By the end of the day, 8 jurors were seated. The goal is to get 12 jurors and 4 alternates, so they're halfway there. Judge Kottmyer announced that each side gets 16 peremptory challenges (booting a juror for any reason, which the judge doesn't have to approve) and unlimited challenges for cause (booting jurors for a good reason, which the judge must approve).
The reporters (and I) all got to go to the jury room, which was on the floor below the courtroom. It was a large room, where all 170 or so jurors sat in chairs, filling almost the whole room. The reporters squeezed into benches in the back of the room, and some were forced to stand as the judge introduced herself, the prosecutors (Michael Fabbri, Daniel Bennett and Meghan O'Neill), the defense lawyers (Elliot Weinstein and Stephanie Page), and finally Neil himself. Then she explained the rules to the jurors: no talking about the case to anyone, no watching news, listening to radio shows, reading articles, or visiting websites about the case or about criminal cases in general. She also read the charges against Neil and reminded the jurors that the indictments are "merely pieces of paper," not evidence, and that the prosecution has the burden of proof. Then officers handed out questionnaires to all the jurors and the reporters and I left the room as they filled them out.
When we returned to the courtroom, the defense had 9 new motions to argue. One of them was a motion that the judge reconsider her decision on Friday's motion to dismiss. Weinstein held up a copy of the front page of the Boston Herald, which proclaimed "BOO HOO: Brits don't think 'monster' Neil can get fair trial here." I must agree with Weinstein's point that the inflammatory media coverage threatens Neil's right to a fair trial. The Herald shouldn't be making fun of British people who are concerned about Neil's rights. Not only is that a little anti-British, but the Herald's biased reporting proves the point of those who think he won't get a fair trial! Not surprisingly, however, Judge Kottmyer denied the motion. Additionally, Weinstein accused Joe Flaherty, the spokesman for Rachel's family, of violating the sequestration order for witnesses. Flaherty made comments to the MetroWest Daily News about how much faith the family has in the DA, which Weinstein called "exactly what sequestration is designed to prevent." The defense also requested that the microphone be removed from their table so they don't have to mute it whenever they have a confidential conversation with each other or their client. Judge Kottmyer denied this motion for the time being.
After the motions were argued, the process of voir dire began. The jurors were called into the courtroom individually, and Judge Kottmyer asked them about any questions they had answered "yes" to in the questionnaire. I got a copy of the questionnaire, and the questions (some paraphrased) included...
- Do you have any difficulty speaking, understanding, or reading English?
- Do you know any of the lawyers, potential witnesses, victims, or the defendant? (a long list of potential witnesses was attached to the questionnaire)
- State the ages of any children who reside with you.
- Would you tend to believe or disbelieve a police officer more or less than another witness?
- Identify any newspapers you read regularly, TV or radio news programs you watch or listen to regularly, or websites about current affairs you visit regularly.
- Have you heard or read anything about this case before?
- Have you formed or expressed any judgment or opinion with respect to this case or its merits?
- Do you think a defendant in a criminal trial should be made to prove his innocence?
The prosecutors, defense lawyers, and defendant sit at the same table, and today Judge Kottmyer sat at that table as well, and so did each juror as he or she was questioned. Neil appeared calm but alert and looked directly at every juror.
They got through about 45 jurors today, most of whom were dismissed for various reasons but 8 of whom were qualified to serve. 5 were men, and 3 were women. One was a Welsh man who had been through a nasty divorce and had a restraining order against him. Weinstein challenged one juror for cause, arguing that she hadn't been "forthcoming" about what exactly she had heard about the case. The judge, however, dismissed his challenge.
Perhaps they'll finish jury selection tomorrow, but these things are hard to predict. The prosecution expects to call 50 to 60 witnesses.
In the meantime, take a look at this great editorial by the Worksop Guardian: "In all my 35 years in journalism, I have never seen anything like it."
No comments:
Post a Comment