NOT SO GREEN | Delta 5, Day 1 - AM & PM to Lunch
The following document is Copyright 2016 by Not So Green
Transcribed using the following technology :
The Record Player - 188.8.131.52
Number of For the Record files, day 1 : 70
All times are shown as 12 hour, AM, PM format
Preface to all transcribed, that follows
This partial transcript, and those that follow, is an attempt to accurately and with detail, document the proceedings of a courtroom trial. Snohomish county uses a commercial software package to record and create for distribution, a record of the proceedings of trial. The technology For The Record and its software program player must be installed on a user computer. Then, compact discs, which are obtained from the court clerk, may be played so as to hear the trial proceedings. The proceedings are, on a daily basis, divided up into time slices, with each slice being a separate file. File time lengths are 3, 4, 5 or slightly more minutes in length, as played in real time. There is no explanation why one time slice is started or stopped at a particular instant with respect to what is actually going on ( being spoken, by someone ) in the courtroom. Spoken sentences may be chopped in half, across two slices.
Now, as to the fidelity and procedures involved, I wish to make the following clear to those who will read what follows. The court clerk instructions ( on paper, provided with the CD's ) do NOT identify which room microphones are assigned to which persons in the room ( or even area of the room ). Further, there is no way to determine which microphones also belong to which volume control ( there are 5 ) when adjusting the player program. Even more obstructive, are the instructions given by the Court and subsequent adherence ( or lack ) by those speaking and or present in the room. Instructions may be given and then not followed consistently, microphone techniques may be good, fair or poor, names may be offered with or without spelling, questions may be repeated with wording altered so as to be unclear to a listener, the intention of the questioner. Individuals speak up, mutter, speak over one another and do or do not speak closely to any microphone. Unidentified individuals coughing, near to a microphone cover up microphone responses.
The overall audio recording experience is best described as compromised . So called media individuals may be heard to continue whispering after being admonished to be quiet, unidentified individuals pour liquids into glasses, shuffle papers and generate desk or surface noise as the proceedings unfold. What results, when a written description from audio is attempted, may well have inaccuracies or omissions. The author of this document in its five major parts, finds this CD distribution to be wholly unsatisfactory. With this preface, the process will be attempted. Note that where you read a question mark, in parenthesis ( ? ), it will be used so as to denote uncertainty in understanding the audio and perhaps, who is speaking, at that instant. Keep in mind, the transcribed words attempt to match what was spoken, resulting in unusual, illogical complex sentences, at times. Additionally, the Record Player interface allows for a speed control, which is used in an attempt to clarify spoken content. There are no guidelines as to how to preset audio channel levels and use the speed control so as to make all the above documented shortcomings manageable. One final technical note : each time the Record Player program is started on a new file ( time slice ) all level and the speed settings are reset to default settings. While the transcription process would like to have put quotes around testimony and questioning, because of the listed deficiencies, exactness is impossible here.
Day 01 of the Trial - AM & to PM lunch break
Snohomish County District Court, Everett Division, Department 3
Monday, at SOD ( South ) Department 1
Court Anthony Howard is announced, on the record regarding 5 matters :
A Brockway, Complaint 5035A14D, M LaPointe, Complaint 5039A14D, P Mazza, Complaint 5040A14D
J Minchew, Complaint 5041A14D, E Spoerri, Complaint 5042A14D
Defense Counsel : Bill Jaquette ( WSBA #8460 ) & A ( ? ) Chong for M LaPointe, Bridge Joyce ( WSBA #43565 ) for L Spoerri, Mary McCallum ( WSBA #47926 ) for J Minchew, Robert Goldsmith ( WSBA #12265 ) for A Brockway, Patrick Mazza pro se
Prosecution : Deputy Snohomish County prosecuting attorney Adam Sturdivant
Housekeeping measures follow : Cases have been charged out of the Everett Division, however Court's courtroom is not large enough to accommodate all the individuals now present ( it should be noted that the courtroom used is overflowing with individuals, extra chairs were brought in and still there are people standing just inside the court room door ) which includes 5 lawyers and 5 jointly charged defendants. Evidently this courtroom allows the ten individuals ( lawyers & defendants ) seating in one wide row. Court also comments that there were larger courtrooms available in Everett, however it was not possible to set up audio to accommodate recording the proceedings there. Court says that those larger courtrooms use clerks to record proceedings.
Jurors were summoned from the Everett division, for a 5 day period, the Court comments that this is unusual - trials are usually scheduled for 3 days, and this trial needed jury services for a full week. Court voices serious concerns about the ability of the court to complete the trial in one week. Court announces that there is documentary crew in the room to film, gives no reasoning for this permission and warns that the film crew will not be permitted in anyway to interfere with the trial administration. Court has given permission also to a radio station to make a audio recording of proceedings, again, without interfering with the trial administration.
Court reverses his decision on the use of a Jury questionnaire. Questionnaire would result in delay in the distribution, review by attorneys and completion of the selection of the jury until far too late in the course of trial completion in one week. ( ? ) may want to have jurors have private conversations ? Questionnaires can help avoid the discomforts jurors have with discussion amongst other jurors - Court does not see jurors feeling uncomfortable discussing their views on climate change or railroad safety policies in a public forum. Thus, Court will question jurors, during his initial questioning of the jury panel, on any connections to Burlington Northern Santa Fe ( hereafter referred to as BNSF ), but will allow and rely upon attorneys to question, as they feel warranted, on climate change, or any other issues.
Note : Lawyers and Courts select juries by a process known as “Voir dire,” which is Latin for “to speak the truth.” In Voir dire, the Court and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine if they are competent and suitable to serve in the case.
Each side will have one hour for jury selection. The State has no objection to divide each hour into a half hour for the persecution and a half hour for the defense. Court tells pro se ( represents himself ) witness that he has a right to change his mind IF he does want an attorney. Witness voices his continued wish to represent himself. Court discusses the awkward situation of witness calling himself as a witness : Witness must ask a question and then answer his own question. Rules of evidence require this form of proceeding. Court will not permit witness to simply give a narrative or report from the stand. Witness concludes aloud that he has not been coerced into proceeding without an attorney.
Jury selection process : each potential juror has been give a number on his/her badge. Jurors, starting with number one, will be seated in the jury box. The process will proceed to select juror one through seven in the jury box. Juror 8 will start in a row of chairs in front of the box and the process proceed until completion. Two other rows will also be filled up till the hoped for number of jurors, for the pool ( sixty, 60 ) are exhausted.
Peremptory challenges : defendants are entitled to 3, plus 5 more as relates to the first 6 jurors. Defense does not object and Court announces that the State may be granted additional peremptory challenges. Challenges may be expressed at any time during selection process. At the end of the process Court will give all attorneys a chance to challenge for cause . After, the proceedings, process will move to preemptive challenges, alternating back and forth between State and defense.
Challenges will be made in the open court, jurors will be identified as they are challenged. There are six chairs set for jurors. There will be only one alternate juror, due to space limitations. Statutory way of seating jurors is then explained as the first method for seating a jury, with one alternate. The first six jurors selected are then complimented with one additional selection and this 7th juror is the alternate. Court then explains that there are two alternate methods available for selecting the alternate juror and asks for feedback. The State prefers that one of the two alternate methods, while the defense prefers the statutory, and the Court states that the statutory will be used. Jurors will enter the courtroom by number, where random numbers were assigned to the jury pool. Once the jury panel is seated, the Court will introduce the case to the jury, by reading ONE of the criminal complaints to the jury [ all 5 complaints are the same ]. Introductory instructions and other instructions will then be read. All parties and their lawyers will be introduced also, by name. Court admonishes please be conscious of the court record generation process. Please do not talk over one another. Should the court deem that an objection by one defendant be an objection by all, will then defendants be able to opt out of an objection ? State agrees, as re stated by the Court. Order for opening, questioning and closing for each defendant by each lawyer should be consistent, as requested by the Court. Defense voices that because this is a joint trial, the defense lawyers have split up responsibility on each witness, to minimize overlap. The primary ( lawyer ? ) will handle each witness and then Court will inquire with each remaining lawyer if they have any additional questions. There will be a direct, cross, redirect and re cross and nothing more, due to time constraints. Court asks for seating to remain constant, Defense lawyer responds that so that lawyers are not trying to consult across defendants, with other lawyers - that lawyers are all sitting together. Court then asks each defendant IF this arrangement is acceptable, and one defendant asks if there would be an opportunity to ask for a moment to consult with his/her attorney, Court responds that yes, there will be. Court will put time limits on opening and closing. State asks for 15 minutes for each. Defense ask for 15 on opening and closing to be determined. Court then issues court rules expected of pro se defendant and this defendant acknowledges his understanding. Trial briefs have been filed. Scheduling conflicts are worked thru, no sessions past 5 PM.
Where not Stated, all following motions are granted by the court. States first ( 1 ) motion in limine, ( A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case. ) is to exclude witnesses from the courtroom, defense does not object. ( 2 ) Produce all defense evidence to the prosecution. Court interrupts to ask if all defense evidence has been marked for identification, defense responds that markings have not been made. Considerable discussion ensues ( photos taken at time of arrests, and items in possession by defendants at time of arrest ) and Court ask that while court is in recess, ALL defense items be marked and entered by clerk. States exhibits will be marked ( numbered ) one thru as necessary and defense exhibits will be marked ( letters ) A thru as necessary. ( 3 ) exclude evidence concerning the penalty of the defendant in case of conviction. ( 4 ) compel submission of jury instructions. ( 5 ) prohibit defense argument related to other ( hunches, gut feelings ) burdens of proof ( reasonable doubt ) ( what is beyond reasonable doubt can be taught to jury ) - defense responds that there is no authority as to how defense can argue reasonable doubt, Court agrees. ( 6 ) exclude cumulative evidence - defense responds that they are calling 4 expert witnesses and making effort to insure they are not going to overlap in their testimony, so this motion seems premature. Jude allows that an objection from the State may be allowed as the trial proceeds.
( 7 ) excluding any references to jury nullification from the defense. ( 8 ) exclude sympathy evidence. Defense raises concern about relevance, relevance which may be applicable, State responds that this case is about delaying a train and trespass on private property. The Court ponders character of the person versus sympathy for the person, in this matter. Court reserves granting of ( 8 ). ( 9 ) no reference or description of the character or trait of a person unless previously approved by the court, the offer approved. Defense raises the possibility of having each defendant be allowed to offer a short biography because it relates to the defense being raised. Court reserves granting of ( 9 ) ( 10 ) no references to charging decisions relating to any policing investigations ( in reference to city of Everett not charging and the case going to Snohomish county ). Defense is confused, is this about an argument of that sort or evidence of that sort. State responds - both. Defense goes into detailed explanation of the protest so as to argue why 10 should not be granted, however it is further discussed and agreed that the reference is to charging, not arrests. ( 11 ) Omit or exclude any self serving hearsay. Court reserves granting, further discussions ensue regarding a necessity defense . Court references page 3 of the States brief - necessity as an affirmative defense. Defense wants to prove to court that the acts committed were a necessity under the law of the State of Washington. Would the subsequent burden of proof during the course of the trial not be met, leaving the jury confused as to how to decide ( the necessity defense was not shown to be necessary ) ? Court responds that granting ( 11 ) will place a additional burden in managing the necessity argued versus the necessity defense presented itself. Court denies ( 11 ) but says he will consider and / or sustain objections as appropriate.
Defendants Trial brief.
Defense makes motion to exclude the throwing of a flare . State counters that people ran out of the bushes, a flare was thrown and the assembly of a tripod began. Pro se witness counters alll defendants were near the tripod. Court responds that it ( ? ) is relevant.
Defendants have no other motions to bring forward. Jury pool selection to follow. While Court is speaking about seating limitations, there are indistinguishable mutterings being picked by other microphones. Court expresses hope that jury selection beings at 10 AM and suggests that the process will take about 2 - 1/2 hours. He further suggests that opening proceedings will begin about 1 PM. All this in response as to a question from the floor about when seats currently occupied have to be vacated so as to support the jury selection process - thus when public will be allowed to come back into the room. Court instructs that attorneys study a list of jury pool members and their answers to a short questionnaire each had to answer. Court announces that once the selection process begins, it will conclude when the trial has a jury. Court is then in recess.
Court is in session. Court makes opening remarks - jury pool members are all from the Everett division of district court, thanks pool for service. Court explains that there are 5 defendants in this criminal matter, all charged with the same crimes by the State of Washington ( represented by deputy prosecuting attorney Adam Sturdivant ). Court introduces the defendants and their attorneys. Defendants are charged by the filing of a criminal complaint - as follows : count 1, obstructing or delaying a train - December 2nd, 2014 ( RCW 8148020 ), count 2, 2nd degree criminal trespass [ at 3429 15th Street, Everett, WA ], same day, date ( RCW 9852020 a misdemeanor ). Court instructs that charges are accusations, the filing of charges are not an admission that the charges are true. Defendants have entered pleas of not guilty to each charge. The jury must decide, after hearing all arguments and considering all evidence, if the defendants are guilty of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The procedure for this trial, as next instructed by the Court, is, as follows : there will be a jury selection process to select six people, and one alternate juror - all who can be unbiased and fair to both sides . Court instructs that he has a number of general questions he will also ask, then ask for a raise of hands ( not clear why ) and then after Court has asked all of his questions, the lawyers for each side will have an hour to ask questions ( of the entire pool ? ) as a group or individually. Court makes lengthy advisement that if a pool member is excused, not to be offended or feel slighted. Pool members are prohibited from withholding information which may disqualify them from being seated. Pool is sworn in.
Court's questions follow, that ask for the pool members to raise their hand if they would answer YES, PERHAPS, or NOT SURE and keep it raised so the attorneys can make notes as to which of the sixty have their hands raised. Attorneys can then follow up selectively during their allotted time to do so.
Q1 : Is there any pool member with a physical disability that would make it difficult for him to sit and listen attentively for long periods of time ? # 57 limits herself to one hour - # 50 limits himself by need to stand and shake leg - Court relieves # 57.
Q2 : Has any pool member heard of this case before ? # 1, # 5, # 28, # 32, # 35, # 51, # 59 and # 60 respond. # 5 is excused.
Q3 : Do you know any of the lawyers or defendants in this case ? # 28 responds.
Q4 : do you know any of the witnesses I will list now : Dr. Richard Gammon, Brent Millar, Dr. Frank E James, Eric DePlace, Dean Smith, Mike Elloit - Sgt. Margaret Anders, Officer Randall Marrs, Sp Agent Michael Stapelton. One pool member responds, Court does NOT identify member number, train master Oats Coppock, Robert Ebberson, Tyler Osentberg, Ritchie Tate
Q5 : Any pool member had experience as victim, defendant or accused with regard to these specific charges ? # 20 responds.
Q6 : Are any of you connected with law enforcement ? # 24, # 28, # 41, # 53 respond.
Q7 : Do you have close family or friends connected to law enforcement ? # 7, # 24, # 29, # 39, # 41, # 48 respond.
Q8 : Are any of you connected to the courts ? # 22, # 24, # 39, # 41 respond.
Q9 : Is anyone connected to the prosecutors office in anyway ?
Q10 : Anyone have close family or friends connected to the prosecutors office ?
Q11 : Do any of you work for an energy company ? # 48 responds.
Q12 : Do any of you have close family or friends who work for an energy company ?
Q13 : Is anyone familiar with the Delta yard of Burlington Northern Santa Fe ? # ?, # 32 responds.
Q14 : Anyone familiar with other railroad companies, or have family working for other ? # 1, # ?, # 29, ( lots of coughing ) # 40 responds. response(s) cannot be understood.
Q15 : Jurors are to follow Courts instructions, on the law, at trial end. Is there anyone who disagrees with the law, will refuse to follow it ?
Q16 : Is there anything that would make you think that you are a biased juror in this case ?
Q17 : Is there anyone who will be unduly prejudiced by a trial lasting 5 days, and going a full day each day ? # 6, # 16, # 26, # 39, # 44, # 15, # 52 respond. Juror hardships are impossible to hear. # 52 is excused. # 44 is excused. # 15 is excused.
Q18 : anyone who is not capable of staying until 5 PM ? 6 PM ? # 13, # 35, # 37 respond. # 13, # 35 and # 37 are excused.
Court turns the questioning over to the lawyers, with questioning to proceed by 30 minute intervals for each side, back and forth.
After the two hours total of questioning, the lawyers can challenge individuals in the pool, for the purpose of producing the final six plus one alternate jurors.
At this point an objection is raised by ( ? ) regarding juror # 20 ?, and the conversation regarding this objection is not distinguishable, however juror # 20 is excused.
Mr. Sturdivant begins his first half hour questioning. He introduces himself, and unfortunately, he is partially off microphone. Laughter and indirect questioning make most of the speaking not understandable. Cell phone noise is microphoned. Asks if anyone will have a problem reaching a verdict. How many have seen TV programs regarding law. Do you think you can render a verdict after viewing evidence ? Any bad experiences with law enforcement ? Excuses # 56 . Responses and speakers are confusing. Law enforcement issues by the pool are discussed, mostly off microphone. # 21 is excused after objection to the motion to excuse. Sturdivant asks about familiarity with BNSF. Discussion regarding BNSF follows. # 4's questionnaire is probed. # 8's questionnaire is probed. # 9 is probed. Laughter covers much of the proceedings at this point. Glass of water being poured is microphoned better than the conversation(s) occurring at this point. # 11 is probed. # 11 marked no, could not be impartial. # 15, # 20, # 24 could you be impartial. # 35 has been excused. # 42, no answer as to being impartial. # 45, # 49, # 48 all, could you be impartial ? # 51 is on the fence regarding impartiality. # 52 has been excused. # 59 is probed regarding impartiality. Sturdivant asks a general question then another question about burden of proof . Any issues regarding the State or county conducting business or issues with Sturdivant. More off microphone conversations.
Defense ( Hong ? ) begins jury pool questioning.
She is representing M LaPointe and will start the Voir dier for Defense, and perhaps transfer the process to another defense attorney at some point in time. Offers excuse that this is her first jury trial. First asks the pool who has strong feelings about climate change. Asks # 43 who responds something regarding a historical perspective and climate change being down played ? . # 1 does not think it is being down played and humans are making the earth get warmer faster than it should. # 4 thinks humans are heating up the planet. Attorney probes to find anyone who thinks the global warming, ( note: suddenly climate change has been replaced by global warming in the attorney's questioning ). # 1 sees the issue as taking place over a much longer time span, when humans were not existing on the planet, perhaps millions of years. # 1 would not be an activist for this issue. # ? ( female ) whose remark is unintelligible. More off microphone continues briefly. Attorney asks if anyone is living near to the delta rail yard. Attorney talks with some one regarding living near the yard ? Attorney asks if anyone has any thoughts about this rail yard. Again, conversation with unidentified person follows. Next asks if any pool members have been in a protest. Unidentified female response something about her father, back in the sixties ? Another unidentified female mentions about her father, and the Vietnam war time period ? These last two females may be # 46 and # 47 ( ? ) Attorney asks if any member has strong feelings against protesting. # 1 responds that he thinks protestors don't have any right to interfere with the general public as they try to accomplish there business or other activities.
Attorney asks if it would matter if protest was peaceful or non violent ( maybe means violent ? ) or what the subject of protest was. # 1 responds he is open to hearing what the cause is. Attorney asks how long has # 1 had these feelings regarding protests, # 1 responds - most of his life. Attorney then says she is going to pick on some quieter pool members. Asks # 11 if she has any feeling regarding protests. # 11 responds that people have a right to voice what they feel. Asks # 25 about his/her feelings regarding listening to evidence as to the why of a protest, why protestors were there. # 25 responds something about considering the reasons ? Asks # 22 and # 22 agrees with # 25 ? # 22 and # 25 would be willing to listen to evidence about protestors ( who were eventually arrested ). Attorney asks for any pool member that has been bullied . # 34 responds, remarks are not distinguishable. # 12 responds that she didn't respond to a situation. # 43 ? Attorney responds to an unidentified person that she is happy to clarify her questioning, after being informed that a previous question she asked was an open ended question . # 34 and # 43 evidently felt that at some point they had to fight back regarding some situation. # 28 disagrees with # 34 and # 43. # 28 explains his reasoning. # 38 agrees with # 28 regarding his response. # 38 feels that a person can always walk away, rather than escalate. # 18 disagrees, with response that is indistinguishable. # 39 again, with comments that cannot be understood. More commenting follows, and yes, it cannot be fully understood.
Defense attorney next asks what the pool members think of when they here the phrase fossil fuel
# 9 responds with the word dinosaur. Attorney changes to a question regarding trying to reduce their carbon footprint . # 7 responds that she got a better car. At this point, the Court reminds ( for the first time ) for all to keep their voices up. # 4 responds with the fact that he recycles, and after prompting by the attorney, composting. Attorney asks if anyone does not recycle or compost. # 16 doesn't compost, further response is not understandable. More unintelligible comments by attorney and one or more pool members. # 39 doesn't compost. Attorney asks if there is any pool member who is not concerned with reducing their carbon footprint. Defense attorney has been speaking so much off microphone and letting her sentences trail off in volume that a majority of pool responses cannot be attributed to her particular phrases. This attorney next announced she is going to yield the floor to another defense attorney, Court announces that the defense has used 22 minutes of the allotted 30.
Next attorney is M McCallum
Asks how many pool members are sports fans. Explains that ( like in sports ) in a trial, there are sides. Attorney tries to sell the pool that they should be rooting for the defendants, because of something she phrases as the presumption of innocence . Asks # 27 to explain the presumption of innocence . Asks # 14 if she agrees with # 27 as responded. Attorney asks if any pool member knows how long that presumption continues. An unidentified member responds until proven guilty. # 2 is asked to respond regarding anything heard to this point, regarding presumption . # 2 says innocent until proven beyond a shadow of a doubt . Attorney directs further specific questioning to # 1, and he responds that he has seen color photos of the crime being committed, on the website, mynorthwest.com. Attorney asks # 3 ( with a convoluted question ) as to her feelings about protesting. # 3 responds that people have a right to protest, if they believe in a cause and not in violation of others rights. Asks # 6 how about you, # 6 . # 6 responds with no comments to make. Attorney asks the pool if they have had regrets after a fact, or event, as to that they should have stood up . # 1 and # 17 ? respond, something about a specific instance, a work situation. # 19, responds that nothing comes to his mind, then offers further, something about bullying. Court interrupts to announce that 30 minutes are up. Suddenly a group of voices talk over one another, and then a pool member asks about a restroom break. Court announces a 15 minute break, and his further words are drowned out by a sea of voices and conversations.
Proceedings resume with some issue regarding a pool member wanting to do something, brought up by unidentified person, and the Court responding about not attempting and disregarding any outside conversations until the case has been give to the jury for deliberation. Court asks if there is anyone who had a conversation during the break that would influence their ability to make a decision regarding the case. McCallum is allowed to proceed with 30 minutes, and she picks up with her pre break conversation with # 19. Rambling discussion continues. # 21 is asked about standing up for herself. Again more rambling about standing up and consequences . # 23 is asked, and he responds about his work and dealing with confrontation ( works at a casino ). Says he speaks up for people all the time. He enforces rules if challenged. Would he be hesitant to listen to a challenge ? Responds no. Asks several more jurors, unidentified or background coughing masks the juror number. Attorney tries to ask a general question regarding challenging however, she repeatedly re phrases or changes the phrase content of the question she is trying to ask. Juror responds with a it depends answer. Juror says she is one person, and that means to her that her opinion won't matter anyway. Attorney asks if other jurors feel the same way. Unidentified juror agrees with the one voice in the wilderness characterization regarding this topic. Asks # 17 if he agrees. He responds no . Attorney has little understanding of how allowing her voice level going from a murmur to full volume affects what can be recorded - and this continues as she speaks with other jurors. Attorney wants to know, evidently, what the proper response or way to challenge a government regulation should be, from all pool members. A ( pet dog ? ) response is offered by an unidentified juror member. # 9 is queried about any situation he has observed or been involved with. # 10 ? asks the attorney what was your question when attorney places attention on him. Once again attorney responds ( Basically , I am asking ..... what do you do if you disagree with a policy or regulation ) . This attorney has the uncanny ability to ask questions that have predictable, repetitive answers. Attorney ask other juror, who is unidentified do to the poor speaking ability of attorney. Coughing and desk noises make further listening of responses somewhat difficult also. Personal experiences are offered up, answers that are convoluted, with sentences that go on and on.
This sort of juror questioning continues, being both painful to listen to and, at times, impossible to transcribe. At this point, the transcript will fast forward to the actual selection process. Juror questioning by both persecution and defense concludes at 1:31:00 PM . Court re questions several jurors who had earlier indicated that their service might, or would be of hardship to them.
1:33:15 Jury challenges begin. State has five ( 5 ? ) peremptory challenges, defense has eight ( 8 ? ) peremptory challenges.
At this point in time it becomes impossible to transcribe what is taking place. Jurors are being challenged and excused, however, who is remaining in the first six jury seats cannot be discerned. This is due to poor microphone placement, microphone usage, room noise, laughter, people speaking over one another and the inability of the Court to exercise clear control of the room. The jury selection process concludes at 1:47:00 PM . Court is in recess at 1:49:25 PM .
Court is back in session, Court proceeds to give jury a swearing in and instructions, before lunch break. Instructions : 1, keep mind open and attentive, 2, form no opinion until the entire case has been presented to you, 3, as officers of the court, do not let your emotions overcome your rational thought process, 4, reach a decision based upon the facts provided to you and the law, as set forth to you, not on sympathy or personal prejudices, 5, evidence to be considered includes testimony, physical objects and documents, 6, you must remember testimony during your deliberations, 7, documents or physical objects will be available to you during deliberation, 8, everything you learn about this case must come to you from within this room and this room only, 9, do not allow yourself to be exposed to outside information about the case, 10, notify the court staff if you are exposed to any outside information or discussion and do not reveal that information to any of the jurors. Court also instructs media in the room that they may not photograph or video any member of the jury. Court cautions jury to not allow any outside exposure via the media regarding the case or issues related to the case, as presented by media , the internet or printed documents. The jury will not be sequestered. Court further instructs that jurors may not seek out evidence on their own. Court tells jurors that the attorneys statements, unless under oath, are not evidence. Objections are to be ruled upon - Court will decide what evidence will be admissible. Disregard what Court tells juror to disregard. Electronic media is not to be used , by the jury, to discuss this case. Jury is not to presume what the law is, Court will present that to jury at the case end. Jury can take notes. Notes are private and will be destroyed and during deliberation may be shared with others on jury. Notes will be left in the jury room. All electronics must be turned off during court in session.
Trial Procedures : lunch breaks are one hour. Opening statements will follow the lunch break today : opening statement from the prosecutor and opening statement from any of the 4 defending attorneys or the pro se individual. Opening statements are intended to inform the jury as to what evidence will be presented during the trial. Next the prosecutor will have the opportunity to call any witnesses he wishes to call. Any such witnesses may be cross examined by any of the 4 defending attorneys or the pro se individual. Next the defense may present any evidence they choose to and any witnesses the defense calls my be cross examined by the prosecution. At the conclusion of this trial phase, the Court will instruct the jury about the law. These instructions will be given to the jury in court and the jurors will receive a written copy of the instructions regarding the applicable laws. Last, both parties will be allowed to present a conclusion to their respective arguments of the case. Court will then decide if the alternate juror needs to be used, and instructs the alternate that he should assume that he will be deliberating the case.
02:19:00 PM Lunch break