523

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:

October 16, 2013

Marion County Courthouse

110 Northwest 1st Avenue Ocala, Florida 34475 Shannon Carlton, RPR, FPR Stenographic Reporter Notary Public State of Florida at Large

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

(Proceedings continued from Volume 4) - - - - - - MR. LENAMON: Judge, obviously we have a

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?

Your Honor, the procedure has been

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.

MR. LENAMON: MS. ALAVI:

And we did try to call while -- we

did try to call while we were off for lunch and

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

were unable to get in touch with the person.

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:

contact at the jail? MS. ALAVI: We normally send a letter to Tonia

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

would need a blessing.

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

Does he want to bring in the four? Okay.

have him bring them in. It's 1:46 I think.

We're on record.

The defendant is present with

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

Mr. Yerk, Ms. Javier, Mr. Gambino

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

patience with us.

Okay.

That's Juror No. 2, 8,

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.

He's scared that his name is being

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.

The jurors are back.

So, Mr. Lenamon, whenever you're ready, sir,

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

go ahead. MR. LENAMON: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon.

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

before a finding of guilt.

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

you're not going to be allowed to sit. terrible speller. wrong.

So forgive me if my spelling's

And if you take a position that some of

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

want to talk about is this process.

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

not dealing with the first part.

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

reasonable doubt, and then conviction.

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.

guilty of this charge.

There must be fire where

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

pass it along. she was 22, 21.

This is Ms. Centracco.

I think

A very young, beautiful woman.

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

name so you could remember it.

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

PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

(Raising hands.)

We have one juror and

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

second row, anybody?

Third row? Lyle.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Lyle?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: row? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Last name Lyle. In the back

Thank you, sir.

Pamela Pittman.

I'm sorry, ma'am? Pamela Pittman. And over here? Randy Larkin. And I think,

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

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.)

PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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

someone breaking into somebody's house.

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.

And if there's a guilty as

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

It's fact driven.

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

then you don't have a verdict.

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

doesn't get any advantages.

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

So individual votes in the penalty phase.

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

So the penalty phase

essentially consists of evidence that's put on by the state and by the defense. Some of the

evidence or all of the evidence that's put on by

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

It's up to you individually.

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

So, for example, if somebody was breaking

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.

So, Ms. Smith, what I'm

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,

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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

didn't make myself clear.

automatic -- this is not a trick question. to know your opinion.

I don't want to know what

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

you feel it's society's duty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: punishment.

Is it a punishment?

It's definitely a

I don't know if I would term it as a I believe

duty, but it's definitely a punishment.

one other person commented today, it's a deterrent

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

to society's people who wish to commit crimes.

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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,

I really appreciate your honesty and

Ms. Hamilton, how are you? Doing fine, sir. Now, I know that you and

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: right word.

I probably didn't use the

I said I was good following orders. That is no -- no other way to say

I obey the law. it.

Like I said, my husband was in the military

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

to know why he did it? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Because nobody does

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?

How would you react? Well, here we are dealing

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

I'm asking you how you feel about

the death penalty under the circumstances that the

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

Ms. Thompson, do you

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

different things in there, age. if it was premeditated.

Because friends of mine,

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

I mean, they forgave him.

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

So if we want -- we'll probably

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

going to talk about mitigation later on.

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

not trying to trick anybody.

I'm just trying to

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I value life.

So if somebody goes out there,

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,

I really appreciate it.

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:

rather someone be put in for life. MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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:

That's what I'd prefer.

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

to move up here. it. Okay.

I'm going to hold it up and read

So this is kind of a summary of your

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

It doesn't say you

You are never compelled to vote for death. Jurors who have

And there's a lot of confusion.

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

recommend a sentence of death.

"If on the other

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

I'm going to go to Ms. Coons.

Did you understand my question? Yes. And what is your opinion? Premeditated, it's

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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:

And I understand and appreciate

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

was a cold-blooded killing.

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

They don't value their own life.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. -- I messed up. It was Mr. Oswalt.

wasn't Mr. Turner.

What are

your thoughts on that?

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

someone broke into my home and killed one of my

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

I still feel that the death

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.

I mean, I -- again, without the facts,

thinking theoretically, on my scale, I still -- I'm in the middle. I'm a five.

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,

about what your feelings are.

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

Consider imposing the

There are a group of people who

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:

Which would be your

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

And that's why I'm coming back

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Thank you.

and talk about that more.

Thank you.

Mr. Oswalt, I think -- I think we covered with

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

Mr. Oswalt. you.

Okay.

Mr. Tolbert, I'll come back to

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 exact reasons why, I The feelings to it is if

couldn't tell you that.

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

to look at it on two sides and be fair with it.

just can't -- you just can't say, Yeah, that's it.

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.

And where would you fall

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 --

He kind of said two different things.

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

Counsel. MR. LENAMON: So you indicated that you would

kind of fall in the middle on that scale of one to 10 -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Thank you, sir. Yes. Okay.

-- meaning like five?

Mr. Turner, how are you doing? Great.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

So the circumstances I talked

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 --

You want to make a

Thank you for being honest,

I mean, we really need jurors like you to

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

other kinds of cases.

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

Yes. They don't rise to the

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

was premeditated, cold-blooded? MR. LENAMON: Cold blood. So hypothetically this

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

person had to randomly pick somebody? MR. LENAMON: Yes. Think about it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes.

And then do it?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

For no reason, just Yes, I do believe that

randomly picked somebody.

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.

And how's that? Well, now you're

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.

I mean, can you -Well, and you -- in your

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: MR. LENAMON:

Oh, I didn't notice that. It's a block and sometimes

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:

Well, you were talking about the There are

prison, if he goes to prison for life.

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.)

So let's go back and let Okay. Ms. Coons, how do

me go through the rows. you feel about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: society. MR. LENAMON:

I feel it's a drain on our

So you feel it's a drain on our

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

it's not an issue of rehabilitation.

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

No, you're going to be thinking

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:

I think about that every

time someone's sentenced to life. MR. LENAMON: with her? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay. (Raising hands.) Okay. Who else is in agreement

So I'm going to go to the

back row and that's going to be Ms. Munsell? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: right? No. Ms. Munsell,

Oh, I'm sorry.

You raised your hand?

You're very small,

you look very quiet.

Tell me how you feel. I feel that if someone

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.

Then you had qualified some

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

I haven't been in Florida that

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,

you get the appeal it's reversed because of

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

THE BAILIFF: out. THE COURT:

They need to come back in.

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

That would not be good.

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

be waived for this inmate.

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.

She ate? I'm going to allow them to come

THE BAILIFF: back in.

(Whereupon, the prospective jury panel entered the courtroom.) THE COURT: All right. Okay. Have a seat.

MR. LENAMON:

We had left off, I was

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

Anybody? (No response.)

PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

So then we were talking

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?

Do you have an opinion? I do. Go ahead, ma'am. Can you

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

stand up because -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No. Really?

This is Ms. Pittman. You said in your -- the

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

MR. LENAMON: circumstance.

I was just -- what I was doing is

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.

We didn't talk about the First I wanted your

mitigating circumstances yet.

opinion on that and then we got to the mitigating circumstances. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Then we went from there to

whether or not a person should spend their life in

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

And, you know, if you're asking me They

to form an opinion, that's my opinion. would -MR. LENAMON: appreciate it. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Is there anybody in that back row Anybody over

that has an opinion on that issue? here?

Let me just -- I know that, Ms. Loose, you

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

It just -- I mean, I would 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.

There would not be -- it would not

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: MR. LENAMON: sentence. Okay.

You can't consider that. I just -- I mean, it would

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

Even just because you said it, it

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?

Now on the second 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

factually one way or the other.

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: factoring? PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

So that wasn't -- you're not

No, I have a very limited

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

healthcare, things like that.

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

I think we're going back to Mr. Turner.

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: so much as a cost. factor.

It's the rehabilitation

If somebody's sentenced to life in prison

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,

rehabilitated, my question is why? it just doesn't -MR. LENAMON: Right.

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: the jury -MR. LENAMON:

You're sitting on the jury,

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

So, therefore, what's the How is

Why are we wasting our time?

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

somewhat of a factor to it then. THE COURT: In other words, if you were

thinking life, you're recommendation is life -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Right.

-- because of all the evidence

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

that person doing that crime.

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

murdered her in cold blood? MR. LENAMON: Yeah. Yeah.

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

MR. LENAMON: consider that?

So it'd be a problem, you'd

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

The life sentence would

probably be out the door. MR. LENAMON: Out the door? Yeah. Is that because your

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

feelings about the prison cost or just looking at her? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: later. too. Looking at her.

We're going to talk about this

You were shaking your head, Mr. Turner,

She's a pretty girl and that's why we're

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?

Yes, ma'am? I'm going to throw a

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: hypothetical one at you. MR. LENAMON:

He's the one that wanted you to

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: know I did that. MR. LENAMON:

Right. So if that was the --

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:

everything before you can answer your question hypothetically.

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.

The rules are kind of -The judge gives us

the rules are kind of strict.

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

We all want to be that way, but we know

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

It's just us being able to

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:

And following up, Ms. Thompson,

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.

Do you want to hear how she grew

up, you want to hear stuff like that before you

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

He's saying, Okay, it's cold-blooded,

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

Here's, you know, how I felt at the

Do I deserve to be -- if I'm convicted of

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:

Thank you, Judge.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ferreira, yes. How are you today? Thank you.

Ferreira.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Fine.

You heard my questions about the

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

you raised three boys. PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

next one's 42, and the youngest will be 38.

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.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where

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

It was a nonsensical death.

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

could also have aggravating circumstances.

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

point to make a segue into an issue.

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

different definition and it's described differently. It's a heightened premeditation. So

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

But I guess my question is very

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

No matter how heavy the

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.

Is there anybody on the Anybody?

panel where that exists in their mind? PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

(No response.)

Thank you, ma'am.

Mr. Washington, how are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I'm very well. Thank you.

I want to talk to you a little As we talked

bit about individual responsibility.

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.

Ms. Thompson, would you allow that to happen to

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Is there anybody on this jury

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

MR. LENAMON: Judge. Okay.

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,

What are your thoughts on that? What are my thoughts on?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

In terms of the death penalty?

Do you believe you would automatically vote for

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

It just depends on the You know, I

circumstances and what happened.

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: answer that question. MR. LENAMON: Okay.

I thank you very much. Mr. Ewers, sorry. How

Ms. Ewers, how are you? are you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

Good. What's your -- what's

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.

What do you think those reasons

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

I'm going to direct you

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

you were raised in bad situations without good mentoring.

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.

Do you think that people

are shaped by things that happen to them in their lives? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes.

Tell me about that. Do I think if they're

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

raised around bad decisions they're going to make the same bad decisions? MR. LENAMON: Maybe.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you? If they're raised around

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,

Would that be something you would be

able to consider? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't -- I think that You know the law

everybody knows right and wrong.

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

punished or not. this.

They're getting at a minimum a life

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

I hope I didn't leave you

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:

No. Because I believe There are still things

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: everybody's responsible.

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: specifically.

Then let's address that

Let's say someone had a history of Let's say it was simple -- a It was

mental illness.

simple part of a 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

So let's say something as simple as

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.

Is there anybody who Okay.

didn't understand the question? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

I have a question?

Yes, sir? Are you speaking right now

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

just of depression or in general mitigators?

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:

We're talking about one aspect There may be a number of

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.

Now, there are some people, and

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Well, it's a choice.

And would you not be able to

give it any consideration? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

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:

Okay. I have a question. You're

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

talking -- not about guilt or innocence -MR. LENAMON: Penalty phase. -- life sentence? I'm only here for the

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: penalty phase.

Right.

Mr. Reich will be dealing with the Is there anybody else who

other portion tomorrow. agrees? Okay, Mr. Lyle?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Yes, sir.

You can't consider it? No. Too many excuses in

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: this world. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Okay.

If you're an alcoholic all your

lives and then you -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: problem. It's not my problem.

I'm not asking if it's your

Would you at least listen to it and say,

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

That's what the problem is.

be a druggy, then I'm sorry, I don't have any

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

I haven't got there a hundred percent,

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.

50 percent? Five of five.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

So 50 percent you would -It would be something I

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: would think about.

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

MR. LENAMON: consideration?

But you may not give it

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: versus weight.

I might not.

Let's be -- I mean, consideration Would you at least consider it and I'm going to

say, Okay, I'm hearing this.

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?

MR. LENAMON: Okay.

Ms. Barboza, how are you? Good. Thank you.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

We were talking about the death

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

beginning I would remain neutral.

hear all the evidence and hear all of the circumstances. I would give weight to mitigation

and make my decision on that.

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:

What kind of crimes do you think

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,

Where would you consider yourself to

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

about you? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I'm kind of a five as

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

almost feel that isn't our decision to make.

once again going back to my religious beliefs. don't want to play God, but I don't know. MR. LENAMON: Okay.

So let's go back to here.

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

To explain how a person gets to the

moment in time when they're doing this tragic and thoughtless act. That's what we're really talking Mitigation isn't

about here, what mitigation is. an excuse.

Mitigation is how a person gets to

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

person had to be born. obviously.

So what are we looking at?

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: sorry? MR. LENAMON:

What do you think's important

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

raised would be important.

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

They shouldn't have killed anybody,

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

but I think it's worth looking into it.

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.

-- we're talking about just the And I want to jump to

How are you, Mr. Elliott? I'm fine.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

You heard what Ms. Oldberg said.

Do you agree with her? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: In what sense? If you go

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

to talk about here, Mr. Elliott.

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

it would cause me to look at it very hard.

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

the time really came and I seen what everything

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

justified in certain mannerisms, yes. -MR. LENAMON:

But what you're telling me right

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

prison is any picnic either. MR. LENAMON: Okay. I think if it was me

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

what you were talking 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:

I would give it the weight

that I thought it was due. MR. LENAMON: Okay. But you wouldn't ignore

it or set it aside? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No, I don't think you can.

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

that's that. accordingly.

MR. LENAMON:

Okay.

Mr. Conner, how do you

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.

I'm going to go backwards to

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

daughter at the time? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, they run off

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.

So she was a little

Yes, sir. How did you respond and

what were your feelings about that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I certainly wasn't happy.

I think that's probably part of the reason that

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

privately about that. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay. Yes, sir. Ms. Palmer? No, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Barboza? Not sexual abuse. An

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: MR. LENAMON:

Mr. Ewers? No.

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:

Ms. Pittman? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Mr. Washington? No, sir.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Ferreira? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Shehan? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Lyon? I'm aware of individuals

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:

It's Ms. Shehan.

Oh, Ms. Shehan, sorry.

Yes, sir.

Do you have a family member or

someone close to you who was sexually abused? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: No. Ms. Prince?

Thank you, sir. No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Thank you.

I'm skipping over

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?

Is it something you'd share in

Private, yeah. Ms. Smith? No.

My sister.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Thank you. No.

Ms. Hamilton?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Thompson? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Woelfel? No. And I think we go over to

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: you, Ms. Roberts? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: privately. Okay.

I was, yes, sir. We'll talk to you

Yes, okay.

Mr. Skufe? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Simpson? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Mr. Larkin? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Mr. Argetes? No, sir.

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:

Ms. Loose? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Tacl? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Bertone? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Butts? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Mr. Hamilton? I'm not aware, no.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Victory? No.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Gadson? Yes, my cousin.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Out of everyone on the panel, is

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

So when we're talking about this

explanation, we're talking about trauma which

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

relates to a number of different things.

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.)

PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

So we were I think I had Ms. Roberts, how are you? I'm good.

left off on Mr. Conner. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Actually, Mr. Conner, I want to

talk to you about another issue that I'm going to bring up. It's important. There is something Let me put this

called victim impact evidence.

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

Can't see it?

How about over here. That's good. Okay. Tania, you want to

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: just hold this up? a second. Okay. No?

She's going to hold it up for

This is called the victim impact

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

We need to talk about

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,

I know it's very difficult for

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

THE BAILIFF: MR. LENAMON: to see that.

Is anybody seeing that photograph

alone going to cause them pause to be able to sit fairly on this jury? Anybody? (No response.)

PROSPECTIVE JURY PANEL: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

I don't see any hands. The law

So this is what I want to talk about.

says rightfully so that we have a right to honor the victim in any case. going to be here. The victim's family is

They're going to be sitting in So

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.

Centracco, who is Toni's mother, perhaps a good

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

mother and her friend, her family.

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

phase. PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Part of the penalty phase.

Probably at the very beginning

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

It doesn't trouble anybody? (Raising hand.) Does it trouble anybody

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: else? Okay.

Tell me how it troubles you, ma'am? Well, I don't understand What, again, is

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

why it would be even presented.

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

honor the victim in this case.

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

It just doesn't make sense to me why

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

long history that talks about victim's rights.

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

That's all. Okay. I think I could put it

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

aside, but it's just surprising to see that. MR. LENAMON: Okay. I understand. I thought --

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

That's why we're talking about

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.

And had I told you at this

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:

Are you with me that you can

Yes, I can, yes.

Is everybody with me that they Everybody understand that

can follow that law?

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.

I want to talk to you about what

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Okay.

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

You said you believe in the

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Now, because of your feelings

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.

Now, we talked about the Would that be

mitigation of complex trauma. something you would consider? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: Yeah.

Would you be able to consider,

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.)

What about you, Mr. Argetes?

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Yes. Because I

How's your throat?

know when we talked to you yesterday you were -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: It's fine. You may hear She's

It's fine, okay.

evidence that Michael's mother was adopted. an African American woman.

She was adopted by his

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. Loose, would you be able to

Ms. Tacl, would you be able to

Ms. Bicksler, would you be able

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Yes.

And Ms. Butts? Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Ms. Szanto, how do you feel

about the death penalty? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, I -- I don't have a

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: everything. MR. LENAMON: Okay.

But if you were -- if me

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

I just -- it's there and sometimes it's

needed. MR. LENAMON: And how do you feel about being

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:

Because we're all a

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,

So we've been talking a long

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

Just so we're clear, you're

changing -- you earlier said no circumstances ever

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

recommend death. could?

Now you're saying you possibly

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.

Assuming that, you know, it's

nothing to do with this case -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Right.

-- would you still consider

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:

Thank you, Judge.

you, Ms. Westbrooks? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: I would still impose.

And there is nothing that would

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: THE COURT:

Take your time. Mr. Perella? Yes, sir?

MR. LENAMON:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

You heard me speaking about many

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, sir. Mr. Lyle, I assume you

No. Hold

I think that's all, Judge.

on one second, Mr. Tolbert, I'm sorry, staring right at me. Can you alter your opinion? No, sir, not at all.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

I think that covers it, Judge.

Okay. Just let me check my notes.

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

Oh, yeah, take your time. That's all, Judge. All right. We're going to

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

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

speak with us privately.

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?

Yeah, she needs to We'll get to you.

go -- you have to wait outside.

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.

THE BAILIFF: else? THE COURT:

Mr. Oswalt.

I'm assuming we don't need He said recognized the Are

Mr. Lyle, No. 33. billboard.

There's Mr. Oswalt right there.

we all figured out? MR. LENAMON: Barboza. MS. ARNOLD:

That's Ms. Oldberg, Ms. --

Gadson, Roberts, Victory, and

I think Ms. Thompson indicated

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

MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

Barboza. Mr. Ewers. Barboza. You want them to come on up You want to speak with

Okay.

and start with Mr. Oswalt? us privately here?

(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.

You want to tell us a little bit

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,

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: mid-'60s. THE COURT:

Do you want to ask any questions? So when did you find out? Actually a long time

MR. LENAMON:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: later.

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:

How much later? I believe I was in my late

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

About how old was she when she

started going to therapy? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I mean, she doesn't like

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: men.

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:

Is this going to affect your

ability to be fair and impartial in this case? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No, sir.

If you hear issues as Mr. Lenamon

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.

No further questions. You can

Thank you, Mr. Oswalt. Thank you.

(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

want to talk to next? Yeah, okay.

Ms., is that Ms. Victory?

Come on up, ma'am.

(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.

Did you also say sexual abuse in

In connection with that

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.

No, I mean, they're heart

You'll be able to -- I mean, it is

Uh-huh.

There will at least maybe be one

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.

And not let that so overwhelm you

or sway you one way or the other? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Ms. Victory? moment. No.

Anybody else have any questions of Ma'am, step outside for a

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

MS. NIXON: THE COURT: case?

Billboard I think. You had seen the billboard in this

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:

I remember seeing it, yes.

When Mr. Lenamon showed you this

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

Just it was there and you Any issue with

recognize you might have seen it. sex abuse, ma'am? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: of hearing. THE COURT:

I'm sorry, I'm really hard

I'm sorry, I'm starting to get Any issue

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:

Sorry, but you said -- do you

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.

We'll make sure it's taken care

Thank you,

You can step back out.

(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

I'm starting to get a little cold myself.

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

THE COURT: privately?

Do you want to speak about that

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: wanted to hear about it.

I just -- if you guys I didn't want to discuss

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

or anything like that. PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

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

as in I can understand better if he had been

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

abused. THE COURT: Okay. Like for the mitigation or

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: something.

Like I could -I think they suggested that

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: THE COURT: much. MS. NIXON:

Oh, yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Ms. Oldberg.

(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.

When I moved out

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.

Does it affect your ability to sit

here fairly and impartially after seeing that? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: couple? MR. LENAMON: Yeah, what happened with the No, sir.

Do you want to ask about the

situation with your friends who were murdered? THE COURT: In Minnesota. Their son murdered them.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

How old was the son? 16.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON:

Did you know him? I knew Matthew, yes. We

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: were very close.

My son's name is Mathew, her

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: California.

It was when I was still in

Probably 2009. Were you involved in attending

MR. LENAMON: the trial at all?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: as they -PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

No, I was not.

Did you keep up with the events

My mother would call me

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

ability to sit on this case -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: It won't.

-- and keep an open mind? I don't -- when you were

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

matter what color you are.

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

don't care. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

(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

I think you indicated you may have seen

the billboards? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: Okay. Yes. Was anyone in your family

also sexually abused? PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: No.

When did you see billboards? I don't recall. When I

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.

Trigger anything in your mind

about newspaper articles back then or anything like that?

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: MS. NIXON: THE COURT:

No.

No questions.

No questions. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ewers.

(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.

Is he the watch commander?

We got back from watch commander:

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

THE BAILIFF: THE COURT:

Your Honor, which juror?

Ms. Roberts, come on up.

(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.

Three of your children were

By a family member? One was. And you're kind of

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT: emotional. that -PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay.

It sounds like a very difficult thing

I'm very conflicted

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

It was very hard.

lot of counseling.

There's been a lot of There's also a lot of

forgiveness that happened.

pain in our family because of it. THE COURT: If we get to the second phase like

we've been talking about today, is that -- and you

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: and I feel it both ways. THE COURT: Okay.

All right.

Anybody want to

ask her anything? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: wait back out. No.

State? (Shakes head.) Thank you, Ms. Roberts. You can

You want to say something? Yes, when I looked at his

PROSPECTIVE JUROR:

face I didn't realize that was him.

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?

Mr. Woods? Yes, sir. And my first

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: thought was I couldn't. THE COURT:

I couldn't.

You couldn't vote for death if it

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.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I would have to.

Morally I would have to feel There was no factors I would have to

like there was no remorse.

that were making that happen.

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: be very honest. THE COURT:

We appreciate that. It would be very difficult

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

THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD:

Thank you, Ms. Roberts. Thank you, Ms. Roberts.

(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

Just my cousin, she was molested by

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?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: THE COURT:

That it ended, yes.

Is that going to affect -- you

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.

You're okay with sitting on -Yes.

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:

No questions.

State? No questions. Thank you, Ms. Gadson.

(Prospective juror exits courtroom.) THE COURT: Is that it? Yeah. So y'all are going to

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

Okay.

consult and we're going to -MR. LENAMON: Yes.

(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:

Mr. Perella, any discussion

Your Honor, the state -You usually don't listen to me,

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.

How about No. 7, Mary Catherine

No what? I don't have anything for cause

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

Hamilton, No. 11? MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

All right.

Thompson, defense? Defense? MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

I'll just go back and forth.

Nothing.

State? Nothing. All right. No. 13, Ms. Woelfel?

Nothing from the state. Nothing. No. 14, Ms. Coons?

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

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

Defense cause.

Any objection from state?

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.

She's stricken. How about Mr. Oswalt, No. 17? No.

All right.

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD:

State? Nothing from the state. Okay. Mr. Tolbert, No. 23?

State would move to excuse

Mr. Tolbert for cause. MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: No objection. He's

He is removed for cause.

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

State? Nothing. All right. No. 26, Mr. Turner.

We need to talk about him. MR. LENAMON: Cause.

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

THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: cause.

State? No objection. Good call. He's stricken for

How about No. 27, Mr. Conner? Cause.

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

He's the guy who's not fond of the

cost of the life imprisonment. MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: for cause. I don't have any objection. All right. Mr. Conner is stricken

Ms. Prince, No. 30? State would move to strike

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.

State? No objection. Stricken for cause. How about

He kind of cuts both ways, doesn't he? I'll move for cause on that one.

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

All right. He's an angry man. All right. 36,

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

He's ready to go.

Mr. Lyle's stricken for cause.

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?

Anything? No objection. No objection. No objection, okay. How about

MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: No. 39?

Sounds like she's going to be one of She knows all about

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.

No objection. I don't have any cause challenge

All right.

No. 41,

State would move for cause. No objection. Stricken for cause.

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.

He wants to get back to work,

Yeah. All right. He's stricken for

Is he the car guy? Yeah.

He's the car guy. Keep?

All right.

Mr. Washington, No. 53. MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: there.

No objection. No objection from the state.

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. 62, Ms. Barboza.

MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:

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

MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:

No objection. All right. 66, Ms. Oldberg?

MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Mr. Argetes? Mr. Argetes.

No objection. No objection.

Okay.

All right.

67, We'll leave

Anything about him?

How about Mr. Larkin? No problem.

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:

State, No. 71, Larkin? I don't have any challenge. Okay. No. 73, Ms. Simpson?

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

No objection.

She's the one that said higher

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:

I don't know, she kind of -- she She said I looked

went back and forth each way.

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 to Mr. Conner. All right. No. 80, Mr. Elliott.

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.

No objection. State, anything on

All right.

Not based on anything she said, She was Baker Acted in 2010. So

I'm just concerned about leaving her on there.

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?

Ms. Loose, No. 82.

We'll chat

She didn't say anything yet, so she

I understand. Ms. Tacl, T-A-C-L, No. 84,

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Ms. Bicksler? MR. LENAMON: cop-out. THE COURT:

Nothing.

State? Nothing. All right. How about 85,

She was -- she said drugs are a

Yeah.

You want her out?

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: right.

Yeah. All

I'll strike her for cause. State?

No. 88, Robin Bertone? No objection. No objection.

MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: Butts. State?

Okay.

All right.

No. 89, Jill

MS. ARNOLD: MR. LENAMON: THE COURT: objection?

No objection. No objection. 91, Ms. Gadson. Any

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

MR. LENAMON: MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: Ms. Victory.

No. No, Your Honor.

Okay.

We'll keep her in.

No. 94,

Anything? Nothing from the state. She said -- my notes is she

MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT:

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.

We'll keep Mr. Hamilton, too. So we have 25 in the morning. So

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

What did Pete decide? Six, six, and seven.

THE BAILIFF: THE COURT:

Six, six, and seven? Yes.

THE BAILIFF: THE COURT:

Let me just ask this here to be

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

THE BAILIFF: THE COURT:

All right.

So six, six, six, seven.

So when do you want to Why

tell this grouping that we have left here? don't we -MS. ARNOLD: THE COURT: I was thinking two. Okay.

Then we can at least start

in the afternoon here with last phase of voir dire

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

because we'll probably get done.

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.

MR. LENAMON: THE COURT:

Well, if we're not going to make Maybe

it, let's not make it tomorrow if we can. all 25 will stay. had in Fulgham. Okay. We have 56.

That's how many we

Well, let's tell them to be here --

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

Thanks for your patience.

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

We'll start that in the afternoon.

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

So if you hear your name, I'm excusing you

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, sir. sir.

Mr. Conner, you're excused Ms. Munsell,

Ms. Prince, you're excused.

you're excused.

Mr. Lyle, you're excused. Mr. Sessler,

Ms. Westbrooks, you're excused. you're excused.

Ms. Bicksler, 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

to anybody about the case. newspapers.

Don't go on the Internet to find out Don't watch TV about the case. Don't

about the case.

Don't do any investigations about the case.

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

phase of the trial.

And if we have to go to the

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

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: check-in slips?

Do still keep on to those for

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

THE CLERK: THE COURT:

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

THE BAILIFF: work? THE COURT:

How many need notes?

So we're -It may

we're doing our best to finish tomorrow.

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

will see you tomorrow.

(Whereupon, the prospective jury panel exits the courtroom.)

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

(Proceedings continued in Volume 6)