he? MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: cause. MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
No objection.
All right.
Mr. Washington, No. 53. MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: there.
Yeah, he's a well-spoken fellow 57, Pittman? No objection. No objection. Okay. We'll keep her now. 58,
All right.
MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Ewers? MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
No objection. No objection.
All right.
No objection. No objection.
All right.
63, Palmer?
MR. LENAMON:
No objection.
669
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Mr. Argetes? Mr. Argetes.
No objection. No objection.
Okay.
All right.
State, No. 71, Larkin? I don't have any challenge. Okay. No. 73, Ms. Simpson?
No objection.
burden of proof and then she kind of after giving it further thought -MS. ARNOLD: And then her last statement was
as long as I didn't have any doubt. THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: I'll leave her in right now. That's fine. No. 75, Mr., I guess it's Skufe.
S-K-U-F-E is how it's spelled. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection. All right. How
No objection.
about No. 76, Ms. Roberts that was just up here? MR. LENAMON: No objection.
670
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT:
at Mr. Woods and I could never do it and then looked at the picture I will do it. know, she seems to cut both ways. So I don't
She seems a
little emotional, but I don't know that emotionality is necessarily a cause challenge here. now. All right. Mr. Conner? No objection. No. 77? All right. We'll leave her on for right
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Anything? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:
State?
No objection.
State? No challenge to Mr. Elliott. All right. No. 82, Ms. Loose?
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Ms. Loose? MS. ARNOLD: Judge, no, sir.
All right.
Not based on anything she said, She was Baker Acted in 2010. So
671
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
THE COURT: about that. stays on. MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: anything?
We'll chat
MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Ms. Bicksler? MR. LENAMON: cop-out. THE COURT:
Nothing.
Yeah.
Yeah. All
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
672
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Okay.
No. 94,
believes in the death penalty, not in all cases, weigh all circumstances, recognized billboard, would weigh, not going to avoid death penalty simply due to cost of life in prison. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: What about him? MS. ARNOLD: Judge, the state would move to Yeah, nothing, Judge. Mr. Harris, No. 98.
All right.
excuse him for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection. The Supreme Court's
All right.
made it tough for us. All right. MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Mr. Hamilton. MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: No objection. Seems like a well-spoken fellow. 103, Ms. Szanto? No objection. No objection. And then lastly, No. 105,
Okay.
673
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
All right.
All right.
if we tell these people -- I mean, this will give Reich a little rest here in the morning if we finish up death penalty stuff in the morning with out other 25. chart. And you've all got the seating
fair, we're going to -- we're going to not just put them all on the state's side. split them up? THE BAILIFF: two rows? THE COURT: First two rows. Okay. Last bench is seven. You want to do just the first We're going to
All right.
tell this grouping that we have left here? don't we -MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: I was thinking two. Okay.
674
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
How many do we
have now after this first round of death penalty? How many do we have left? MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: 31. We have 31? Yes, sir. It's going to get close, isn't it? Ain't going to make it.
it, let's not make it tomorrow if we can. all 25 will stay. had in Fulgham. Okay. We have 56.
we'll tell them to be here at 2 o'clock and just bring them all in and I'll excuse the ones that are excused. (Whereupon, the prospective jury panel enters the courtroom.) THE COURT: right. Okay. Pete, everybody here? After the All
questions and answers, we've spoke outside your presence and some of you are going to be excused. I thank you for your patience. Those of you who are not excused, we still have 25 people from Tuesday that are coming in the
675
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
morning at 9:00 to go through the process that you've all done and then what we're going to ask is those people that make it through that process, they're going to be combined with you and we're going to start the final questioning of everybody issues unrelated to the death penalty and all that stuff. Just other voir dire here. So we're
going to shoot for probably 2 o'clock for that. So if you come back -- do we still have that one tomorrow or downstairs? THE BAILIFF: You want them to meet downstairs
and then once they're there, they can bring them up to one central area? THE COURT: Okay. All right. So we're going
to ask those of you who have not been excused today to meet downstairs in the jury assembly room at about 1:45. here. I think we have 31 people left
and you're all down and thank you for your time and effort. I'm just going to start over here. Mr. Perella, you're excused sir. Ms. Coons, you're excused, ma'am. Mr. Tolbert, you're excused, sir. All right, Okay, Mr. Turner,
676
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you're excused.
Mr. Harris, you're excused. So that means I should have with me Ms. Smith, Ms. Hamilton, Ms. Thompson, Ms. Woefel, Mr. Oswalt, Mr. Kargus, Ms. Lyon, Ms. Shehan, Ms. Ferreira, Mr. Washington, Ms. Pittman, Mr. Ewers, Ms. Barboza, Ms. Palmer, Ms. Oldberg, Mr. Argetes, Mr. Larkin, Ms. Simpson, Mr. Skufe, Ms. Roberts, Mr. Conner, Mr. Elliott, Ms. Loose, Ms. Tacl, Ms. Bertone, Ms. Butts, Ms. Gadson, Ms. Victory, Ms. Szanto, and Mr. Hamilton. good? Okay. All right. Again, remember, don't talk Don't read the We're
Don't go on the Internet to find out Don't watch TV about the case. Don't
talk about the case, about the law, or things like that. Again, I will give you the law, the instructions on the law as we conclude the first
677
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
second phase, then the second phase as well. So we're going to start up again at two. process, the state goes first, but I think Mr. Reich will be asking questions tomorrow afternoon from -- on behalf of Mr. Woods. So does Same
anybody have any questions before I let you go for the day? Yes, ma'am? What about the jury
tomorrow and so for the duration of the trial? It's got a barcode. summons? We get scanned in. The
Do we need those after this? No, they don't need those. No. And do we still go Like I still
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
downstairs to get a note for work? need one for my employer. THE COURT:
Or Latoria can do one for you. How many people need a note for
be into Friday morning, but we'll do our best. We're going to start tomorrow at nine. We don't
678
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
have anything that we have to address before that and we only have a smaller group. So it should be
faster than -- you guys were 47 and they're 25. So we should be faster with the process that you went through today so that there shouldn't be any lag time and we'll start in the -- start in the afternoon with you with the final phase. That's kind of the fish or cut bait as to who makes it and doesn't make it, okay. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: back tomorrow? THE COURT: Please be back about 1:45. If you show up at Don't What time do we need to be
show up at 8 o'clock.
8 o'clock, you're going to sit down there for a while. 1:45 and Ruby or whoever down there and
they'll kind of assemble you. There's 31 of you I think now and we'll bring you up and basically kind of seat you in the order and scooch you down a little bit because you've lost a few along the way here today. Okay. Thank you for your effort today. We
679
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25