(The venirepersons are reflected in the transcript by number. The following list contains the names of the venire panel members:)

VENIREPERSON 1: Mary Campbell
VENIREPERSON 2: Linda Collins
VENIREPERSON 3: Maria Anderson
VENIREPERSON 4: Melissa Martin
VENIREPERSON 5: Michael King
VENIREPERSON 6: James Robinson
VENIREPERSON 7: Carol Stewart
VENIREPERSON 8: Kenneth Wright
VENIREPERSON 9: Helen Gonzales
VENIREPERSON 10: Patricia Turner
VENIREPERSON 11: Margaret Hall
VENIREPERSON 12: Ruth Phillips
VENIREPERSON 13: Ronald Lopez
VENIREPERSON 14: Charles Thomas
VENIREPERSON 15: Donald Ramirez
VENIREPERSON 16: Shirley Nguyen
VENIREPERSON 17: Karen White
VENIREPERSON 18: John Williams
VENIREPERSON 19: Brenda Jones
VENIREPERSON 20: Jessica Baker

VENIREPERSON 21: Ann Murphy
VENIREPERSON 22: Joseph Lewis
VENIREPERSON 23: Thomas Perez
VENIREPERSON 24: Chris Miller
VENIREPERSON 25: Richard Parker
VENIREPERSON 26: Martha Moore
VENIREPERSON 27: Dorothy Davis
VENIREPERSON 28: Michelle Young
VENIREPERSON 29: Mark Martinez
VENIREPERSON 30: Stephanie Brown
VENIREPERSON 31: Susan Roberts
VENIREPERSON 32: Elizabeth Walker
VENIREPERSON 33: David Rodriguez
VENIREPERSON 34: Sandra Smith
VENIREPERSON 35: Brian Johnson
VENIREPERSON 36: Deborah Garcia
VENIREPERSON 37: Laura Clark
VENIREPERSON 38: Pamela Adams
VENIREPERSON 39: George Torres
VENIREPERSON 40: Kathleen Carter
VENIREPERSON 41: Sharon Lee
VENIREPERSON 42: Angela Green
VENIREPERSON 43: William Evans
VENIREPERSON 44: Lisa Hernandez
VENIREPERSON 45: Kimberly Cook

For some scheduling -- usually we select these juries on Mondays and Tuesdays, and for some scheduling reasons, it has nothing to do with the case other than some scheduling issues, what we have done is we have called you in to select a jury today for a case that will commence next week and will probably end about Wednesday or Thursday of next week.

Normally, in the jury selection process, you'll report to the third floor with a pool of, oh, 200, 250 folks, and the presiding judge would go down and ask a variety of what we call qualifying questions.

And then once those qualifying questions have been concluded -- basically qualifying questions deal with hardship issues. He takes care of all that and the various judges in the circuit call for jury panels. The jury panels that we get have already gone through this qualifying process.

Because of the unusual nature of the jury selection on Friday, what we're going to do, I'm going to do the qualifying process. And then once we get through that process, we'll then begin the actual jury selection process in this case.

With that in mind, there are some questions I need to ask that will seem kind of obvious, but they're required by statute or by law.

First of all, is there anyone here among us, among the 60 people on this jury panel, who is less than 21 years of age?

I see no hands.

Is there any person here who is not a citizen of the United States of America?

Again, I see no hands.

Is there any person here who is not a resident of Jackson County, Missouri?

Again, I see no hands.

Is there any person here among the 60 of you who has previously been convicted of a felony and has not yet had your civil rights restored?

Again, I see no hands.

Is there any person here who is on active duty with the Armed Forces of the United States or a member of any organized militia, Nafional Guard or otherwise under active duty by any order of the Governor of Missouri?

Again, I see no hands.

Any among you who is an attorney licensed to practice law?

Any of you among you who is a judge of a court of record?

Anyone here who is actually performing the duties of a clergyman?

All right. And, sir, your name is?

VENIREPERSON 23:

Thomas Perez.

THE COURT:

Juror number 23. Thank you, sir. Anyone here in the active practice of medicine, osteopathy, chiropracty, dentistry, or pharmacy, is a dentist or doctor? I see no hands.

Now, the next area I want to talk to you about is hardships. Let me explain to you what I mean by that and how we're going to deal with it.

Typically, what would happen, if you were on the third floor in a regular jury selection process, the presiding judge of the Jackson County Circuit Court would describe what he defines as hardships and would ask if anyone has hardships. He would talk to you individually and decide whether to excuse you or not.

What the presiding judge would do, he excuses some people, and some people he leaves it to the judge who calls the jury panels.

By law, I'm required to inquire about hardships. I'm going to in just a moment. What I'm going to do, I'm going to tell you what I mean by hardships, and then I'm going to identify those of you who want to talk to me individually. I will give you a chance to talk to me individually; however, it will be at the end of the jury selection process because of the special nature of what we have to do today.

Those of you who have hardships are going to need to sit through the selection process, but at some point in time during the day, you will be able to talk to me individually about what kind of hardship that you may have.

Now, we anticipate that this case will commence with evidence, opening statements and evidence Monday morning. It is our strong thought that the jury will begin deliberating on this case no later than midday Thursday.

So we believe the evidence in the case will -- good chance it will be finished Wednesday. Some chance the jury will even begin their deliberations on Wednesday, But our best guess is that the jury will actually begin and will have the case to them no later than midday on Thursday. So the case will probably likely be concluded on Thursday. Some chance even Wednesday.

Now, obviously, all of you come from all over the County and you're taken away from your family and your friends and your employment. Clearly it's a hardship for all of you to be here, and I understand that.

As you might understand, these lawyers who are going to be here tying the case, it's a difficult time for them too, because they have to deal with the trial. My staff has to deal with dz trial. Trying a lawsuit is of some hardship to everyone.

Those of you who have extreme hardships that would prevent you from serving in this case, by law I need to hear those out. But in order to have as many folks as possible so we can have the broadest range of folks to sit on this jury and to make sure that both sides in this case get a fair trial, I can only grant hardships in extreme circwnstances.

Things like inconveniences or "I would rather be at a certain place" or "I have to make engagements," those kinds of things I really can't grant for those reasons. It has to be something that is substantial before I can grant a hardship and excuse you. All right?

And I think you can all understand that all of us feel the obligation and understand the necessity of having a full and complete jury system to resolve disputes between citizens. That's part of our system.

So with that being said, I'm going to begin up here in the jury box. Is there any among you who have a hardship you wish to talk to me about defined as I just discussed?

All right. Ms. Anderson, Number 3. Thank you, ma'am.

Sir, you are?

VENIREPERSON 8:

Mr. Wright

THE COURT:

Mr. Wright. This is Number 8. And, sir, your name?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Thomas.

THE COURT:

Charles Thomas?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Thank you, sir. On this first row here, anyone has a hardship under the definition I've given that wishes to talk tome? Okay. I see none.

Back here in the back, first row of folks, anybody who has a hardship they wish to talk to me about? Okay.

We'll go back to the second row in the back, anyone there that has a hardship? Yes. Your name, ma'am?

VENIREPERSON 36:

Deborah Garcia.

THE COURT:

i believe that to be juror 36. Everybody agreed on that? Thank you, ma'am.

Ma'am, your name?

VENIREPERSON 40:

Kathleen Carter.

THE COURT:

All right. That's juror number 40. All right. Thank you, ma'am.

Anyone else across in the second to the last row across? Yes, ma'am. Your name.

VENIREPERSON 44:

Hernandez.

THE COURT:

Number 44, I believe, Lisa Hernandez. Thank you, ma'am.

Anyone else in that row?

Okay. The very last row, anybody in that row that has a hardship they need to talk to me about? Yes, ma'am. Tell me your name.

VENIREPERSON 50:

Donna Morris.

THE COURT:

That's juror number 50. All right. Anyone else in that back row on that side? Anyone else over here? Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry, sir. What's your name?

VENIREPERSON 56:

Steven Edwards.

THE COURT:

Steven Edwards. That's juror 56. For the benefit of the lawyers I've got number 3, number 8, number 14, number 36, number 40, number 44, number 50 and number 56. Are we in agreement?

MR. LANCE:

Yes.

THE COURT:

It's conceivable, either at the end of the proceeding or during a recess, I will give each of you a chance to talk to me, and we'll deal with your hardship in some way. We'll do it in a manner where you'll have a chance to speak to me individually about it.

All right. Any reason that we shouldn't begin with the regular procedure?

MR. LANCE:

No.

THE COURT:

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, the first thing I'm going to do is to begin by reading you a jury instruction that has been approved by the Missouri Supreme Court for cases such as this. It begins as follows:

Today's trial for which you have been called for jury service is a criminal case. The State of Missouri has charged the Defendant, Byron Case, has committed the offenses of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action.

The Defendant has pled not guilty to those charges, thus, there are issues of fact, which must be decided by a jury subject to instructions concerning the law which the Court will give to the jury. The jury is obligated to follow those instructions.

A trial of a criminal case begins with the selection of a jury of qualified and impartial people. In order to obtain such a jury, all of you have been summoned as prospective jurors. From your number, a jury will be selected to hear the case.

It is necessary that you be asked questions. Your answers will assist the Court in determining whether it should excuse you from serving in this case. It will assist the attorneys in making their selection of those of you who will hear the case.

Thus, the questions which will be asked of you are not meant to pry into your personal affairs, rather they are a necessary part of the process of selecting a jury.

Since this is an important part of the trial, you're required to be sworn before questions are asked. Please rise now and be sworn to answer questions. Ms. Burbanks will administer an oath.

(The venire panel was sworn by the Judicial Administrative Assistant.)

THE COURT:

Please listen carefully to all questions. Take your time in answering questions. Some of the questions may require you to recall experiences during your entire lifetime; therefore, search your memory before answering.

The charge of any offense is not evidence and it creates no inference that any offense was committed or that the Defendant is guilty of an offense. The Defendant is presumed to be innocent unless and until during your deliberations upon your verdict you find him guilty.

The presumption of innocence places upon the State the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant is guilty.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the Defendant's guilt. The law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt.

If after your consideration of all the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the Defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you find him guilty. If you are not so convinced, you must give him the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.

Is there any of you who, if selected as a juror, could not for any reason follow that instructions If so would you please raise your hand.

Yes, sir. You're Mr. Wright?

VENIREPERSON 8:

Yes.

THE COURT:

And the jury instruction I have just read is an instruction that you do not feel you could follow?

VENIREPERSON 8:

Correct.

THE COURT:

Okay. And you're number 8. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your candor.

Counsel, I will not follow-up on that. If you all wish to at some appropriate time, you're welcome to do so. Anyone else?

All right. It is your duty to follow the law as the Court gives it to you in these instructions, even though you may disagree with it. Are there any of you who would not be willing to follow all the instructions which the Court will give to the jury? If so, would you please raise your hand.

I assume, Mr. Wright, your answer would be the same?

VENIREPERSON 8:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Okay. Anyone else? Okay.

Now, let me if I can introduce some folks and ask you some additional questions, and we'll give it over to the lawyers. I want to introduce some people here.

First of all, Ms. Fox, who is seated to my immediate left, is my court reporter. She takes down what is said in court, and she does it in a verbatim fashion. This part of the trial is the most difficult part of the trial for the court reporter for a couple of reasons.

First of all, when the trial is going on, most of what's said is either out there or right next to her, or some of you may be seated way back there and be answering questions and it's harder to hear, obviously.

The other thing is, when we're trying a case, there is only potential of a few people actually talking, whereas today there are 60 of you that might have answers at any one given time.

So for that reason, I'm going to ask each of you to do two things for me.

When you have an answer to a question, I'm goingto ask that you stand up, speak loudly so Ms. Fox can hear you, and then also tell us your name so we can make sure we record who is giving the response.

All right. To my immediate right is Debra Burbanks. Debra is the administrative assistant for this division. She is like my officer manager. She is the person that makes the wheels run on this railroad so to speak. So that's Debra Burbanks.

Next to Debra is Greg Cotton.Mr. Cotton is a recent graduate of the University of Missouri-Kansas City school of law. He is my law clerk.

And, obviously, I'm Charles Atwell. I'm the judge in this division and have sat here since August of 1996.

The first question that I want to ask you is whether any of you know any of us? I know there are several of us here, both at the counsel table and here who know Ms. Jones who works for an attorney, John O'Connor, and used to work in the prosecutor's office. Welcome, Ms. Jones. It's good to see you.

Anyone else who knows either me or members of my staff and I assume, Ms. Jones, from knowing the folks here, it would not affect your ability one way or the other in this case; is that fair to say?

VENIREPERSON 19:

I would try.

THE COURT:

Do you think the fact that you know everybody here, do you think it might have some bearing on your ability to be fair in the case?

VENIREPERSON 19:

I don't know.

THE COURT:

I appreciate that. There may be further inquiry in that regard.

If I can, I'm going to introduce to you the lawyers and folks seated at the table. I will tell you, it's very likely during the course of this process they'll introduce themselves to you more fully and completely than I will, but I want to at least tell you who is here.

On the side closest to me are two assistant prosecutors in Jackson County, Missouri. They represent the people of the State of Missouri in this case, Ms. Theresa Crayon and Mr. David Fry.

Do any of you know either Ms. Crayon or Mr. Fry? Other than Ms. Jones, obviously. Okay. I assume that none of you do.

Seated on the other side of the table is Mr. Horton Lance and Ms. Gretchen Eikermann. They represent the Defendant, Mr. Byron Case. Do any of you know Mr. Lance or Ms. Eikermann? Yes, sir.

VENIREPERSON 8:

Mr. Lance was the attorney -- my best friend was murdered, and Mr. Lance was the attorney for the Defendant.

THE COURT:

Okay. Is that how you know him, through that experience?

VENIREPERSON 8:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Appreciate that, Mr. Wright.

All right. And then, Mr. Case, would you please stand up? This is Byron Case. He is the Defendant in this case. At least by sight, do any of you here know Mr. Byron Case? Okay. I take it by your silence that none of you do.

All right. The lawyers will now have an opportunity to ask you questions. The prosecutor will question you first, and then counsel for the Defendant will question you after that.

I want to just tell each of you that this is a very important process, and I encourage all of you to err on the side of participating. If you've got a possible response to a question, raise your hand, and we'll get to it.

With that being said, can I see the lawyers very briefly.

(Counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)

THE COURT:

To avoid any problems, would you like for me to make further inquiry of Mr. Wright and excuse him?

MR. FRY:

Possibly.

THE COURT:

I could do that if you want me to. Do you want me to do that, Mr. Lance?

MR. LANCE:

That is the best idea.

THE COURT:

Do you want me to do it up here right now and get it done?

MR. LANCE:

Yeah.

MR. FRY:

Joan Prine does know us all, but she is also the secretary of John O'Connor. John O'Connor is the attorney for Kelly Moffett.

THE COURT:

Okay. All right.

MR. FRY:

I'm sure she can be fair and impartial.

THE COURT:

We don't want to have that problem, do we?

MR. LANCE:

Yes.

THE COURT:

I'm going to call them both up and take care of it; is that all right with you?

MR. FRY:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Okay.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

THE COURT:

Mr. Wright, could I ask you to come forward just for a moment? If you would, just step right up here, Mr. White.

(Counsel and Mr. Wright approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)

I gather from your initial response to the questions about the instructions of law and then, obviously, you had a friend that was the subject of a homicide, is this a case that you feel that -- probably this is a case that's probably not suited for you?

VENIREPERSON 8:

I don't believe it is.

THE COURT:

Is there any objection to me excusing Mr. Wright at this time?

MR. FRY:

Not from the State, Your Honor.

MR. LANCE:

Not from defense.

THE COURT:

Thank you for your candor. If you could go down to the third floor and tell them I have excused you and give back your juror badge. I appreciate your candor.

VENIREPERSON 8:

Thank you very much.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

THE COURT:

Ms. Jones, do you want to come up for just a second.

(Counsel and Venireperson 19 approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)

THE COURT:

Ms. Jones, my understanding is, in addition to the fact that you obviously know the players here from variety of sources, is that Mr. O'Connor may well have represented one of the key witnesses in this case. Are you aware of that?

VENIREPERSON 19:

No.

THE COURT:

He did. I can tell you that he did. And based upon the reservations that you had and the like, our thinking is, if you're in agreement, maybe it would be best if we excused you. Do you think that would be appropriate?

VENIREPERSON 19:

Sure. That's fine.

MR. FRY:

I would move to strike her, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

I think, because clearly the key witness is a client of John's, so if there is no objection...

MR. LANCE:

No objection.

THE COURT:

We're going to go ahead and excuse you. If you would, go to the third floor, tell them I have excused you, give them your juror badge, and thanks for your help. Good to see you.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

THE COURT:

Okay. With that being said, Mr. Fry, is it you or Ms. Crayon that's going to conduct the examination of the State?

MR. FRY:

I will, Your Honor.

I suspect there is hardly anybody here, for instance, when I go through the witnesses that we're going to call, know one of my witnesses, and that's an area that usually there is no response.

I sit up here, and I get no reactions because you don't know them, if you could nod every now and then. I know the back row is at least hearing, comprehending, and I can move on a little bit faster. It doesn't slow the reporter down, and she doesn't have to report your nods; and she is appreciative of that, but I get to move on. If we would have that agreement, and I get some nods every now and then, just to know I'm communicating and I haven't put you all to sleep, I would very much appreciate that.

I want to begin this morning by telling you all that you are all qualified jurors. When you come in, you have no idea this morning when you are coming in to bear a case about some personal injury in a car crash, two partners that just can't figure out how to divide the proceeds of their company, two neighbors that can't figure out where to put their fence or a medical malpractice case or a criminal case. You had no idea, did you?

You wound up being on a criminal case. Now, each one of us, because of our own personal experiences, makes the different cases the right case for you or the wrong case for you.

I think you just saw the man here today, a murder case was the wrong case. It happened too soon and he's too emotionally involved with it. Obviously, that's the type of feelings that are very genuine and very appropriate for any of you to have, but may be the feelings that make this the appropriate trial or the inappropriate trial for you, where you could go down and listen to that partnership dissolution very easily.

So that's the purpose of the questions. It's not to disqualify you. It's really like we're disqualifying this case from you if you think of it that way. Nothing is personal. And I think it's easier to respond to all the questions.

With that being said, I'm going to start asking those questions that nobody responds to, but every now and then somebody does respond to this.

My boss is the elected prosecutor. His name is Robert Beaird. He's been around trying cases being a lawyer for -- wouldn't want to hear this -- probably 30 years. He is elected. He's been very involved in the community.

Does anybody believe that they know Bob Beaird on any personal level? All right. When we do this, I'll just start going in order. I'll get to you, but do not let me skip you.

Ma'am, would you tell us your name, please. Ms. Phillps?

VENIREPERSON 12:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Go ahead and stand, please.

VENIREPERSON 12:

Actually he knows my family, and I used to baby-sit for him. I baby-sat his kids. I haven't talked to him for years, but I do know him and he knows my family.

MR. FRY:

Was that quite a long time ago?

VENIREPERSON 12:

Yeah.

MR. FRY:

Because I know his kids are all adults now. Having had that relationship with him, knowing that he's my boss, do you think you would be influenced by that prior relationship in tearing this case and being fair and impartial to the Defendant as well as the State?

VENIREPERSON 12:

No.

MR. FRY:

You think you could do that?

(The juror nodded.)

MR. FRY:

All nght. Thank you very much. The hand here -- I believe you're Ms. White?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Karen White. My father and him have been friends since childhood. I know the family very well.

MR. FRY:

All right. Now, do you feel that you could be fair and impartial listening to this case?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes, Sir.

MR. FRY:

Could you be fair to the Defendant?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Knowing Bob the way you do, could you be fair to me?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Because I know his kids are all adults now. Having had that relationship with him, knowing that he's my boss, do you think you would be influenced by that prior relationship in tearing this case and being fair and impartial to the Defendant as well as the State?

VENIREPERSON 12:

No.

MR. FRY:

You think you could do that?

(The juror nodded.)

MR. FRY:

All nght. Thank you very much. The hand here -- I believe you're White?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Karen White. My father and him have been friends since childhood. I know the family very well.

MR. FRY:

All right. Now, do you feel that you could be fair and impartial listening to this case?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes, Sir.

MR. FRY:

Could you be fair to the Defendant?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Knowing Bob the way you do, could you be fair to me?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

All right. I always have to check both ways. Let me ask you this. You know Bob and, if at the end of the trial, you have to say, well, I don't think he's guilty, he's not guilty, do you think you would have reservations doing that because you know Bob?

VENIREPERSON 17:

No.

MR. FRY:

You could do that, right?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

And you could also say he's guilty; you wouldn't be influenced at all?

VENIREPERSON 17:

No, I wouldn't.

MR. FRY:

All right. Was there anyone else in the back row? I don't think I saw anyone. All right. Here is where I learned how nondescript I am. I've been here 14 years and nobody ever knows me. Now that you have heard me, and you've kind of gotten a look at me, nobody recognizes me; is that correct? I'm not getting any nodding, but I take it by your silence nobody knows Dave Fry and Theresa Crayon.

How about any assistant prosecutor or an employee of the Jackson County Prosecutors Office? Let me give you a little bit of an idea to start thinking.

Not only do we try criminal cases, but we have a bad check unit that businesses from all over the County bring checks to us. People who write bad checks come in to see us the next day. We have family support where child support payments are collected, and of course, we have two sides on those cases. We have a delinquent tax unit. These are nontraditional prosecutor things.

In addition to that, because of our County drug tax, we're very involved in community prevention, crime and drug prevention programs, and we are involved in a lot of drug treatment programs. These are all very nontraditional prosecutor things and, if you think in terms of all those activities, is there anybody who believes they know an employee of the Jackson County Prosecutors Office?

Yes, ma'am.

VENIREPERSON 7:

Does it matter how far you go back?

MR. FRY:

Your name is Stewart, right?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Carol Stewart.

MR. FRY:

Tell me.

VENIREPERSON 7:

'92 for domestic violence. Prosecutor Mr. Round handled my case.

MR. FRY:

Bryan Round is no longer with our office, but you knew -- you were involved as a witness or victim?

VENIREPERSON 7:

I was the victim.

MR. FRY:

I'll probably ask some more questions about that later on just to have some logical sequence to me. But the fact that you knew Bryan and he was a prosecutor, no longer with our office, do you think you'll be influenced in tearing this case either way about that?

VENIREPERSON 7:

No.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you very much. Was there anybody else that thought they knew any prosecutor?

Yes, Sir, your name?

VENIREPERSON 22:

I know somebody from the prosecutor's office. Bill Evans.

MR. FRY:

What's your name?

VENIREPERSON 22:

Joseph Lewis.

MR. FRY:

Excuse me. Now I can listen.

Tell me one more time.

VENIREPERSON 22:

Bill Evans.

MR. FRY:

Having worked with Bill Evans, do you think that would cause you to be influenced at all in hearing this case and being fair and impartial to both sides?

VENIREPERSON 22:

Not at all.

MR. FRY:

For the Court, Bill Evans worked for the DART unit, the Drug Abatement Response Team.

Was there anyone else that knew an employee of the Jackson County Prosecutors Office? I take it from the back and the nods that there is nobody else.

Mr. Lance, I'll let him introduce himself better, but he works with the Public Defenders office. It's a State office. Anybody know -- I'll let him introduce himself. But for instance, for the Public Defenders office here in Jackson County, does anybody believe they know any of the attorneys or employees of the Public Defenders office?

Jury box I see no hands. Oh, I do finally in the back row.

Sir, your name?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Paul Rivera.

MR. FRY:

Rivera?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Tim Burdick.

MR. FRY:

He's an attorney there?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Right.

MR. FRY:

How do you know him?

VENIREPERSON 48:

He's representing me in a pending case.

MR. FRY:

Pending here in Jackson County?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Okay. Fine. Well, the fact that you know a co-counsel of -- I mean, he's shares the office with Mr. Lance. Do you think you would be influenced in hearing this case?

VENIREPERSON 48:

No.

MR. FRY:

You can be fair and impartial to both sides?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Was there anyone else? All right. Thank you very much.

Well, here is my next question, ironically, as it is.

Has anyone here had a case charged or filed against them or their immediate family member by the Jackson County Prosecutors Office? I thought we were going to get more than one response.

But, ma'am, so the record is good, you're Ms. Stewart?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Uh-huh.

MR. FRY:

Is that a yes? You got to say yes and no, too. That helps her out.

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

So my question was a family member?

VENIREPERSON 7:

And my son.

MR. FRY:

And you are also the victim in a case about 10 years ago, right?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yeah.

MR. FRY:

Was that a family member as well?

VENIREPERSON 7:

No.

MR. FRY:

At the time close friend?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Somewhat.

MR. FRY:

I knew with domestic violence it had to be somewhere. Your son has been or is currently being charged with criminal charges by our office?

VENIREPERSON 7:

It's been charged. He's in the County as we speak.

MR. FRY:

All right. So the case hasn't been disposed of right now?

VENIREPERSON 7:

No.

MR. FRY:

All right. Do you think that having your son pending these criminal charges and being in the County Jail right now, do you think that you can be fair and impartial to the prosecutors office that is trying the case?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Obviously, I work with the attorney that's trying to keep your son in jail for some reason right now, and I don't know what it's about, obviously. You can still be fair and impartial and hear this case?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes, I can.

MR. FRY:

All right. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. Your name first.

VENIREPERSON 14:

Charles Thomas. I think my son is charged with possession or something like that.

MR. FRY:

Do you think that is pending right now?

VENIREPERSON 14:

I think so. He doesn't tell me everything that goes on, but I hear parts of it.

MR. FRY:

Kids tend to do this. Do you know if he's in the County Jail right now?

VENIREPERSON 14:

No. He's not in jail. He's home living with me.

MR. FRY:

And you think the charge is pending right now?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Do you think that, because that charge is pending, obviously, an attorney I work with every day that is trying to prosecute your son, do you think that would influence you in hearing this case?

VENIREPERSON 14:

No.

MR. FRY:

You can still be fair and impartial to both sides; is.,that fair to say?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Was there anybody else in this front row? And then in the back? Let me go left, right. No one in the left side? In the right side? Your name.

THE COURT:

That's juror number 48, Mr. Rivera; is that right, sir?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Right.

MR. FRY:

And I think we already talked to you; that's pending right now. You can still be fair and impartial?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Obviously, with what the judge read already, I mean this is not a stealing an automobile case. This is a murder case. It is murder in the first degree. It's a violent crime by anybody's definition. There are other violent crimes.

Of course, all the murders, manslaughters, serious assaults, armed robberies, sexual assaults, and you can even throw in the drunk drivers that have killed or maimed different people, all of those are violent crimes.

It would be fair, just like with Mr. White that, if you have been the victim of one of these violent crimes or had somebody very close to you or a close friend or family member that was a victim of a violent crime to have some feelings about that.

So my question to you, and I think I may get quite a few responses, and I ask everybody to be patient. If you, a family member, or a close friend has been the victim of a violent crime, I would like to see you raise your hand at this time so I can ask you some follow-up questions.

Now, it's going to take me a little time to get to everybody. Put your hands down. When I did include the crimes against persons, sexual assaults, sometimes those are very sensitive. I will remind you that we can approach the bench, and we can do any further inquiry and make any discussion you want privately up here at the, bench if that's the nature of what you would like to do. Even if it's a murder we're talking about or anything. Please let me know at this time when we get to you and then we'll take that up at the bench. Does that make sense to everybody? All right.

Juror number 1, Ms. Campbell, you raised your hand?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Tell me who it was, the victim.

VENIREPERSON 1:

Well, there is two. It was a close friend that was murdered, but it's been over 30 years ago. She lived on the Plaza. And then another one was a drunk driver. Her and her daughter were killed.

MR. FRY:

How long ago was that?

VENIREPERSON 1:

That's probably been 20 years ago.

MR. FRY:

Were there criminal charges filed in those incidents?

VENIREPERSON 1:

In the first one and he served time.

MR. FRY:

Knowing that this is a murder, do you believe that hearing evidence in this case could be difficult for you?

VENIREPERSON 1:

No.

MR. FRY:

And for me asking you to base any decision that you make in this case based on only the evidence you hear in this case, do you believe you can follow that instruction?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Thank you very much.

Ms. Collins, I believe I saw your hand.

VENIREPERSON 2:

Yes. Linda Collins. I had a nephew by marriage that was killed two years ago.

MR. FRY:

Was that here in Jackson County?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Yes, it was. It made the news pretty big.

MR. FRY:

Were criminal charges filed?

VENIREPERSON 2:

No. The person has never been found.

MR. FRY:

Are you unhappy with any of the police work that went into that investigation?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Actually, no. We're very happy. They did a lot, but still the case from my understanding is still not closed.

MR. FRY:

You're not frustrated at all with anything the prosecutors office has done in that case?

VENIREPERSON 2:

No.

MR. FRY:

Going back to the emotional trauma, knowing this is a murder and knowing you have had a nephew killed, do you believe you can still hear this case and base your decisions only on the evidence that you hear presented in this courtroom?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Yes, I can.

MR. FRY:

Thank you very much. Let's go across the back row. Was there anyone else that I missed?

Yes, ma'am. Your name is Stewart?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Carol Stewart. My two best friends, one in '92 and one in '94. They were both murdered. They doing time. One got life, and I think the other one got 14 years.

MR. FRY:

So there were prosecutions. You can go ahead and sit down now. I think we hear you because you're a little bit closer. You were very close to these friends?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

All right. Were you satisfied with the police work done?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes, I was.

MR. FRY:

Were you satisfied with what the prosecutors office did?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes, I was.

MR. FRY:

All right. Going back now to the emotional levels here, fair to say, if you had that kind of relationship with friends that are now dead, I'm asking you to hear a murder case that's next week --

VENIREPERSON 7:

Okay.

MR. FRY:

Do you believe that you can set aside your emotion from those past friends being murdered and hear this case and be fair to the Defendant that's charged with murder?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yes, I can.

MR. FRY:

All right. Anybody else here in the jury box?

I wanted to go to the front row. Anyone in the front row? Going back to the left-hand side, sir. Let me get my chart.

Your name is Mr. Parker?

VENIREPERSON 25:

Yes. My mother-in-law was the victim, got murdered. I have a brother-in-law who was the victim of a drive-by shooting.

MR. FRY:

He died from that?

VENIREPERSON 25:

No. He did not die.

MR. FRY:

He survived, but was injured?

VENIREPERSON 25:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Again, I think probably -- so it was a very violent crime you have experienced from that close level. Knowing that this is going to be a violent crime, we're going to ask you to listen to the evidence -- it will be pretty gruesome -- do you feel you can be fair and impartial in hearing evidence in this case?

VENIREPERSON 25:

I think so.

MR. FRY:

You can set aside those emotions that don't belong here in hearing this case and make a determination about this Defendant; is that right?

VENIREPERSON 25:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Tell us your name.

VENIREPERSON 26:

My name is Martha Moore, and I would like to speak to the Court privately.

THE COURT:

All right. That's juror number 26; is that right, Mr. Fry?

MR. FRY:

Correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

At a recess we'll call you up, Ms. Moore, and talk with you. Thank you very much.

MR. FRY:

Was there anyone else on the left-hand side here? I got one more hand. And you're Mr. Thompson.

VENIREPERSON 55:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

What kind of crime have you experienced?

VENIREPERSON 55:

I would like to speak with the Court privately.

THE COURT:

All right. What number is that, Mr. Fry?

MR. FRY:

I have number 55.

THE COURT:

All right. At a recess or at the end, we'll talk. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Appreciate it.

MR. FRY:

Was there anyone else? All right. I believe your name is Scott?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yes. I was involved in an armed robbery, pistol whipped, three years ago.

MR. FRY:

Not only were you robbed, you were injured; is that correct?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Were you satisfied with what the police did?

VENIREPERSON 47:

They did nothing.

MR. FRY:

I would say no.

VENIREPERSON 47:

No.

MR. FRY:

And were you satisfied with anything the prosecutor did?

VENIREPERSON 47:

No. They never caught him.

MR. FRY:

The police never did anything, so the prosecutor didn't do anything?

VENIREPERSON 47:

No.

MR. FRY:

There is a little frustration going?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yeah. I have post-traumatic stress disorder.

MR. FRY:

I am sorry, but that's the kind of situation that maybe this is the wrong trial for you.

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yeah.

MR. FRY:

In hearing the evidence that we have, bear in mind the trauma, do you think that that would cause you a lot of emotional stress?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yes, I do.

MR. FRY:

You're worried?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

There is not a threat to any --

VENIREPERSON 47:

I know. I'm just already starting to freak a little.

MR. FRY:

You're doing very good. Thank you for your candor. I don't believe I have any more questions.

Yes, ma'am. Tell us your name.

VENIREPERSON 58:

Cynthia Wilson.

MS. CRAYON:

Juror number 58. What kind of crime?

VENIREPERSON 58:

I would like to talk to the judge.

THE COURT:

All right, ma'am.

MR. FRY:

That's number 58.

THE COURT:

Thank you very much, ma'am.

MR. FRY:

This is not the time to tell you the evidence in the case, but it is the time to tell you a little bit about it so that, if you think you know about it already through any means, we can identify what information you may know.

This is a murder first degree. We're going to take you way back to 1997.

A young woman named an Anastasia WitbolsFeugen was murdered in Lincoln Cemetery.

Now, Lincoln Cemetery is located in an area over by 435 and Truman Road and, if you look at that in terms of some crosshairs, Lincoln Cemetery is up in the northeast corner of that intersection of 435 and Truman Road, almost in that area between Kansas City and Independence.

Anastasia lived in Independence. Her family lived near the Truman home area in Independence, and she was a graduate of Lincoln Prep. I know it's 1997.

The only other thing that is unique about this, and I believe it did get some press attention, is that couple days later a young man that you'll hear about in this case committed suicide. His name was Justin Bruton.

Knowing those few facts there, anybody here that believes they can recall hearing anything about this case or knows anything about this case? I'm seeing some good nodding of heads, I appreciate that, and I do see a hand. Yes, ma'am.

VENIREPERSON 49:

Amanda Florez, juror 49.

MR. FRY:

You're very helpful. Thank you.

VENIREPERSON 49:

I just recall hearing about it is all through the media.

THE COURT:

Mr. Fry, I'll be glad to talk to these people individually.

VENIREPERSON 49:

Yeah, you might want to talk to me in private so I don't taint anybody else.

MR. FRY:

You are really helpful. So we'll just talk to you later on.

VENIREPERSON 49:

All right.

MR. FRY:

Anastasia's father was Robert WitbolsFeugen. He'll be here in the courtroom watching the case. Her mother, Betsy Owen, lives in Raymore. She is here, and she'll be watching the case this week.

Does anybody believe that they know either of these people by name or what brief information I have given you?

All right. Other names that you're going to hear, obviously, Byron Case, the Defendant, and I'll let Mr. Lance introduce him more.

I mentioned the name Justin Bruton. Justin actually lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and came to Kansas to attend UMKC; lived in a condominium down near the Plaza area; and as I mentioned, he committed suicide shortly after this murder. That was back in 1997.

I suspect nobody had any contact with Mr. Bruton, but I need to ask, does anybody think they had any contact with Mr. Bruton?

Kelly Moffett is going to be the main witness for the State. Kelly Moffett is 19 now. She was 15 at the time of the murder. She attended Shawnee Mission Northwest High School out there in Lenexa, Kansas.

With that basic information, does anybody think they know a Kelly Moffett that lives out in Lenexa, Kansas? You will also see, as we will call as a witness, Kelly's mother. Her name is Debbie Moffett, also still currently living out in Lenexa. Does anybody think they know of a Debbie Moffett? I take it by your silence there is nobody, and I do appreciate the nods. I warned you about this. All right?

Diane Marshall. Diane Marshall is the stepmother of Anastasia. She does live still out there in Independence. Does anybody believe that they know Diane Marshall? Thank you. I see there is no response.

Francesca WitboisFeugen is the sister of the victim, Anastasia. She is currently attending UMKC as a student. Does anybody believe they may know Francesca? I take it by your silence there is nobody.

Now, pay attention. I might catch somebody here. A witness that you will hear from is named James Dodd. James Dodd currently works and did back then in '97 at The Bullet Hole. It's a gun shooting range over here in Johnson County, Kansas.

Does anybody behove they may know James Dodd? I see there is no response.

John Bruton will come in and testify. We expect him to be here -- I think it's Tuesday. He is a car dealer in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He was the stepfather of Justin Bruton. Does anybody believe they may know Mr. John Bruton?

Working in the Jackson County Sheriff's Department in this case was a David Epperson.

David Epperson will be a witness. He does work for the County Sheriff's Department still, and does anybody believe they may know him through any contact? I knew I would get one.

All right ma'ana, what's your name.

VENIREPERSON 16:

Shirley Nguyen. I can't say for sure that I know him, but I work in a restaurant that all the Jackson County Sheriff's come into. So, if I saw him, I might know him, but the name I don't.

MR. FRY:

Well, my follow-up question is, if you don't know him, do you know anybody in the Jackson County Sheriff's Department? We'll just have you answer that.

VENIREPERSON 16:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

You know quite a few?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Captain Kellogg.

MR. FRY:

Some of them by first name or name basis?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Uh-huh.

MR. FRY:

Some of them by appearance?

VENIREPERSON 16:

By appearance.

MR. FRY:

Is there anything about your contact with men and women that work in the Shefiff's Department that would cause you to be fair and impartial?

VENIREPERSON 16:

No.

MR. FRY:

Actually, I worded that question wrong.

VENIREPERSON 16:

I know what you're talking about.

MR. FRY:

Did you catch that? I'm under a lot of pressure. Even though you know all of them, you can still be fair and impartial?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Is that right? You're not going to be slanted towards the State in hearing the case, are you?

VENIREPERSON 16:

No.

MR. FRY:

And you're going to be as critical of any department member that we put in here as you would of any other witness; is that right?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Oh,yes.

MR. FRY:

You can do that?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

The judge is going to instruct you to do that. Can you follow that instruction?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Is there anyone else who might know people in the Jackson County Sheriff's Department?

All right. Mr. --?

VENIREPERSON 18:

John Williams. A good friend of mine, I graduated with him, he's on the Drug Task Force.

MR. FRY:

The drug -- you can have a seat. We can hear you easy. May or may not be with the Sheriff's Department, because a lot of the different agencies, they work together on that task force. But it's a close friend?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Yeah.

MR. FRY:

Pardon?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Not real real close, but we graduated together.

MR. FRY:

Scale 1 to 10, where is he?

VENIREPERSON 18:

I see him three or four times a year.

MR. FRY:

it's not a 10. All right.

When you meet with him, do you discuss what he does in his law enforcement work?

VENIREPERSON 18:

A little bit sometimes.

MR. FRY:

I take it he's undercover?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Is there any part of the relationship with the discussions that he shared with you about his activities as a law enforcement officer that would cause you not to be able to be fair and impartial to the Defendant in this case?

VENIREPERSON 18:

No.

MR. FRY:

So you can be fair and impartial to both sides in this case; is that right?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the front row?

Whoops. Wait. Did I miss you?

VENIREPERSON 1:

I, well, the --

MR. FRY:

Mary Campbell.

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes, The question changed. You asked if we knew anybody now in the Jackson County Sheriff's Department?

MR. FRY:

Correct.

VENIREPERSON 1:

I have two cousins that at Lake Jacomo.

MR. FRY:

I know one. I know you talk to them, don't you?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

And you talk to them about their work as deputies, don't you?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes. One is a detective, yes.

MR. FRY:

All right. So you talk about his investigations, right?

VENIREPERSON 1:

No. He's pretty close mouthed.

MR. FRY:

So he doesn't share very much?

VENIREPERSON 1:

No.

MR. FRY:

But what sharing you do, what discussions you do have and the relationships you have with him, you feel that you can hear this case and be unencumbered at all, go back and say, "I found this man not guilty and your department worked on it," can you still to do that?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Oh, yes.

MR. FRY:

Do I need to worry that you can't be fair and impartial to me?

VENIREPERSON 1:

No.

MR. FRY:

You can be fair and impartial to both sides, right?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Is there anyone else in the jury box? Yes, sir. Your name?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Michael King, number five.

MR. FRY:

All right. Mr. Sullivan, what relationship do you have?

VENIREPERSON 5:

My capacity, I'm the operations manager for Blue Bunny lee Cream. We donate a lot of ice cream to many DARE programs throughout the Jackson County area, so I have a little bit of contact with a lot of programs throughout the Kansas City,Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas area.

MR. FRY:

That's law enforcement agencies throughout the conununity?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

So you have interaction with them routinely?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

With that type of interaction with -- not only Jackson County sheriffs, but other law enforcement agencies, cause you to have any concerns about being fair and impartial in this case?

VENIREPERSON 5:

It should not.

MR. FRY:

All right.

VENIREPERSON 5:

I do -- with my capacity, I do attend a lot of DARE, graduations. I have spoken at a few. So when we start talking about drug prevention and drug abuse, it hits a personal spot with me, because it's something that I truly believe in.

So, if there is anything to do that is drug-related, it may influence my decision one way or the other.

MR. FRY:

Stay focused right now on your relationship, because I will ask some questions about drugs involved with this particular case.

VENIREPERSON 5:

I understand.

MR. FRY:

But if we stay focused on just your relationship with the law enforcement agencies and the interaction that you do have, do you believe you can be fair and impartial in hearing this case?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes, Sir.

MR. FRY:

Now, this young man deserves a real strong commitment on that. At one point you weren't sure. Can you or can you not?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes, sir.

MR. FRY:

You can set all that experience aside and hear this case and be fair and impartial, right?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Agreed.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. The question now is: Do you know anybody in the Jackson County Sheriff's Department?

Yes, sir, your name first?

VENIREPERSON 15:

Donald Ramirez. It will be Albert on there, but I go by Donald.

It could be coincidence, but David Epperson, we were good friends -- he went into the military and he got out. I heard that he went into the police force. I never heard back from him if he did or didn't. Could be coincidence, David Epperson.

The more I thought about it I thought I better say something. If it is him, I need to -- I don'tknow if it is or isn't.

MR. FRY:

Did you know him in in high school or before all that?

VENIREPERSON 15:

Yeah. We grew up together, up until about '92, He went into the military. We used to go to the shooting range all the time together. I heard he got out of the military and went into the police force. That's the last I heard of him.

MR. FRY:

Let's assume it is him and he comes in here as a witness which we expect, do you think you can listen to him critically and follow the instruction and assess his credibility just like you would any other witness?

VENIREPERSON 15:

It would be hard honestly, because we were just good friends. It would be hard.

MR. FRY:

Okay. Now, if that's him, and we have other reference to or other people with the department that he works with, do you think you would view that evidence more favorable to him?

VENIREPERSON 15:

Honestly, because of our friendship, probably.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you very much. Now, I think I'm done with the jury box.

Front row. Is there anyone that knows anyone on the Jackson County Sheriff's Department? In the left-hand side, in the back. Ms. Moore?

VENIREPERSON 26:

My future daughter-in-law, her brother is a Highway Patrolman in the sheriff's office, and I know somebody that works out at the lake, too.

MR. FRY:

All right. Would those relationships cause you to view this evidence impartially, more critically towards the police or less critically? Could you follow the Court's instruction and judge all the witnesses and their credibility fairly?

VENIREPERSON 26:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Anyone else? Left-hand side. Yes, ma'am.

VENIREPERSON 38:

Pamela Adams. My son's father is a sheriff's deputy.

MR. FRY:

All right. Fair to say you talk to your husband or your son's father about his work?

VENIREPERSON 38:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Do you think that would influence you in hearing this case?

VENIREPERSON 38:

No.

MR. FRY:

Now, you have to make a call of guilty or not guilty in this case. Do you believe you can still go to him and be uninfluenced at all about that relationship and fairly and impartially hear this case?

VENIREPERSON 38:

Uh-huh.

MR. FRY:

You can do that.

VENIREPERSON 38:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Instead of nodding. All right. Our record is clear now. Thank you very much. Was there anyone else on the left? Anyone on the right-hand side?

Let me go back to some names now. We're going to have a detective come here from De Soto, Kansas. I suspect you don't know, but I got to tell you, his name is Scott Atwell. He's not related to the judge.

Does anybody believe they know Scott Atwell or anybody that's with the police department out in De Soto, Kansas? I take it by your silence that is nobody.

Another witness that you'll see -- we expect you to see is Al De Valkenaere. He's with the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department fugitive apprehension unit.

MR. FRY:

Does anyone believe they know Al De Valkenaere? I take it by your silence nobody.

Dr. Chase Blanchard with the Jackson County Medical Examiner's Office. Does anybody believe they know Dr. Chase Blanchard? I take by your silence there is nobody.

Glenn Colliver is the superintendent from Mount Washington Cemetery which is out in the same area, a little bit further north of Lincoln Cemetery. I think he started working there in the 1940s, I believe. He has retired recently as superintendent, darn near 50 years of working out there. Started as a teenagers He now lives in Sugar Creek.

Does anybody believe they may know Glenn Colhver?

THE COURT:

You have a hand over there, Mr. Fry.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Tell us your name.

VENIREPERSON 47:

Virginia Scott. I have known Glenn Colliver all my life.

MR. FRY:

We may find out more about Glenn than we need to.

Do you think, if he came in to testify, that you can still be fair and impartial and listen to his testimony?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Oh, yes.

MR. FRY:

You can be critical of his testimony if lawyers take issue with it?

VENIREPERSON 47:

I believe.

MR. FRY:

You can? All right. And if either of the lawyers have to beat him up about some information, are you going to get mad at the lawyers?

VENIREPERSON 47:

No.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Yes, sir.

VENIREPERSON 18:

John Williams. I met him once.

MR. FRY:

Out there at Mount Washington, more of a business experience --

VENIREPERSON 18:

Right.

MR. FRY:

-- in his previous capacity? Not in-depth at all?

VENIREPERSON 18:

No.

MR. FRY:

Do you think you would be influenced in hearing this case at all?

VENIREPERSON 18:

No.

MR. FRY:

(to Venireperson 36) I'm sorry.

VENIREPERSON 36:

Are you asking about just the Sheriff's Department or anybody?

MR. FRY:

I just want to know about Jackson County Sheriff's Department in terms of just people you may come into contact with and going back and saying, hey, you were part of a decision on one of their cases; is that fair? Do you understand? Do you have any response to that?

VENIREPERSON 36:

No, sir.

MR. FRY:

All right. And your name was Garcia?

VENIREPERSON 36:

Uh-huh.

MR. FRY:

In this particular case -- we're shifting now. For those of you I put to sleep, here we go. In this particular case, there is one eyewitness to tell us what happened. Sometimes jurors believe that just because you have one, they need more evidence than one eyewitness.

Anybody here believe they cannot return a verdict at all, either way, because there is only one eyewitness and you don't think one eyewitness would ever be enough?

No matter what they said, just one is not enough?

All right. I see some nodding, and I have one hand.

Yes, ma'am. Your name.

VENIREPERSON 58:

Cynthia Wilson.

THE COURT:

Would you ask her to stand up?

MR. FRY:

I can see you are having trouble standing up. Sit down and talk real loud.

THE COURT:

All right.

MR. FRY:

Do you believe one eyewitness wouldn't be enough for you, ma'am?

VENIREPERSON 58:

That's right.

MR. FRY:

So, if I say I have only one eyewitness, doesn't matter to you what she says, for you that's not going to be enough?

VENIREPERSON 58:

Right.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. Now, for those of you who thought that was an odd question, and you see very legitimate reactions and a reaction that we're kind of used to dealing with, is there anybody, upon reflecting on that, that believes that they may have a problem with that just one eyewitness won't be enough?

Okay. Thank you for the reflection. Yes, ma'am. Your name is -- is it Young?

VENIREPERSON 28:

Yes, sir.

MR. FRY:

What's your concern about one eyewitness?

VENIREPERSON 28:

I just don't know I could take the word of one person.

MR. FRY:

No matter how she testifies, it's not going to be enough?

VENIREPERSON 28:

I think I would have problems with it.

MR. FRY:

That would cause you to be concerned you can be fair and impartial to my case; do you understand that? And you don't think you would?

VENIREPERSON 28:

I would have concerns about it.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you very much.

THE COURT:

You have another hand, Mr. Fry.

MR. FRY:

whoops. I'm sorry. I missed it. Thank you very much.

VENIREPERSON 53:

Amy Nelson. By one eyewitness, do you mean that's in addition to other evidence? Correct?

MR. FRY:

I mean what I say. I mean there is evidence that a body was found out there, but how it happened, it's one eyewitness. That's what I'm saying.

VENIREPERSON 53:

I would have to think about it.

MR. FRY:

You have some reservations. I don't want to make you regret saying yes. That is fair to say and that's why I'm asking the question.

VENIREPERSON 53:

Restate the question.

MR. FRY:

I'm not going to state it the way you want.

VENIREPERSON 53:

The question is would I have reservations about convicting or acquitting based on one eyewitness?

MR. FRY:

Correct. Some people want more.

VENIREPERSON 53:

Oh, no.

MR. FRY:

There is clearly evidence the body is found out there.

VENIREPERSON 53:

Then the answer would be, no, I would not require more than one eyewitness to base my decision. I just didn't understand the question.

MR. FRY:

Would you have reservations about it?

VENIREPERSON 53:

No.

MR. FRY:

Okay. Thank you. Would you be able to consider the fact there is only one eyewitness sufficient for conviction of murder in the first degree?

VENIREPERSON 14:

How about sentencing?

MR. FRY:

The sentencing is not going to be an issue for the jury.

VENIREPERSON 9:

Wouldn't it depend on what the eyewitness said?

MR. FRY:

Exactly. Now, the judge is going to instruct you all -- the jury that's selected has to assess the credibility and determine the credibility of that witness. All right?

So, if there are people that just think for murder in the first degree, one eyewitness won't be enough, no matter how good I think that witness testifies or not, just one won't be enough, that's what I'm asking you to reflect on.

You have seen some people. They say I've got some problems. Even if I believe that witness, it's not going to be enough. Anybody else have that concern? Okay. I take it by your silence that nobody does.

THE COURT:

Could I see counsel just very briefly if I could.

(Counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)

THE COURT:

In the 10:30 neighborhood I want to take a break. Okay? I want you to pick the time so it's best for your flow. I mean, we can go another IO minutes or 15, whatever, but around the 10:30 area.

MR. FRY:

I think I'm going to be getting into an area right now that is going to get some responses.

THE COURT:

Do you want to take a recess right now?

MR. FRY:

Sure.

THE COURT:

All right.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

THE COURT:

Ladies and gentlemen, to make sure we're fresh, I think we're going to take a little bit of a recess. Now, the most important thing to keep in mind is that we have charts to try to monitor what the responses are and to attribute to each of you folks. That's why you have numbers and the like.

So you need to make sure you're seated in the same spot that you are when you come back. It's not too tough for you folks up here. It's a littl& tough back there. Not only the chair you're in, but look at your neighbors and see who they are so, when you come back, you need to sit in that same spot.

Also, for those of you in the jury box, there are two steps. Ms. Miller, there is a step in front of you. And as you come down, there is a step. Be very careful.

Under the law, I'm required to read an instruction before you separate. The first time I have to read the entire instruction, and then I can read it in an abbreviated form.

It is the Court's duty to instruct you now upon a matter which you will be reminded at each recess or adjournment of the Court. Until this case is given to you to decide, you must not discuss any subject connected with the trial among yourselves or form or express any opinion about it.

And until you are discharged as jurors, you must not talk with others about the case or permit them to discuss it with you in your hearing or read, view, or listen to any newspaper, radio, or television report of the trial.

The bailiff and other officers of the court are not permitted to talk to you about any subject connected with the trial, and you are not permitted to talk to them about it.

The attorneys representing the State and the Defendant are under a duty not to do anything which may even seem improper; therefore, at recesses and adjournment, they will avoid saying anything to the jury except perhaps something like "good morning" or of good afternoon."

In doing that, they do not mean to be unfriendly, but are simply doing their best to avoid even an appearance which might be misunderstood that they or you are doing anything improper.

The same applies to witnesses and to the Defendant. They have or will be instructed to avoid all contacts with the jury, even to talk about matters wholly unrelated to the case.

It's now 10:25. Let's try to be back where you're seated at 20 till. Now, before you recess, I'm going to ask that -- I'm going to talk to a few of you that need to talk to me at this recess.

I'm going to ask Ms. Anderson to stay, if you would. Mr. Thompson, if you would stay. Ms. Moore, if you would stay. All right. And then with that, we'll be in recess. Please be back at 20 after. All rise, please. The jury panel is free to go.

(Counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)

THE COURT:

As I talk to these jurors, if it seems obvious to let them go, I may turn to you and say, "Is this a matter of consent?" Which means do both of you agree to dismiss this juror?

And if you say yes, I'll stop the inquiry.

All right. Ms. Anderson, do you want to come up? I think you indicated to me you had a hardship issue you wanted to talk to me about.

VENIREPERSON 3:

What I've got is a migraine headache, and I'm on medication. They usually last about four days. I just don't know if I'll make it.

THE COURT:

Did you hear that?

MR. FRY:

Medical problem?

THE COURT:

Migraine headache. She is on medication. Okay. We'll get back to you, Ms. Anderson, if we can. Yeah. You can go ahead and go outside if you want to and come back.

Yes, Sir. Mr. Thomas.

VENIREPERSON 14:

They don't pay you enough here on jury duty to live on I don't think.

THE COURT:

Yeah.

VENIREPERSON 14:

I only get paid at work.

THE COURT:

So that's your reason?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Yeah.

THE COURT:

We'll get back to you. Thank you. Let me mention to counsel something. Ms. Anderson, during most of the jury selection process, is sleeping.

MS. CRAYON:

I noticed she had her head down.

THE COURT:

She is whacked out on medication or whatever. I mean, it's not my -- I certainly don't show preference to one side or another, but I'm telling you she is hanging her head and doing this about three-fourths of the time.

MR. FRY:

Consent.

MR. LANCE:

Consent.

THE COURT:

Why don't you tell Ms. Anderson she is excused, number 3.

THE LAW CLERK:

Sure.

THE COURT:

Just have her report to the jury room and thank her for her efforts.

THE LAW CLERK:

Sure, Judge. Also I'll tell you juror number 18 wants to be put on the hardship list.

THE COURT:

Okay. All right. While we're here, Ms. Wilson is barely ambulatory I think.

MS. CRAYON:

She mentioned a hardship, and she is having a hard time standing up.

MR. FRY:

I can tell you I'm going to move to strike her now.

THE COURT:

Do you want to talk to her?

MR. LANCE:

No, I wasn't going to object to any strike.

THE COURT:

She told Greg that she can't go up and down stairs, and she could hardly stand up to answer questions, and she has a victim of a crime issue she wanted to talk to me in private about. I think we got plenty of jurors. If you want, I'll strike her now.

MR. LANCE:

I think we should strike her now.

THE COURT:

If we let folks go now, that's less folks that can talk and that will speed the process. So 58 I'm going to show by agreement; is that all right?

MR. LANCE:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Yes.

THE COURT:

You tell her too, Greg.

THE LAW CLERK:

Yes, Sir.

THE COURT:

Okay. Take your break. Do what you need to do. When Ms. Moore is ready, have her grab a seat and come get me.

(A recess was taken.)

(The following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the presence and hearing of the venire panel:)

THE COURT:

Mr. Cotton, by your count are we good to go?

THE LAW CLERK:

Yes, sir.

THE COURT:

Okay. Mr. Fry, you may continue with your jury selection questioning.

MR. FRY:

All right. In our break, I learned that, while I think I'm projecting my voice loud enough for all of you, I am not talking loud enough for our reporter here. So I'm moving over here. I hope my back doesn't get to you too much, but as a reminder, please remember this poor woman's job up here when you're responding to questions.

There were a series of questions when we took the break we were talking about, the eyewitness. The eyewitness in this case is going to be Kelly Moffett that I mentioned to you earlier.

I also mentioned to you that this occurred in 1997. It's a pretty old case. Kelly Moffett took about three years to come forward to law enforcement to tell us what happened out there. And you're going to hear that evidence.

Is there anybody here, just from that one reason alone, Kelly took so long to come forward to tell us what happened, that one element, that they do not believe that they can listen to her testimony, regardless of what she says? I see some nodding again.

Yes, sir. Your name, please.

VENIREPERSON 5:

Michael King.

MR. FRY:

Mr. King. You have concern about her taking so long to come forward.

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yeah. The question I would have is at that time, Kelly knew there was a fatality?

MR. FRY:

Again, it's the wrong place to talk about all the evidence, but it's fair to answer your question yes.

VENIREPERSON 5:

So through three years she knew there was a loss of life?

MR. FRY:

That's correct, and she is the eyewitness to that crime. My question to you, knowing that, do you believe that reason alone, regardless of watching her here and determining after you see her and hear her and after she is asked questions by both attorneys in the case, for that one reason you do not believe you could believe her?

VENIREPERSON 5:

I would have some concerns.

MR. FRY:

Okay. Having concerns is all right. Having that concern in the context of the judge's instructions, judge her credibility while she sits here, can you keep your mind open and still judge that credibility when she is here or is that one factor to you so important that you do not believe right now that you can listen to her?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes, it's a possibility.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. There was one other hand towards the back and the left. Ms. Carter.

VENIREPERSON 40:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

We're going to need you to stand up for sure; is that all right?

VENIREPERSON 40:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

And you believe, because of the three-year delay, that you will not be able to believe the witness, Kelly Moffett?

VENIREPERSON 40:

No. If she waited three years, no, I couldn't believe her.

MR. FRY:

For that one reason? Thank you very much, ma'mn. I believe there was another hand. I'm not sure if it's on the left side. On the right side.

Yes, ma'am. Would you stand and give us your name, please.

VENIREPERSON 44:

Lisa Hernandez, number 44. Why would she wait three years? I couldn't buy that.

MR. FRY:

It's not fair for me to offer any explanation at this point.

VENIREPERSON 44:

If she knew, she should have come forward right then and there.

MR. FRY:

The fact she didn't and waited three years, would that fact alone, you believe you cannot listen and judge her credibility?

VENIREPERSON 44:

No, I couldn't.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. There is more. In the course of this three years, I expect Kelly Moffett to testify that she used a significant amount of drugs.

Mr. King, remember that issue?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes, sir.

MR. FRY:

I told you I would get back to it.

VENIREPERSON 5:

Now it's come about.

MR. FRY:

Good to my word. There are people -- we didn't talk about it too much. Drugs are a problem in the community. If you've ever had anybody in your family that gets addicted, it's very hard. Through your friends, you know what the effects of illegal drugs are.

Mr. Sullivan, you had some concerns about the use of drugs?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Agreed.

MR. FRY:

Knowing that Kelly Moffett used drugs during that three-year period of time and even before, do you believe for, that reason alone, that you could not listen to her and judge her credibility?

VENIREPERSON 5:

My decision would be impacted greatjy, yes.

MR. FRY:

You believe you couldn't be fair and impartial and listen to her?

VENIREPERSON 5:

Yes, sir.

MR. FRY:

You could not?

VENIREPERSON 5:

I could not.

MR. FRY:

Was there anybody else in the front there or in the jury box? Anybody in the front row? I'll go to the left side first, please.

Ms. Carter, do you think you would have problems with, not only the one reason, but now the second reason, you've already made up your mind you can't listen to her?

VENIREPERSON 40:

No. Not if she uses drugs.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you very much. I don't believe there were any more on the left-hand side. On the right-hand side.

Yes, sir. You're Mr. Edwards?

VENIREPERSON 56:

Yes. I used them in the past. I know it's hard to recall details. That would be my excuse or reason.

MR. FRY:

You don't think you could listen to her if you know she has used drugs?

VENIREPERSON 56:

I know it's hard to recall details being there myself.

MR. FRY:

Okay. Again, we're not talking about the details of the drug use.

VENIREPERSON 56:

No, we're talking about the details of the crime.

MR. FRY:

And you think that one reason would cause you not to be able to listen to anything she says?

VENIREPERSON 56:

I don't know about causing. I just don't know if I could be right on her behalf to sit in judgment of that.

MR. FRY:

All right. It would be -- have you kind of already made up your mind?

VENIREPERSON 56:

Well, I'm soriy. I may have.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you. But there was one more hand. Yes, ma'am, your name, please?

VENIREPERSON 60:

Rebecca Sanchez. I don't think I would be able to fairly listen to her knowing that she was on drugs at the time, because I had a father on drugs, and he made a lot of bad judgments. So that's why I wouldn't be able to listen to her.

MR. FRY:

I didn't say she was on drugs at the time. I'm saying, in the three-year delay, there was a significant amount of drugs used.

VENIREPERSON 60:

I still would not be able to listen to her.

MR. FRY:

For that one reason alone, you do not believe you would be able to judge credibility? You have already made up your mind?

VENIREPERSON 60:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. There is more. The State has granted Kelly Moffett immunity from prosecution. She is going to testify having been given that immunity. Is the fact that the State has granted her immunity to have her come forward and testify, that fact alone, is there anybody who believes that, before you even hear her, that you have made up your mind you cannot listen and trust what she is saying? You cannot sit and fairly judge her testimony?

I'm starting to see body language here. I'm starting to see some shaking of the heads. These are issues that I am asking you to reflect on and deal with openly and honestly.

I think there might be somebody in the back row. I'm not picking on you, but I'm getting body language.

Do you believe that just because the I State has granted her immunity, you cannot be fair and impartial?

VENIREPERSON 2:

No. Actually in actuality I was thinking in terms of why it would be granted, and I felt it would be okay.

MR. FRY:

We can't go into the details here. I'm just asking everybody --this one known item. Because of that immunity, you won't be able to judge her credibility. It just doesn't matter. Because of immunity, you will not listen and trust what she says.

VENIREPERSON 2:

But I listened to the other things you said that led up to that, and I don't have a problem.

MR. FRY:

Anyone else have a problem with immunity, the fact we've given immunity you won't be fair and impartial?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Can I ask you a question? Was she caught using drugs before she got the immunity?

MR. FRY:

I can't go into the details, but her drug use has nothing to do with the immunity that's been given.

VENIREPERSON 14:

She may use that to get the immunity.

MR. FRY:

The question, was she caught using drugs, did that have anything to do with it, her use of drugs has nothing to do with the immunity at this time. Had nothing to do with the decision. Knowing that, do you have any concerns?

VENIREPERSON 14:

No.

MR. FRY:

You can wait here until she takes the seat and still listen to her?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Right.

MR. FRY:

That was Mr. Thomas.

Was there anyone else on the immunity question?

Ms. Carter, again you don't like the fact we've given her immunity.

VENIREPERSON 40:

No. I can listen to anything she says.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you. In the right-hand in the back? Anybody concerned about the immunity issue? All right.

I mentioned to you earlier also -- I'd like to dwell on it a little bit -- that Kelly Moffett was 15 years old at the time this occurred. Evidence will be that at age 14 she met Mr. Case. About 15 this murder occurred. 15 years old.

Because of her age alone, does anybody believe that just because she was 15 at the time, 19 now, anybody believe that just because of her age, they would not be able to trust her testimony at all? You've already made up your mind just because she was too young?

Let's give your name first.

VENIREPERSON 9:

Helen Gonzales.

MR. FRY:

Let me rephrase my question. She was 15 at the time of the murder. She is 19 now. So she is 15 there when this occurred to give it some context. Okay?

Her age being 15, that alone, do you believe that you wouldn't be able to listen to a 15-year-old and make a decision in this case?

VENIREPERSON 9:

Well . . .

MR. FRY:

Can you keep your mind open or have you already made up your mind?

VENIREPERSON 9:

No. I can have an open mind.

MR. FRY:

A lot of open mind or just a little open mind?

VENIREPERSON 9:

It would be okay.

MR. FRY:

It would be okay. That is the type of reflection I want. Sometimes people think I'm a little flippant up here. This jury selection doesn't have to be mean and grueling like in all the novels and in the movies. They are serious questions. Regardless of how you may think I'm handling this, I always want you to reflect.

These are serious questions. There is a dead person here. There is family and there is the Defendant and there is the Defendant's family. So this is a very serious matter. I don't mean to disarm you at all about that.

So please, when I'm asking these questions, it's very much a time to reflect on these issues.

Again, just in case I missed anybody on the age, the fact she was 15 at the time, 19 now, does anybody believe that age alone cannot be fair and impartial in hearing this witness? Thank you very much.

Has anybody here witnessed a violent crime? When I asked about being a victim, has anybody here witnessed a violent crime? Yes, there is one. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Stewart.

VENIREPERSON 7:

Carol Stewart. I witnessed my best friend in '94. I was there when it all went down.

MR. FRY:

That's one of the cases we talked about earlier, right?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Uh-huh.

MR. FRY:

So a traumatic experience to say the least.

VENIREPERSON 7:

Traumatic. it was like very hard for me to accept what happened at the time. I went through counseling with it to understand it, and by her being 15, I would have to really, really listen to her and understand her and put myself in that position to see why she didn't say nothing till three years later.

Maybe she was scared. She could have been threatened. Or she didn't know how to approach an adult and tell someone. There is a lot -- there is a theory there on her behalf and I have to go with that theory.

MR. FRY:

And, ma'am, it's just not appropriate for me to offer an explanation.

VENIREPERSON 7:

I know. That's okay.

MR. FRY:

So that's why the question is, just knowing that, you've got the age, you've got the delay, you've got the drugs, just knowing that, you've already made up your mind before you even listen to her that you can't believe her.

VENIREPERSON 7:

Have I made up my mind? I would have to listen to her and understand her, where she is coming from before I can make up my decision, but I've been there. So it is going to be kind of hard to understand.

MR. FRY:

What you're saying is -- what we're going to be asking these 12 people to do, not prejudge her because of any one of these facts, but wait and judge her as you hear her explanation, as you hear her being cross examined and direct examined by both attorneys, and you keep an open mind. Or have you already made up your mind you can't believe her?

VENIREPERSON 7:

I can keep an open mind.

MR. FRY:

Let me talk a little bit more about the trauma with you being a witness to a homicide. All right? This has got to be a pretty close situation to what you have endured as an individual. It's a lot to ask of you to hear a case about a murder when you watched your friend get murdered. It's very right if you would have a lot of emotions with that, and this may not be the trial for you. You almost wish you had those neighbors arguing about a fence right now, don't you?

VENIREPERSON 7:

In a way, yeah.

MR. FRY:

These are fair emotions, and I'm going to ask you to reflect on that and see if those emotions are so significant that the judge is going to say, hey, base your decision only on the evidence here in court.

Set aside your personal experiences and base your decision in here. Can you do that?

VENIREPERSON 7:

No. There is no way.

MR. FRY:

All right. Thank you. My question that started this was: Has anybody here been a witness to a violent crime? Was there anybody else that I have missed in just responding to this comer of the courtroom? All right.

Does anybody here have any preconceived ideas of how a 15-year-old that watches a murder ought to react?

Nobody knows how they would do it. Nobody knows how she should have done it.

Yes, sir.

VENIREPERSON 14:

My kid done things when she was 15 years old, and they told me they could take me of themselves. Didn't have to worry about them.

MR. FRY:

So you kind of experienced that in your own personal live with your own kid? They didn't tell you?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Not until they got old enough to take care of themselves, and then they told me what happened back when they were 14 or 15 years old.

MR. FRY:

We talked a little bit about -- I'm almost at the end for those of you that are wondering. Don't worry.

We talked a little bit about the geography and the location. The questionnaires that you filled out, I want you to know, by the time they get to the lawyers and the parties, your address is blacked out. We have no clue where you live.

The area we're talking about is Mount Washington Cemetery, which is up there again at 435 and 24 highway. That's the northern part of the area we're really addressing.

To the southern part goes down 435 is Truman Road, and then if you take Truman Road, you get to Van Horn High School. If you go past Erotic City -- and I'm not asking for a show of hands, but just giving you an idea of the area, we don't know if you live out there.

So without telling me what your address is, you all have that right to privacy there,does anybody live in that particular area?

Ms. Stewart.

VENIREPERSON 7:

My sister.

MR. FRY:

Anybody else? Let me go first to John Wilson.

VENIREPERSON 18:

Williams.

MR. FRY:

Sorry.

VENIREPERSON 18:

My grandparents live a few blocks from there.

MR. FRY:

Yes, sir. Your name.

VENIREPERSON 24:

Chris Miller. I grew up in that area.

MR. FRY:

Back row. Yes, ma'am.

VENIREPERSON 49:

Amanda Florez. I grew up in that area. I know a lot of people that live in that area.

MR. FRY:

All right. Anyone else on the left-hand side? Yes, ma'am.

VENIREPERSON 26:

Are we supposed to tell you if we grew up there? I don't live there now, but I grew up there.

MR. FRY:

All right.

VENIREPERSON 22:

I went to school at Van Horn.

MR. FRY:

You know about the area east then?

VENIREPERSON 22:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Mr. Lewis?

VENIREPERSON 22:

Yes.

VENIREPERSON 26:

To expand on what I said, I grew up there, but I no longer live there.

MR. FRY:

On the left-hand side did I miss one more hand?

On the right-hand side in the back?

Yes, ma'am. Is it Young?

VENIREPERSON 28:

Young, yes. I live up near that area, and I went to Crysler, and I am familiar with Mount Washington Cemetery.

MR. FRY:

Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Scott?

VENIREPERSON 47:

I lived in that area and still do. Grew up there.

MR. FRY:

You're number 47?

VENIREPERSON 47:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Judge is going to instruct all of you, if you know the area, instruct you all to base your decision by the evidence we present here. We don't expect to take the jury out to the area. We don't want jurors driving out there or outside or after hours just to check anything out. All 12 jurors have to be given the same evidence.

So for those of you that are aware of it, those of you that say, boy, I would like to drive out there, can you all make the commitment to follow the instruction that you will not do that and you will base your decision on the evidence that you hear in court here? Can you all do that through this trial?

For all the rest of you that are not if you do get on the jury, can you follow the instruction and do not go out to this particular area so that our evidence might be kind of messed up and the whole process thrown out? You can all make that commitment? I take it by nod and jury silence -- oh, there is a hand. Yes, ma'am.

VENIREPERSON 42:

Angela Green. I have -- I have a plot there.

MR. FRY:

Pardon?

VENIREPERSON 42:

We have plots there.

MR. FRY:

Next week are you planning to go there?

VENIREPERSON 42:

Hopefully not.

MR. FRY:

Can you commit to the Court and the parties that you won't go there to that?

VENIREPERSON 42:

I promise.

MR. FRY:

All right. that's all.

VENIREPERSON 42:

If I do, I won't know it.

MR. FRY:

Can you promise not to go out there if you're selected?

VENIREPERSON 42:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

I'm sorry. Your name was?

VENIREPERSON 42:

Angela Green.

MR. FRY:

Last two questions. This is a criminal case. If you were deciding how much money partners got, there is no sense of sitting in judgment of anybody. At the end of this case, the State stands before you and says: Find this man guilty of a crime.

Some people may believe that there is a religious, moral or philosophical reason that they can't do that. You could sit here and figure out what the damages are on a personal injury without a problem, but that finding somebody guilty is a problem, for whatever reason. And those reasons are respected.

Is there anybody who believes that they do have any religious, moral or philosophical reason that you cannot sit in this case?

Yes, sir. Mr. Thompson.

VENIREPERSON 55:

The religion I grew up in I don't think I could consciously find a defendant guilty.

MS. CRAYON:

Last question. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Campbell, was it?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes. You mentioned earlier that the sentencing wasn't our responsibility, but --

MR. FRY:

Fair question. Go ahead and have a seat. There was a question. I believe it was Mr. Thomas. This is murder in the first degree. This is not a death penalty case. It is not. Knowing that, having eliminated that concern, is there anybody that has a concern about that now? Very good.

Last question. I notice that, on the questionnaires where you put down company you work with, there are several people here that work together. A jury has to be 12 fair and impartial independent jurors. If you have recognized somebody that's in the room that you know from an experience prior to coming here, can you just raise your hand? Okay.

Now, this has been real tough for me. I've had to look at you. I'm asking you to look at each other now.

Ms. Campbell, who do you know?

VENIREPERSON 1:

I work for a veterinarian, and I see a few people that come in there.

MR. FRY:

Like clients?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Clients.

MR. FRY:

Do you believe that, in that relationship, you can still independently make up your mind?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

You won't be concerned about them not coming back if you disagree up there?

VENIREPERSON 1:

No.

MR. FRY:

Just business, right?

VENIREPERSON 1:

No. We probably make them mad in other ways, I bet.

MR. FRY:

That's another trial for another day. All right. Is there anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Your name is?

VENIREPERSON 9:

Gonzales.

MR. FRY:

Who do you know?

VENIREPERSON 9:

Well, I work with one and then I believe in my business that I know one of the people here.

MR. FRY:

All right. Either of those relationships where you work with one, can you both independently go up there and you can go in there and, if you disagree, you can say you disagree; is that right? With either one of those relationships?

(The juror nodded)

MR. FRY:

Neither one of them will be influencing you significantly to not do what you want; is that fair to say?

VENIREPERSON 9:

They wouldn't.

MR. FRY:

They will not. Lot of conviction in that. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am. Your name is?

VENIREPERSON 10:

Turner. I have a neighbor, Robert Mitchell.

MR. FRY:

Mr. Mitchell, do you recognize her?

VENIREPERSON 46:

Yes, I do.

MR. FRY:

Now, as next-door neighbors, if you were both selected -- we'll do this one at a time. Because of that relationship, will you be able to still go up there and discuss this case fairly and independently?

VENIREPERSON 10:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

You will make up your mind independently?

VENIREPERSON 46:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

And, sir? Mr. Mitchell?

VENIREPERSON 46:

Bob Mitchell.

MR. FRY:

My question is, can you still independently sit on the same jury if selected and make up your own mind?

VENIREPERSON 46:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

You're not going to be persuaded by her, and you'll not persuade her?

VENIREPERSON 46:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the front row? Remember, this is my last question.

Yes, ma'am. What's your name again?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Karen White.

MR. FRY:

Yes. Who do you know?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Jennifer Jackson from work. I worked with her previously.

MR. FRY:

All right. Now, because of that relationship, do you believe you can still be fair and impartial and independent if both of you are on the same jury upstairs?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Now, where is that woman? Do you recognize her? A little bit? Now, I have to ask you the same question, ma'am, can you still independently, fairly and impartially, even though you both got selected for the same jury, would you be fair and impartial and independent in judging this case?

VENIREPERSON 52:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Your relationship with her will not influence you at all; is that correct?

VENIREPERSON 52:

No.

MR. FRY:

I'm trying to get you placed. You're number 52, I believe; is that right?

VENIREPERSON 52:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

Anybody else? I think there was a hand.

VENIREPERSON 22:

I went to high school with Martha.

MR. FRY:

It's a reunion.

VENIREPERSON 22:

That's the last time I saw her too.

MR. FRY:

Well, you probably got the significance. There is no part of that relationship that would cause you problems with this jury being independent; is that correct?

VENIREPERSON 22:

No problem at all.

MR. FRY:

Ms. Moore?

VENIREPERSON 26:

Moore.

MR. FRY:

Sorry. You wouldn't have any problem with Mr. Lewis if he was on the jury, would you?

VENIREPERSON 26:

No.

MR. FRY:

Thank you. Anyone else?

VENIREPERSON 48:

I believe Tom Perez and I go to school together.

MR. FRY:

Tom? Well, another reunion. Did you recognize him at all?

VENIREPERSON 23:

I recognize his name, but it's been years since we've seen each other.

MR. FRY:

Now, in this crash course on reunions, if based on that previous relationship, if you were both on the same jury, do you think you could be independent and make up your mind, and it wouldn't bother you to be on the jury with someone else you know; is that right?

VENIREPERSON 23:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

And, Mr. Rivera, the same answer?

VENIREPERSON 48:

Yes.

MR. FRY:

You wouldn't be concerned about this relationship and you could be independent; is that correct?

VENIREPERSON 48:

That's correct.

MR. FRY:

You've all been very patient with me. Thank you. If I had asked you a question and upon reflection later on -- and Mr. Lance is going to ask some questions as well. Maybe more artfully, maybe not.

But, if something comes to you later on, "Well, maybe I've thought about what Mr. Fry said or I didn't think of this, but now I do remember it", please just raise your hand. You don't seem to be a shy crowd at all. But later on it's just as fine to answer a question late.

See what I mean? Here, we get one already. I don't get to sit down. Ms. Young.

VENIREPERSON 28:

I'm sorry. I do remember the media attention. It just didn't come to me until Mount Washington Cemetery was mentioned.

MR. FRY:

We're going to have you come up independently and talk to the Court; is that all right? Thank you very much. Thank you.

THE COURT:

May I see the lawyers real quick if I could?

(Counsel approached the bench and the following proceedings were had:)

THE COURT:

Mr. Lance, for your benefit, let me tell you what I would Re to do. I'm going to go until about right around the noon hour. There is a Court en banc meeting that I would like to make an appearance at. I'm not going to be gone more than an hour. So come around noontime, if you're still going, you can pick the time to stop. But what I'll do, we'll take as short a recess as possible.

I think with this many people, I probably ought to at least take an hour.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

I suggest, when it gets to the noon hour, when you think it's a good time to stop, assuming you still got stuff left, which I assume you might well, you can let me know which it is. If we're going to break midstream in your voir dire, I'm going to let you pick it.

MR. LANCE:

Yeah.

THE COURT:

Then, what I intend to do, at that lunch I'm going to talk with some of these folks we need to talk with. So, if we gets towards the noon hour and you got some stuff left, just pick the time and just let me know.

MR. LANCE:

Judge, if it goes like my last trial, I may be able to finish by noon.

THE COURT:

That's great. If you're getting so you think you can finish and it's 12:10, finish, but if you have to stop, I want you to have some say in it.

MR. LANCE:

Okay.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

Is there anyone on the back panel who thinks they might have met myself, Mr. Horton Lance? I don't see any hands for the record.

Quick background on Byron Case. He was born in Lenexa, Kansas. He's 23 years of age now. He has been a local around this area, so you may have seen him. He used to work at a motel. Is there anyone now that you've had a longer chance to look at Mr. Case thinks they may have met Mr. Byron Case?

Earlier today we learned that someone on the panel has met a co-worker of mine, Tim Burdick. So I want to ask the general question.

Is there anyone on the panel who knows anybody who works over at the Public Defenders office, the Jackson County Public Defenders? I should have asked specifically about my co-counsel, Ms. Gretchen Eikermann. She is a local product also. You might have met her or her family. Anyone know those folks?

The boss over at the Public Defenders office is an attorney name Mr. Joel Elmer. He runs the Public Defenders office. Anyone know Mr. Joel Elmer? For the record, I don't any hands.

Now, earlier today the panel was asked about who had been the victims of crime. Family members or victims of crime. I wanted to take that one step further. Is there anyone on the panel today that's ever been called to court to be a witness? In other words, you had to come into a courtroom. Maybe didn't look exactly like this courtroom, but you were called to court, sworn to tell the truth and called as a witness in a case. Anybody had that experience?

I see a couple hands. I'm going to be like Mr. Fry. I'm going to work this way so don't let me skip you. Let's start in the back row.

Your name for the record, please.

VENIREPERSON 7:

Carol Stewart.

MR. LANCE:

Again, if any of this is too personal, just ask to approach Judge Atwell at the bench. We don't mean to pry. We can talk more privately.

Ms. Stweart, can you tell us what type of case it involved?

VENIREPERSON 7:

My friend in '94.

MR. LANCE:

The 1994 homicide case?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Uh-huh.

MR. LANCE:

Do you want to talk about that in private or can I ask you a follow-up on that?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Follow-up on that.

MR. LANCE:

When you went to court -- was it in 1994 that you went to court?

VENIREPERSON 7:

We went to court in '95, in March.

MR. LANCE:

When you went to court that following March, do you remember if you were called as a witness by the prosecuting attorney's staff or defense staff?

VENIREPERSON 7:

The prosecutor.

MR. LANCE:

You have a clear memory of the prosecutor calling you and saying, "This is one of our witnesses to the stand?"

VENIREPERSON 7:

I didn't make it to the stand. The minute I walked through the door, the gentleman told on hisself, because me and my best friend, a lot of folks thought we were sisters, but we're not.

MR. LANCE:

Here is my main question I'm trying to lead up to. Is there anything about that experience, being a prosecution witness, that might influence your ability to be completely fair and impartial in this case today?

VENIREPERSON 7:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You understand --

VENIREPERSON 7:

Yeah, I understand. But no.

MR. LANCE:

-- as the defense attorney, I guess when someone used to be a prosecutor's witness, I just have that concern I have to ask. Is there any chance at all you might be leaning in favor of the prosecution today?

VENIREPERSON 7:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you for answering all my questions, Ms. Stewart.

I think there was somebody else. Your name, please?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Linda Collins. I was a former customs inspector, and it was a drug case.

MR. LANCE:

You used to work with Customs?

VENIREPERSON 2:

That's correct.

MR. LANCE:

During that career, how many times were you called upon to testify?

VENIREPERSON 2:

That was twice to court, but that was the first time I had to actually testify in an actual case.

MR. LANCE:

And the second time was also as a Customs inspector?

VENIREPERSON 2:

That's correct.

MR. LANCE:

Now, stop me if I'm assuming, but I think you would be the witness for the prosecution. Is there anything about that past experience in your life that might have you tending to lean in favor of the prosecutor's office today?

VENIREPERSON 2:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You can be fair and impartial to both sides?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Yeah.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Thomas, for raising your hand. Mr. Thomas.

VENIREPERSON 14:

I was in a deposition once and also in court in Michigan.

MR. LANCE:

In Michigan, was that a criminal or civil?

VENIREPERSON 14:

Lawsuit. Probably civil. The one got thrown out of court on the defense's side. That was 1955. Tbat's been a long time ago.

MR. LANCE:

Mr. Thomas, is there anything about those two experiences that might give you a tendency today to be leaning in favor of either side?

VENIREPERSON 14:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you for raising your hand. Anybody else in the jury box before I move to my right? All right. I think we were on the question of who has actually been a witness. Mr. Lewis?

VENIREPERSON 22:

Yes, Joseph Lewis. I was. The company I work for, Missouri Gas Energy.

MR. LANCE:

Do you know if it was criminal or civil?

VENIREPERSON 22:

Civil.

MR. LANCE:

Anything about that experience might impact you?

VENIREPERSON 22:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you. Next row back? Okay. Let's go to the next row back.

The row next. I don't see any hands. Let's go to the back row.

Your name for the record, sir.

VENIREPERSON 56:

Edwards. This is for Defendant, drug trial.

MR. LANCE:

Again, is that something too personal or can I follow-up?

VENIREPERSON 56:

Ask me anything you need.

MR. LANCE:

I believe you just stated, when you were called to the stand, it was the defense attorney that called you to the stand?

VENIREPERSON 56:

That's correct.

MR. LANCE:

Is there anything about that experience that might make you lean in favor of the defense today?

VENIREPERSON 56:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Anything about that experience that might have you leaning in favor of another side today?

VENIREPERSON 56:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You would be able to set that experience aside and be able to listen to the evidence in this case and decide it on the evidence?

VENIREPERSON 56:

I don't know. I don't think I have a problem with that case. This one I might have a problem with.

MR. LANCE:

All right. I'll take your answer as sufficient for my questions about people who have been previous witnesses, but I think we've raised a new question there. You say you have problems with sitting as a member of the jury on this case.

VENIREPERSON 56:

Well, just like I said back to that first question with past experience is -- actually, I don't know if I could be -- if I can judge on that behalf.

MR. LANCE:

All right. That Is what you talked about earlier today?

VENIREPERSON 56:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

All right. Was there anything you wanted to add to that that was bothering you about the case?

VENIREPERSON 56:

Huh?

MR. LANCE:

Was there anything else besides that that is bothering you about the case?

VENIREPERSON 56:

No.

MR. LANCE:

All right. That's all the questions I have for Mr. Edwards. Thank you for speaking up.

Before I move on, anyone else that's been a witness in a court of law? I don't see any further hands.

Hearing was mentioned today, but I don't think the direct question was asked. Is there anyone on the panel that suffers from hearing loss? We're interested, obviously, because you'll hear witnesses testifying.

Your name, please.

VENIREPERSON 42:

Angela Green. And I do wear a hearing aid.

MR. LANCE:

With the use of your hearing aid, do you believe, if you're picked for the jury, you can sit up closer and you would be in this area and the witnesses would all take this seat. With the use of your hearing aid, do you think there would be any problems with being able to hear all the evidence and testimony?

VENIREPERSON 42:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Would you be fine?

VENIREPERSON 42:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Green, for speaking up. Anyone else with a hearing loss on the jury that hasn't raised their hand?

Another question -- I don't know if it was directly brought up today. If you're picked for the final 12 people on the jury, you would sit up here. And also, through this door, there is a jury room. You have to go up some steps to go to the jury room.

So, if you're sitting on the jury, I'm only asking if anybody has any physical limitations or problem with steps, because there would be breaks as you have already seen. We'll take a break. If you're on the jury during the trial, there will be breaks.You would have to be going up those steps, about 15 or 16 steps.

THE COURT:

18, I think.

MR. LANCE:

You would have to go up and down a series of steps every day. Does anybody have any physical limitations that's going to cause a problem if you have to use steps if you're on the jury?

Ms. Stewart?

VENIREPERSON 7:

Ms. Stewart. I have three muscle spasms from my accident, and I don't climb too many steps.

MR. LANCE:

All right. Thank you, Ms. Stewart. I think I saw another hand.

Your name for the record?

VENIREPERSON 44:

Lisa Hernandez, number 44. I have a bad knee. I have a hard time sitting or standing.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you. Your name, please.

VENIREPERSON 40:

Kathleen Carter. I have a bad ankle.

MR. LANCE:

Is it the type of bad ankle that would impact going up and down a flight of stairs?

VENIREPERSON 40:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Carter. Anyone else have any physical problems?

Again, if we're getting too private, tell us, and you can approach the bench. I don't believe I see any further hands on that question.

I noted on the juror questionnaire there may be some people who have sat on a jury before.

Could I see just a show of hands, real quick, people who have been on a jury before? You can put your hands down.

As a follow-up, is there anybody that has sat on a criminal jury with similar facts, alleged murder charge, the Defendant pled not guilty, so there are issues of fact? Has anyone sat on a similar jury? I see a hand.

VENIREPERSON 53:

Amy Nelson. I didn't know if you meant any criminal trial or specifically this case.

MR. LANCE:

As Mr. Fry said, sometimes we're not as artful in our questions. I wanted to limit it. Has anybody been on a homicide or shooting case?

VENIREPERSON 53:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you for clarifying, Ms. Nelson. There is no problem with that, asking questions to clarify, as you have seen.

I don't see any hands, so no one has been on a homicide jury before.

Next question, has anybody ever sat on a grand jury? Now, a grand jury is different than what we call a petit jury.

A petit jury is 12 people and you decide a case, guilty or not guilty. A grand jury can sit for weeks or months and you can hear dozens or cases or more.

Has anybody had the experience of sitting on a federal or state grand jury? I do see one hand. I'm sony. Your name for the record.

VENIREPERSON 24:

Chris Miller. I served on a Jackson County grand jury.

MR. LANCE:

I hope I'm not testing your memory too much. Can you estimate what year that may have been?

VENIREPERSON 24:

In '99.

MR. LANCE:

Do you remember how many weeks you sat?

VENIREPERSON 24:

It was about six months, July through December.

MR. LANCE:

During those six months, would it be fair to say that you had nearly daily contact with somebody from the prosecutors office?

VENIREPERSON 24:

I believe we met every other Friday.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. So it wasn't like Monday through Friday?

VENIREPERSON 24:

No. It was I believe every other Friday.

MR. LANCE:

When you did come in on those every other Fridays, is it fair to say you only had contact with someone from the prosecutor's office?

VENIREPERSON 24:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Mr. Miller, is there anything from that experience that would have any tendency to have you favor either side of the case?

VENIREPERSON 24:

No.

MR. LANCE:

And you know why I have to ask that question.

VENIREPERSON 24:

Sure.

MR. LANCE:

You still feel you can set aside the grand jury experience and decide this case fairly.and impartially for both sides?

VENIREPERSON 24:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Anybody besides Mr. Miller had experience on a grand jury? I don't see any further hands.

Now, earlier today the prosecutors asked about anyone who knows workers on the Jackson County Sheriff's Department, and someone asked if we wanted to go further, like Highway Patrol. I'm the attorney that wants to go a little further.

I want to know, first of all, is there anybody on the panel themselves that's ever worked in law enforcement or currently works in law enforcement? Any Highway Patrol? Sheriff's deputy? The military police? Anybody had a personal experience that worked for law enforcement?

VENIREPERSON 2:

My service as Customs inspector.

MR. LANCE:

I'm sorry, Ms. Collins. You worked as a Customs inspector?

VENIREPERSON 2:

That Is correct.

MR. LANCE:

How many years?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Thirteen.

MR. LANCE:

Thirteen years. All right. That's excellent. Glad you raised your hand. Is there no such thing as a wrong answer today. We're just taking information.

Your name for the record, please.

VENIREPERSON 38:

Pamela Adams. I don't actually work in law enforcement.

MR. LANCE:

We need you to stand up. Just repeat.

VENIREPERSON 38:

Pamela Adams. Social worker in a jail.

MR. LANCE:

All right. is it too personal to ask which facility you work at?

VENIREPERSON 38:

Municipal Correctional Institution, Leeds.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. Thank you for speaking up. Oh, there is another hand. I'm sorry.

VENIREPERSON 16:

Shirley Nguyen.

(Due to technical difficulties, the court reporter had to immediately call for a break.)

THE COURT:

Okay. You can go ahead whenever you're ready, Mr. Lance.

MR. LANCE:

Yes, sir. I believe I asked Shirley Nguyen if you worked in law enforcement.

VENIREPERSON 16:

I'm just a graduate of the Citizens Police Academy, Independence.

MR. LANCE:

There is no such thing as a wrong answer. Attorneys are up there gathering information.

Is there anything about that experience, Ms. Nguyen, that would have you leaning in favor of either side in today's case?

VENIREPERSON 16:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you for speaking up. Can't remember. I'm sorry if I didn't ask Ms. Collins directly, but anything about your work as Customs inspector that would have you favor either side?

VENIREPERSON 2:

No.

MR. LANCE:

I guess I need to ask the same question of Ms. Pamela Adams. Anything about your work at a local detention facility that would give you a tendency that you think you might be leaning in favor of the defense or leaning in favor of the prosecution before you hear?

VENIREPERSON 38:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You can still be fair to both sides?

VENIREPERSON 38:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Adams. That was the people that raised their hands if they worked anywhere in law enforcement. I want to follow-up a little broader.

Close friends or relatives that work in law enforcement or used to work in law enforcement? Anybody in the jury box?

I see a lot of hands. Just be patient. Put your hands down for now, and I'll try to get back to you.

Your name for the record.

VENIREPERSON 1:

Mary Campbell. Two cousins in the Sheriff's Department.

MR. LANCE:

Jackson County Sheriff's Department?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

I should have clarified. I'm not picking on you, Ms. Campbell. If you did raise your hand earlier today and speak about it, then I probably won't ask again.

VENIREPERSON 1:

I almost asked that.

MR. LANCE:

Yeah, that's my fault.

Your name for the record, please.

VENIREPERSON 5:

Michael King. Brother, Boone County Sheriff's Deputy. Uncle that's a Tucson sheriff.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Mr. King.

Oh. Ms. Collins.

VENIREPERSON 2:

I had a question. Are you referring to just here in Jackson County or anywhere?

MR. LANCE:

No. I want to know if you have a close friend or relative that works in law enforcement anywhere.

VENIREPERSON 2:

My ex-husband, police officer.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Collins. The lady in the red top there. I'm sorry.

VENIREPERSON 10:

Patricia Turner. Husband in Lee's Summit, dispatching.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Turner. Is it Ms. Nguyen?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Yeah. I have a friend who is a U.S. Marshal in Oklahoma.

MR. LANCE:

All right. Thank you, Ms. Nguyen, for speaking up. Anybody else in the jury box? Your name. I'm sorry. On the end. Your name?

VENIREPERSON 16:

Karen White. My father retired last year as a federal agent. My stepmother is also a federal agent.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you.

VENIREPERSON 18:

John Williams. My aunt's new husband --

THE REPORTER:

I'm sorry?

THE COURT:

His aunt's new husband is a former Chief of Police in Independence.

MR. LANCE:

Again, when we reach this side of the room, we probably need you to stand. So your name, ma'am?

VENIREPERSON 20:

Jessica Baker. I have a cousin that works for the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.

MR. LANCE:

Is he a patrol officer?

VENIREPERSON 20:

I think.

THE COURT:

Ma'am, could you stand up?

VENIREPERSON 20:

I do believe he does -- like drug busts.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Baker. Mr. Lewis.

VENIREPERSON 22:

Joseph Lewis. My niece's husband works for the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. Mr. Perez.

VENIREPERSON 23:

Thomas Perez. I have a cousin who is a police officer in Gulfport, Mississippi.

MR. LANCE:

Thanks for speaking up. Anybody else? Next row? Your name.

VENIREPERSON 32:

Elizabeth Walker. My ex-husband works in the Jackson County jail as a jailer. My son-in-law is at the Truman State University in the securities division, arms qualified. And my former fiance was a detective with the KCPD.

THE REPORTER:

What number is she?

MR. LANCE:

I'm sorry to have to ask you, could you repeat all --

THE REPORTER:

No. Just the number.

THE COURT:

We've got the information. Just her name.

MR. LANCE:

I'm sorry.

VENIREPERSON 32:

Elizabeth Walker.

MR. LANCE:

Well, I'm the one that needed the clarification. The middle one, Truman State, who was that?

VENIREPERSON 32:

My son-in-law.

MR. LANCE:

And I'm sorry. He's a deputy?

VENIREPERSON 32:

He's in the securities division. He's armed qualified.

MR. LANCE:

Truman State University?

VENIREPERSON 32:

RIght.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Walker. Sorry to make you repeat everything.

Your name?

VENIREPERSON 26:

my name is Martha Moore. I have a cousin that is on the police department in St. Joe. I have a brother-in-law who is a deputy sheriff, canine unit, in Knoxville, Tennessee. And I have a future brother-in-law that's a Jackson County Highway Patrolman. Excuse me. Son-in-law, not brother-in-law.

MR. LANCE:

Would the son-in-law, would that be State of Missouri Patrol?

VENIREPERSON 26:

Yes, Jackson County Highway Patrol.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Moore, for raising your hand. Anyone else, close friend or relatives in law enforcement?

I'm going to go down on the end. We have reached a point in this process where we know a lot of your names, but either I have to say your name or you have to say your name every time, even though we may know you.

VENIREPERSON 36:

Deborah Garcia. I have a cousin that's on the Missouri Highway Patrol; a friend that's a cop in Lenexa; and my father-in-law retired from the Lee's Summit Police Department. My mother-in-law was dispatcher. My husband prevention, and he was in the military is in loss prevention, and he was in the military police.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Garcia. Let's go down the row. Please stand and speak up.

VENIREPERSON 41:

Sharon Lee. My son-in-law is in the military police now stationed in Afghanistan.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. Thank you. Let's go to the back row. Close friend, family in law enforcement. Please stand and speak up.

VENIREPERSON 57:

Barbara Taylor. I have a cousin who is a detective in the Independence police department.

MR. LANCE:

Don't let us get too personal, but who is the detective?

VENIREPERSON 57:

Detective Jarnagin.

MR. LANCE:

Jarnagin?

THE COURT:

What number is that, Mr. Lance?

MR. LANCE:

That's number 57. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else in the back row? Please stand and state your name.

VENIREPERSON 60:

Rebecca Sanchez. I have about three friends who work for the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.

MR. LANCE:

All right. That's all I need for now. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. That was a lot of hands.

Anybody else have friends or family work in law enforcement before I move on to the next question?

Earlier today the prosecutor mentioned some names of witnesses. I'm trying to find out who is familiar. It's my turn to read off the witness list or people we think are potential defense witnesses, and we'll ask if anybody thinks they may actually know these people.

There is an Abraham Kneisley. He currently lives in California, but he used to live here. He lived in Missouri at the time of the homicide.

Tara McDowell, a young lady currently lives in Oregon, but again, lived in Kansas City at the time.

Mr. David Hill is an investigator in my office, the public defenders office. There is a Mr. Don Rand, R-A-N-D. Don Rand worked at a gas station in 1997 near the scene of the homicide.

Ms. Dawn Wright is a young lady that worked at the Dairy Queen in that same area, near Mount Washington Cemetery. Dawn Wright, in Independence.

Ms. Evelyn Case. She is anticipated being a witness. A young lady name Jamie Smith of St. Louis, Missouri. Jamie Smith also used to live in this area.

Is there anybody on the panel who thinks they may know any of the people on the witness list that was read off to you?

VENIREPERSON 9:

Helen Gonzales. Dawn Wright.

MR. LANCE:

First I want to see if it's the same one. She used to work at the Dairy Queen on 24 highway in Independence, and I don't think she works there anymore, but she is somewhere. I think she works in Independence or does that sound like the young lady that you know?

VENIREPERSON 9:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure.

MR. LANCE:

The follow-up to that would be, if Dawn Wright comes in and testifies and turns out to be someone you know, do you think that would give you a tendency to be leaning in favor of the defense or leaning in favor of the prosecution --

VENIREPERSON 9:

No.

MR. LANCE:

-- based on your relationship? If it's not too private, can you tell me how you may know this young lady?

VENIREPERSON 9:

She is one of my employee's ex-wife.

MR. LANCE:

I'm sorry?

VENIREPERSON 9:

She was an employee's ex-wife.

MR. LANCE:

All right. I didn't hear what you said.

If I haven't made clear, is there anything about this person you particularly like or dislike that would cause you to be in favor --

VENIREPERSON 9:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You would view her like any other witness?

(Tbe venireperson nodded.)

MR. LANCE:

That was a yes when you nodded?

VENIREPERSON 9:

Yes, I could.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Gonzales. Thank you for speaking up. Anybody else they think they may know Ms. Dawn Wright or any of the witnesses I named?

Is there anyone on the jury panel that's ever had any legal training in not just -- I'm not asking about business law. Most undergrad colleges teach business law. Has anybody had any legal training beyond that, such as a degree in criminal justice or some people start with law school and switch their careers. Anybody have any legal training beyond just college business law class?

Please state your name for the record.

VENIREPERSON 24:

Chris Miller.

MR. LANCE:

Go ahead.

VENIREPERSON 24:

I have a B.S. degree in criminal justice.

MR. LANCE:

Is there anything about that maybe more knowledge about the legal field, is there anything about that that you think would impact on your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides?

VENIREPERSON 24:

No.

MR. LANCE:

During your extensive education in getting your degree, is there anything in there that would make you have a tendency to lean towards the prosecutors office here today?

VENIREPERSON 24:

No.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you. Anybody besides Mr. Miller that has what I would call legal training? Okay. I don't see any other hands.

Now, one of the parts of -- I've got to talk about some precepts of the law now. One of the parts of a criminal case that's fairly basic, but I want to cover it and make sure everybody does understand --

THE COURT:

Ma'am, do you --

VENIREPERSON 2:

I do have a question. I want you to clarify. When you said legal training, are you referring just to law school? Because as a Customs inspector, I had to go through law courses also.

MR. LANCE:

I'll go back to what I said earlier. There is no such thing as a wrong answer. I don't know what type of classes that would involve.

VENIREPERSON 2:

Things like search and seizure and thin s like that.

MR. LANCE:

Did you have to go so many weeks?

VENIREPERSON 2:

I went to Law Enforcement Training academy, Federal Law Enforcement Training Academy.

MR. LANCE:

All right. Thank you, Judge. I missed that.

The same follow-up you're probably tired of hearing, is there anything about your experience at that academy that would give you a tendency to lean in favor of the prosecutor's office today?

VENIREPERSON 2:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You understand why I have to ask that question?

VENIREPERSON 2:

Oh, yeah.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you. Where was I? I was getting ready to talk about precepts of the law. Switching topics.

The Defendant in a criminal case is presumed innocent. Obviously, this is a criminal case. So Mr. Byron Case, as he's sitting here, has pled not guilty, and he is presumed to be innocent. That's part of the Constitution, part of the law. It's not just a great benefit to Mr. Case. It's a benefit to any criminal defendant in a criminal case.

My question is: Is there anyone who thinks that's a bad law or doesn't believe in the presumption of innocence? I'm just asking that because I have met people who think the burden should be on the Defendant to prove maybe he didn't,do it. That's not the status of the law.

If you're picked for the jury, you'll take another oath. Remember today you raised your hand? If you're picked for the final jury of 12, you'll take another oath as the judge of the Circuit Court gives it to you, and part of that is the Defendant is presumed innocent unless or until you see evidence that convicts him.

Is there anyone who disagrees with the presumption of innocence? I don't see any hands. I need to ask one more follow-up on that.

The question is: If you had to vote right now, do you understand that you would have to vote not guilty? Some people question that. But we're deadly serious about this.

Sitting right here, presumed innocent, you haven't heard any evidence yet if you were asked to vote right now, you would have to raise your hand and vote not guilty. Does anybody disagree with that statement? Please raise your hand. We'll follow-up on that. I don't see any hands on that.

All right. Now, because the Defendant is preswned innocent, the burden is on the prosecutor's office to come forward with their case, and you cannot vote guilty unless and until you see evidence convincing you beyond a reasonable doubt. Pretty high standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Is there anyone on the panel today who thinks that's an unfair burden to the prosecutor's office to make them meet that high of a burden, proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

I don't see any hands on that question.

Now, one more precept of the law and I'll move on. Because the Defendant is presumed innocent and the burden is on the prosecutor's office, the Defendant has the right to remain silent and not even testify unless he wants to. It's his choice.

So a defendant has a right to not testify and basically sit back and see if they can prove their case. And, if the Defendant does not testify, if there is an instruction that that cannot be held against him, the Court instruction that would not be held against him if he chose not to testify, is there anyone on the panel today who believes that they would hold it against the Defendant if he chose not to testify in the case? Okay. I don't see any hands.

Quick way to rephrase that, is there anybody who believes they would have to hear from the Defendant before you could vote not guilty?

In other words, that's your mindset or your attitude about it, "I would have to hear from the Defendant before I could vote not guilty?" Anybody feel that way? I see a hand. Your name please.

VENIREPERSON 56:

Steve Edwards. I feel -- you say there is one witness to the case. I believe there is two. There is the witness who was there, and there was the other person. And, if you can't hear that side of the story, you're only getting half.

I've always been told there is three stories: There is my side, there is your side, and there is the truth. So, if you only say half the story, how are you supposed to make a proper judgment?

MR. LANCE:

I respect your opinion. That's why I asked for a show of hands. I would like to respond to that, but I don't think it's appropriate right now. I'll let you have a seat for right now. But actually, I do want to thank you, Mr. Shaw, for speaking up. That's what we're looking for. We want to know if there are people that have those opinions.

I once had a person on a panel who said, "Well, they filed the charges so he's guilty", which doesn't even make sense.

But I had a person who thought that once. They ignored person who thought that once. They ignored the presumption of innocence and said, Well, if the State prosecutor filed charges, he must have done it, which there is nothing in the law that says that. So we're looking for that. Anybody questioning the presumption of innocence or questioning the defendant's right not to testify, like Mr. Edwards, just raise your hand and tell us. At least we know where you stand. Anybody else have a hand on that last topic?

All right. Now, on to briefly follow-up on one aspect the prosecutor mentioned. Since my client is charged with a murder in the first degree, if you're picked for the jury, you're going to have to hear some facts or gory or gruesome -- you may have to look at some bloody photographs, for example. You're going to have to hear about an autopsy, probably. So this isn't what you call the prettiest case in the world.

What I'm leading up to, I think the prosecutor asked it, and I want to hanuner on it again.

Is there anybody who feels this is absolutely not the right case for them? You may be the perfect juror for the case down the hall deciding the car accident, but you're sitting there now and you know in your heart of hearts this isn't the case for me. I don't want to bear about a murder trial.

Anybody have that emotion or that reaction now, it's only proper to raise your hand and tell us this isn't the right case for you. We've already had a couple people say that, actually.

I see a hand in the back row. I need your name, please.

VENIREPERSON 50:

my name is Donna Morris.

MR. LANCE:

Is there anything you want to add to that?

VENIREPERSON 50:

No. I just realize the kind of shows and stuff I avoid, I just don't have the stomach for the bloody photos and what have you.

MR. LANCE:

If chosen for this jury, you would have difficulty looking at all the evidence?

VENIREPERSON 50:

Right.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Morris. Is it Ms. Young?

VENIREPERSON 28:

Ms. Young, yes, sir.

MR. LANCE:

Could we ask you to stand? Was there something you wanted to add or are you telling us this is the wrong case for you?

VENIREPERSON 28:

Just, basically, I would definitely have a problem with looking at the evidence.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. I think that's enough for now. Actually, I thank you for your candor. Anyone else? Your name, please.

VENIREPERSON 40:

Kathleen Carter. I think this is the wrong case for me.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you. There is somebody behind you. Your name?

VENIREPERSON 53:

Amy Nelson. What if a person doesn't know if they're going to be able to handle it? I can't answer that because I don't know. My honest answer is I don't know if I can handle it. I've not been in a position to have to.

MR. LANCE:

All right. Just so the attorneys at the counsel table sort of know some of your thought processes, are you saying there is a chance you might be offended by the photographs or your stomach would turn? Is there a chance that you might --

VENIREPERSON 53:

I was raised on a farm, but this is -- we had to deal with slaughtering. But I cannot say that I could sit there and look at the type of evidence without some type of reaction. I don't know that it would be an inappropriate reaction. I can't honestly say that it would not be a response.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. I think I've got the best answer that I can get, Ms. Nelson. Again, thank you for raising your hand. There is no such thing as a wrong answer, and we asked a tough question. All right.

To wrap that up, is there anything about the nature of the case anybody knows this is the wrong case for them? Anybody else? I covered all the bands? There were a couple of people who have already spoke up today that we have already covered.

One juror said after discussion about Mount Washington Cemetery they do recall that being in the media. Are you going to take those up?

THE COURT:

I believe that was Ms. Florez, I believe.

VENIREPERSON 49:

That other lady too.

THE COURT:

We'll talk to them privately.

MR. LANCE:

Is there anybody else now that there has been a little bit of discussion thinks that I heard about this case? Anybody with that reaction? Your name for the record?

VENIREPERSON 18:

John Williams.

THE COURT:

You're number 18, are you not?

VENIREPERSON 18:

I don't know.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes, he is.

THE COURT:

He's number 18. Great. I got you down.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Mr. Williams. Anyone else we should talk to that may have heard something in the media? I don't see any other hand hands.

At this point I have asked most of my questions. I have a general follow-up question.

Is there any reason, whether I asked about it or the prosecutor asked about it, is there a question you have in your mind whether you can sit on the jury and be fair and impartial and the attorneys haven't asked it yet? That happens from time to time. The attorneys are not perfect.

You're sitting there thinking, "I know something about this case" or for whatever reason you're thinking, "I have a question whether I can be fair and impartial and nobody asked the right question yet." If you have that feeling now, please raise your hand so we can discuss that. I do see one hand. Please stand and state your name for the record.

VENIREPERSON 60:

Rebecca Sanchez.

MR. LANCE:

Is that something private?

VENIREPERSON 60:

I can tell you.

MR. LANCE:

Go ahead.

VENIREPERSON 60:

Basically, I don't have too much faith in the justice system, because -- nothing personal for anybody up there, but something happened to me and a best friend and, basically, the judge believed the officers over us, and it was basically, the officers used excessive force against me and a friend. And he stood up there and said he didn't do it, and he did do it.

MR. LANCE:

All right. And going back to what you opened with, you said, "I don't have too much faith in the justice system." That's just what you feel. We fairly would have a right to know that.

VENIREPERSON 60:

Yes, thank you.

MR. LANCE:

I appreciate that, That's the type of thing we probably didn't ask. Is there any other hand on that question? Whether or not we ask the topic, you know there is something bothering you that might stop you from being able to sit on the jury and doing the right thing or weigh the evidence?

Your name, please, for the record.

VENIREPERSON 1:

Mary Campbell. I don't know. I have a 24-year-old son. That's kind of been bothering me through this whole thing.

MR. LANCE:

I want you to stop me from putting words in your mouth. Are you saying you are feeling some sympathy towards the Defendant, Mr. Byron Case, or you're worried that you might feel too much sympathy for Mr. Byron Case or someone his age?

VENIREPERSON 1:

Probably.

MR. LANCE:

I'll try to ask a question in response to that. Do you think you could set aside the thoughts or idea you're having about your son and simply listen to the witnesses and weigh this case on the evidence, or do you think that would keep bugging you, this idea about your son being his age, and it would creep into your mind even if you --

VENIREPERSON 1:

Well, it has been this whole time, but, you know, I would like to think that I could be open minded, yes.

MR. LANCE:

All right. Of course the attorneys love to hear that. We all think we would like to be considered open minded. But I hope I don't sound like I'm picking you. I have to ask one more question.

Do you think you would be leaning toward the defense in this case if you are picked as a juror for the final jury?

VENIREPERSON 1:

When you say it like that, no. But I think that I have been sitting here thinking about his age and my son.

MR. LANCE:

Close age. I think that's all I can ask you for now, Ms. Campbell. Might have a follow-up later. Thank you for raising your hand.

Judge, may counsel approach the bench?

THE COURT:

You bet.

MR. LANCE:

Oh, I'm sorry.

THE COURT:

Yes.

VENIREPERSON 27:

Dorothy Davis. I have a problem with the drug abuse. This is bothering me, about the drug use and the fact that she got immunity from prosecution.

MR. LANCE:

All right, Ms. Davis. First of all, I appreciate you raising your hand. I'm trying to think of the right question to follow-up on that. It's obviously been weighing on your mind as you're sitting here thinking about it.

Do you think, if you were picked for this jury, the final 12 people on the jury, do you think you might be leaning a little bit against the State's attorneys before the evidence opened?

VENIREPERSON 27:

The reason I'm having a problem, I'm a teacher, and I work with students who are crack babies, and I have a hard time reconciling the drug use issue.

MR. LANCE:

All right. I appreciate that, especially if you're a teacher. As you search your mind, do you think you might be leaning in favor of this side or leaning in favor of the prosecutor's side?

VENIREPERSON 27:

It's just tough to think why she was given inununity. It's just like she hasn't taken responsibility. My mind is going through has she taken responsibility for her actions or is she just given a way out? I'm having a lot of problems with that.

MR. LANCE:

All right. it's weighing on your mind and you want us to know.

VENIREPERSON 27:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Thanks for speaking up.

If I need to stop, I'll let you know. Otherwise just keep going. I'll allow you to ask individual questions, and then I'll allow Mr. Fry and we'll be done.

MR. FRY:

In terms of order, if you leave that door open, I'll reserve that for him.

THE COURT:

Okay. What do you got?

MR. LANCE:

Nothing.

THE COURT:

Did you have something you want say?

MR. LANCE:

No. We were just talking about the question I'm going to ask.

THE COURT:

Here is the other concern. If you want, Mr. Fry, him to ask his individual questions and then you ask your individual questions, if you're at the box now, you can ask them now and have Fry go last. Individual questions are designed by follow-up from the other person's voir dire, so do you want to go now or have David do his thing?

MR. LANCE:

I just want to get done.

THE COURT:

All right.

Go ahead and finish, and then we'll let Mr. Fry ask his individual questions.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

MR. LANCE:

I'm sorry, Judge.

THE COURT:

Mr. Lance, if you have some individual questions generated by the State's voir dire, I'll allow you to ask those, and I'll give Mr. Fry the same courtesy.

MR. LANCE:

The group questions are done. As Judge Atwell indicated, I'm going to try to follow-up with some individuals, follow-up on some things that were mentioned earlier. Maybe longer than earlier.

I wanted to start with Ms. Phillips, number 12. Ms. Phillips, I wanted to follow-up. You said that you knew Mr. Bob Beaird --

VENIREPERSON 12:

Uh-huh.

MR. LANCE:

-- who is the boss of these two attorneys. First of all, is it fair to say that Bob Beaird is a friend?

VENIREPERSON 12:

Well, he's a friend of my family. I haven't talked to him in years.

So, yeah, I guess you would say he's a friend, because he's a friend of my parents and grandparents. We don't have a lot of contact with him.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. Friend, but not an extremely close friend?

VENIREPERSON 12:

Right.

MR. LANCE:

The reason I'm bringing it back up again, I want to ask, if you're sure you feel comfortable sitting on a jury. I guess I sound paranoid, but I'm afraid you might be leaning a little bit in favor of these people's boss since he's a friend of the family. Are you sure you could be unbiased to both sides?

VENIREPERSON 12:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Let me ask you this. If you're picked for the jury, there is only 12 of you in the end. You're picked for the jury, you're listening to the evidence, if you decide this isn't enough evidence, I don't think this guy did it, I'm going to have to vote not guilty, would you feel comfortable voting not guilty based on the evidence and running into Bob Beaird with the family one day and say, "I had to vote not guilty. There wasn't any evidence."

Would you feel comfortable doing that?

VENIREPERSON 12:

Yes, I would.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Phillips, for letting me follow-up.

There is a Ms. Pamela Adams. Would you stand, please. Earlier today you indicated your son's father works in law enforcement.

VENIREPERSON 38:

Right.

MR. LANCE:

The right person, right? I needed a little more detail.

VENIREPERSON 38:

He's a Jackson County sheriff's deputy.

MR. LANCE:

Does he have a title like patrol officer or detective or anything?

VENIREPERSON 38:

No.

MR. LANCE:

The prosecutors were making clear -- I mean, even they asked about the Sheriff's Department. That's the agency that investigated this case. Is there anything about this family relationship or whatever you want to call it, is there anything about that that might have you leaning in favor of the prosecutor's side of the case before you hear the evidence?

VENIREPERSON 38:

No.

MR. LANCE:

You would be able to put that relationship aside and strictly listen to the evidence?

VENIREPERSON 38:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you, Ms. Adams. Ms. White, number 17. I had the same question about you. You know Mr. Bob Beaird, the boss of these two attorneys. Now, is it fair to say Bob Beaird is a friend of yours?

VENIREPERSON 17:

My father's close -- friend of my father's and his wife.

MR. LANCE:

Same question I asked earlier. If you're picked for the final 12 and you're listening to the evidence, if you realize I'm going to have to vote not guilty, it is not convincing, and I'm going to have to vote not guilty, would you feel comfortable doing that? Would you be able to vote not guilty, run into Bob Bcaird sometime when he's with your dad and tell him, "I had to vote not guilty"? Would you feel comfortable?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Are you sure you could do that?

VENIREPERSON 17:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

Thank you. Ms. Dorothy Davis, I'm going to ask you to stand. Sorry, but I had to come back to you. You had some questions about the case and maybe a witness used some drugs. I want to follow-up on that. You said that might cause you to question the case, right? Is that basically what you said?

VENIREPERSON 27:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

My follow-up to that is: Do you think you would be capable of still being a fair and impartial jurorthat you could wait, hear all the evidence, and you understand, if you're picked for the jury, you'll get to meet the witness. You could listen to whatever reason they had for waiting three years. You could hear the witness and then decide and --

VENIREPERSON 27:

I don't understand why she waited three years.

MR. LANCE:

Do you understand that you could listen to the evidence and then decide?

I'm not asking a very artful question. You've heard that before, but are you telling us that you've already decided the case or --

VENIREPERSON 27:

No, I'm not deciding the case, because I know there is other circumstances why she probably waited three years. I would like to know why she waited three years. I could have an open mind to determine why she waited three years. I could hear both sides and make a decision.

MR. LANCE:

All right. I think you may have said what I was going to ask next. Do you think you can wait before making up your mind, listen to all the evidence, and then decide this case?

VENIREPERSON 27:

Yes.

MR. LANCE:

So the issues you had in the back of your mind about drug usage, does that influence you to the point you can't be fair?

VENIREPERSON 27:

No. Because I know there are other circumstances.

MR. LANCE:

And you will hear other witnesses too that might impact on you. So final question, do you believe, as you're standing right there, you're going to be fair and impartial to both sides if you're picked?

It's just made me stop and think for a second, really think about it, okay? Drug use, is that going to be heavily weighted into this case or not? I have to stop and think -- put that aside. What else does she have to say? What other evidence might she present to the case?

MR. FRY:

Bottom line is, because of the delay, the drugs or the immunity, have you made up your mind that you can't believe her for either one or all three reasons?

VENIREPERSON 27:

No.

MR. FRY:

And the judge is going to instruct you to not base your decision until you have seen the witness and been examined by me or our office and cross examined, and you could keep your mind open through that whole process and not prejudge her already, that you can believe her?

VENIREPERSON 27:

No, I can't prejudge her, because Eke I said, there are other circumstances that might say why she didn't come forward until this time. She was 15 years old at the time, and a lot of times I know from students I deal with, they just keep everything inside, because they can't cope.

MR. LANCE:

No objection.

MS. CRAYON:

No objection.

THE COURT:

Sixty.

MR. FRY:

Sixty? I'm sorry.

MS. CRAYON:

And 47, yes, agreed.

THE COURT:

Is that all right with you, Mr. Lance?

MR. LANCE:

No objection.

THE COURT:

What about 56?

MR. FRY:

I agree.

MR. LANCE:

No objection.

THE COURT:

All right. I'm going to have -- what I'll do is I'm going to ask some other folks to stay for questioning. I'll have those people stay, and I'll excuse them right now.

MR. LANCE:

That way they blend in.

THE COURT:

Is that all right?

MR. LANCE:

I like that idea.

THE COURT:

I'm going to basically pretty much have the rest of the folks stick around. I'll talk to them, and we'll get it done, don't you think?

MR. FRY:

That's fine. I would also point out some of the people that wanted to come up and have private hearings with you are pretty obvious strikes for cause. We may have some of that cut down as well.

THE COURT:

Do you want to fire away at it right now?

MS. CRAYON:

Well, number 44 -- I think she -- is that what you're asking?

THE COURT:

Do you have any problem with 44?

MR. LANCE:

I join.

THE COURT:

Okay. 44 is gone.

MS. CRAYON:

I have number 40 listed as being pretty obvious too.

MR. LANCE:

I join in that one too.

THE COURT:

All right. 40 and 44 are gone.

MR. FRY:

Fifty-six.

THE COURT:

We already did 56.

MR. FRY:

Okay. Number 28. That's the media situation.

MS. CRAYON:

She said the one eyewitness thing.

MR. FRY:

I mean, her wanting to come up here privately about the media, what she has heard. I think she said she couldn't listen to the case with one eyewitness.

MR. LANCE:

I'll join in that one too, Judge.

THE COURT:

You don't care?

MR. LANCE:

Yeah. I'll join.

THE COURT:

That's Ms. Davis. 28 is Ms. Davis. All right.

MS. CRAYON:

Number 58 was the same problem.

MR. LANCE:

I think she is gone.

THE COURT:

She is already gone?

MS. CRAYON:

Number 55, his religious beliefs prevented him from sitting in judgment.

THE COURT:

Any objection to that?

MR. LANCE:

No. It wouldn't do any good.

THE COURT:

All right. Sixty, 47, 40, 44, 28 and 55 all by agreement; is that right?

MR. LANCE:

Yes.

MS. CRAYON:

I have one more.

THE COURT:

What is it?

MS. CRAYON:

Number 5.

MR. LANCE:

I'll agree.

THE COURT:

All right. I'm going to have these people stay, and I'll have the other people stay.

MS. CRAYON:

I think there are some more. Do you want me to give you more?

THE COURT:

If it's quick and you can agree to it.

MS. CRAYON:

Number 7.

MR. LANCE:

I agree on number 7.

THE COURT:

I'm not going to hash these out. If there is any argument, I don't want to do it now.

MR. LANCE:

Can I throw out one?

THE COURT:

Sure.

MR. LANCE:

I had down 15. He said he couldn't be fair.

MS. CRAYON:

I think that' s something we need to talk about.

THE COURT:

Anything else? I think that's enough. Let's get these people going. Is that all right with you guys?

MR. LANCE:

That's fine.

(The proceedings returned to open court.)

THE COURT:

We're going to take a recess, folks, and the questioning is done. So we're going to try to do some work to shorten the process while you are at lunch, There are some of you we need to talk to in some fashion, so bear with me.

The following jurors I would like to stick around, and we'll get to you as quickly as we can. This may not the order of the list, so bear with me.

Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Scott.

MS. CRAYON:

Judge, do you have the numbers as well?

THE COURT:

Ms. Sanchez is 60. Ms. Scott is 47. Ms. Carter is 40. Ms. Hernandez is 44. Ms. Young is 28. Mr. King is 5. Ms. Stewart is 7. Mr. Thompson, number 55, and Mr. Edwards, number 56. All those folks stay.

Now, in addition, juror number 26, Ms. Moore, and juror nwnber 49, Ms. Florez. I believe that covers it, I think. Anyone else?

MR. LANCE:

18, Mr. Williams.

THE COURT:

That's correct. 18, Mr. Williams. Anyone else want to talk to me privately?

MR. FRY:

Number 36 had a hardship.

THE COURT:

So juror number 36 is Ms. Garcia. All right. If you would stay also.

MR. FRY:

Number 50 was a hardship.

THE COURT:

Number 50 is a hardship also, and that is Ms. Morris. All right. Okay.

So those jurors, if you would, stay too and, basically, if you would all -- why don't you -- the ones that I have called, just stay put and we'll place you in a situation here in just moment. The rest of you are excused and may go to lunch.

Now, here is what I propose we do: I'm going to have the lawyers make their selection while you're at lunch so that, with a little luck, when you get back here, we'll be almost done. Okay?

Now, we got a fair amount of work to do, so there is no reason for you to be back here any sooner than 1:30 or a little after. Does 1:30 sound about right? At 1:30 I want you to be outside there available to me. Not in here, but outside available to me by 1:30.

Now, when I ask you to come back in, you need not sit where you're seated now. Because we will have the jury selected. in fact, what I'll do, I don't want anybody seated up here, because I will call out the names of the jurors, and we will give them your seats for the trial. So when you come back in, do not sit up there. Sit back out there.

So again, the Court again reminds you of what you were told at the first recess of the Court. Until you retire to consider your verdict, you must not discuss this case among yourselves or with others or permit anyone to discuss it in your hearing. You should not form or express any opinion about the case until it is finally given to you to decide. Do not read, view, or listen to any newspaper, radio, or television report of the trial.

(A recess was taken.)

THE COURT:

There are five of you I noted to talk with separately. I'm going to ask you to step outside briefly in the hallway, and Greg will call you back in. Those folks, I would like you to step outside, are juror number 26, Ms. Moore; juror number 49, Ms. Florez; I believe juror number 18, Mr. Williams; juror number 36, Ms. Garcia; juror number 50, Ms. Morris, if you all would step outside.

Now, for the rest of you, I've gotten together with the lawyers. We obviously have a lot more people than we need to select a jury, and we believe from various answers that you have given orhardships that you have expressed, we think probably in this case it would be best to excuse you from jury service at this point in time.

In doing so, we want to make sure that we emphasize to all of you how much we appreciate your service in this case and have all of you understand that, but for participation of folks like you in this process, the process won't work, and we can't select a jury that can hear these cases and give people a fair trial.

It's because of the efforts of folks just like you that our system works so very well, and we appreciate it very much.

But rather than have you wait until over the lunch hour and the like, you all are excused from jury service. I would ask if you just do the following, if you not discuss the case with any other members of the jury panel and, if you would -- you want to get the badges?

THE LAW CLERK:

Sure, Judge.

THE COURT:

Do they need to go to the third floor or not?

THE LAW CLERK:

I don't think they have to. I don't think they have the checks ready.

THE COURT:

We'll send out a certificate and a check for your services and the check is -- it won't break the bank account, I'll tell you that.

So with that being said, we really really as much as I can emphasize, please accept my sincere appreciation for your efforts.

With that being said, you all are excused. Have a great weekend.

(The venire panelists left the courtroom.)

THE COURT:

Next thing, for logistical purposes, I want to be sure I have these people down. I have just excused the following folks: Number 60 is off the list by agreement; is that true?

MR. LANCE:

Yes.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

If there is disagreement, tell me. Number 47 is by agreement.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Number 40 is by agreement.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Number 44 is by agreement.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Number 28 is by agreement.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Number 55 is by agreement.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

THE COURT:

As is 56.

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

VENIREPERSON 26:

My son was sexually molested about 17 years ago, and we did not find out about it until just a few weeks ago. He's 27 years old now. And the guy was in prison for otners that he had done, but our son never came forward. So he's told us now, and it's a hard situation.

THE COURT:

I can imagine. Let me give you two thoughts on this and see where it takes us. First of all, as far as I know, there is nothing in this case that has to do with sexual abuse or molestation. Am I correct?

MS. CRAYON:

That's correct.

MR. LANCE:

Correct.

THE COURT:

So I say that to you. Now, the other issue is, you've had this trauma of this event happening in the recent past.

VENIREPERSON 26:

My husband is a drug user and alcoholic because of it.

THE COURT:

Knowing what you know about the case --

VENIREPERSON 26:

I don't think it would affect me, but I thought the Court should know.

THE COURT:

So you feel you can sit here and listen to the evidence and judge the case only on the law that I give you and the evidence that you hear?

VENIREPERSON 26:

Yes.

THE COURT:

You think deep inside you could give both sides a fair trial?

VENIREPERSON 26:

Yes.

MS. CRAYON:

No questions.

MR. LANCE:

No questions.

THE COURT:

Thank you, ma'am. We'll see you at 1:30.

Let's get number 49 in. Ms. Florez, I think. Amanda Florez.

Ms. Florez, how are you doing?

VENIREPERSON 49:

Alrighty.

THE COURT:

As I recall, you may have read or heard something about this case?

VENIREPERSON 49:

Yes, I have a good memory.

THE COURT:

What's the source? Tell us the source.

VENIREPERSON 49:

Television.

THE COURT:

Tell us what you remember.

VENIREPERSON 49:

First of all, I consider media news entertainment. Okay?

Because they don't always get the facts. The facts are out there. But I just remember, I would have to say, a group of young people, four or five, one of them got killed. And I remember the boy got -- committed suicide a few days later. And it had something to do with, like, dark makeup and dark clothing and stuff like that. That's -- I don't remember names or faces or anything like that. And I did live in the area at the time, and I'm familiar with Lincoln Cemetery.

THE COURT:

This was a TV source you heard about?

VENIREPERSON 49:

Yes, I'm sure, news media.

THE COURT:

Do you feel you could set aside what you have heard and give both sides a fair trial?

VENIREPERSON 49:

Definitely.

THE COURT:

You understand anything you heard, not only would it be unfair, it might be inaccurate, but even more than that, is the rules are you got to judge the case only from what you heard in court; do you understand that?

VENIREPERSON 49:

Right. That's why I said news media is really entertainment. They don't care about the facts. They like to entertain people with bizarre stuff.

THE COURT:

All right. Do you wish any follow-up questions?

MS. CRAYON:

Just you will base your decision on what you hear in the courtroom and the evidence that you have?

VENIREPERSON 49:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Mr. Lance, did you want to follow-up?

MR. LANCE:

Ms. Florez, have you formed any opinions as to guilt or innocence?

VENIREPERSON 49:

No, I have not.

THE COURT:

Thank you, Ms. Florez. See you at 1:30.

As we finish these, if you want to make a motion, you can make it now. I'm not suggesting you should, but as you go through these, if after the inquiry, if you want to make a cause motion, you could make it at that time.

MR. FRY:

And not wait until 1:30?

THE COURT:

Maybe. If you're going to talk about her, I'm not going to rule it at this time.

I'm kind of reading your mind, Mr. Lance. If you're into this "she knows about the goth thing, this, that and the other", the answer is I want to see what I have available before I rule on that motion before we get into it.

MR. LANCE:

He was reading my mind.

MS. EIKERMANN:

He does that.

THE COURT:

Let's have number 18, which is Mr. Williams, John Williams.

The other thing is sometimes they're not even part of the panel. Decisions you don't have to make are the best ones. They're hard to blow.

First of all, I think you maybe had some media issues. Is that the what --

VENIREPERSON 18:

Yes.

THE COURT:

I don't think you were on the hardship list.

VENIREPERSON 18:

I asked to be put on it because I was thinking -- because I've always wanted to be on a murder trial. But I own my own lawn care business, and I'm the only employee.

If I'm off four days, I lose a lot of business.

THE COURT:

I understand that. That's the hardship issue?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Yeah.

THE COURT:

Tell me about the media. What did you hear?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Actually, I think it was my mom's aunt. I went to a funeral around the time of the murder, because someone mentioned there was just a murder out there.

THE COURT:

Do you remember, any -- so in other words, your source of information really isn't media. It's word of mouth from someone else?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Right. And I think I also saw it in The Examiner.

THE COURT:

From your best recollection, can you tell me from both word of mouth or Independence Examiner what you remember about this?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Just that.

THE COURT:

Any other details?

VENIREPERSON 18:

No.

THE COURT:

Is that fact -- first of all, you understand, if you were a juror, you would have to judge this case only on the evidence you heard?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Right.

THE COURT:

Could you set aside anything you have heard and judge this case only on the law that I give you and the evidence?

VENIREPERSON 18:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Ms. Crayon, any additional questions?

MS. CRAYON:

I don't believe so.

THE COURT:

Mr. Lance?

MR. LANCE:

Yes. From what you remember hearing in The Examiner, have you formed any opinions as to guilt or innocence?

VENIREPERSON 18:

No.

MR. LANCE:

I notice you hesitated.

VENIREPERSON 18:

Well, I mean the drug thing has been brought up and nobody has said if he had done drugs, because my cousin is now in Leavenworth, and he almost killed his daughter with meth. So that I would have a little problem with.

MR. LANCE:

Okay. Well, it's possible that that could come in at trial, that the Defendant at some point had used drugs. It may come out.

VENIREPERSON 18:

That might be kind of -- because he lied about it and everything else.

THE COURT:

You mean your cousin did?

VENIREPERSON 18:

My cousin lied about how his daughter, 2-year-old daughter, got a hold of meth and MiniThins, and everything else.

THE COURT:

MiniThins?

VENIREPERSON 18:

MiniThins to make his meth.

MR. LANCE:

But, if we have a witness that used drugs, do you feel this would --

VENIREPERSON 18:

I don't know.

THE COURT:

Let me ask this way: The question isn't whether it would affect you. It might or might not. That's for you to judge. But is the fact that there will be drug usage, will that prevent you from giving either side a fair trial, that fact in and of itself?

VENIREPERSON 18:

I don't think so. I think it would make me question more and harder for me to come to a decision, but either way, I would have to be persuaded in more ways than one, if that makes sense.

THE COURT:

Do you want to follow-up?

MS. CRAYON:

Actually, I just wanted to ask a question about is there anybody else who can assist you just during those four days?

VENIREPERSON 18:

No. I apply pesticides.

THE COURT:

Do you want to follow-up, Mr. Lance?

MR. LANCE:

No.

THE COURT:

We'll see. you at 1:30.

If it's all right, I'd just as soon you not ask those questions, because I want to make the call on that. Sometimes these people -- to me, if we need that guy, he's going to go without his lawn business. So I just as soon -- that's why I'm doing it individually.

MR. LANCE:

What did she ask?

THE COURT:

She asked about whether other people could, which is actually a question I should have asked, other than some people are kind of funny the way they do this stuff.

Eighteen I'm going to hold in abeyance for now, unless somebody wants to make a motion. If I got enough people, I'll probably let him go on the hardship. I just don't know the count yet.

I'd let you resurrect it, but I want to figure out what my universe of strikes is first.

Number 36 is Deborah Garcia.

Ms. Garcia, did you have a hardship?

VENIREPERSON 36:

I don't know if -- my company has enrolled me in a class for Monday and Tuesday for Microsoft to go to class, and I don't know if that's considered a hardship or not. I didn't realize this would be several days.

THE COURT:

What kind of company do you work for?

VENIREPERSON 36:

Caldex Break Products, and it's a Microsoft Windows 2000 class.

THE COURT:

In other words, you work with computers, and this is a training class?

VENIREPERSON 36:

There are three of us that are supposed to go, and I don't know if they could get their money back. I don't know. But I thought I would tell you I was supposed to be in Overland Park Monday and Tuesday.

THE COURT:

And we'll take that into serious consideration, and we'll get back with you on it. We'll see you at 1:30. Thank you very much.

Before we bring Ms. Morris in, did she make some response that made her strikable for cause?

MR. FRY:

Violent.

MS. EIKERMANN:

She can't go into evidence about blood.

MR. LANCE

I was going to try to strike her.

THE COURT:

Do you want to agree she can be stricken for cause?

MR. FRY:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Have her come in. I think we're going to have plenty of jurors by a lot, but I just want to make sure. Tbs is by agreement; is that right?

MS. CRAYON:

Yes.

MR. LANCE

Yes.

THE COURT:

Ms. Morris, we've decided, based on some responses we've had and your candid candor we very much appreciate, we're going to excuse you from jury service. You need not come back at 1:30. Give your badge to Greg and you'll be done. And they should send you a certificate and a check.

But before you go, I want to personally thank you for your service very much. As I told some of the other folks, it's people like you that come and sacrifice your time that make this system work. So I'm sure the lawyers on both sides appreciate your efforts very much.

VENIREPERSON 50:

Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT:

Thank you very much.

Okay. Greg, are there two hardships that didn't raise their hand at first?

THE LAW CLERK:

Yes, sir. Ms. Walker.

MS. CRAYON:

This is the one getting married.

THE COURT:

On Saturday.

MS. CRAYON:

She has an ex-husband and an ex-fiance.

THE COURT:

Okay. Ms. Walker, Greg tells me there was a hardship you wanted to talk to me about.

VENIREPERSON 32:

Well, if we're through Thursday night, we're okay. I'm getting married next Saturday in Warsaw.

THE COURT:

In Warsaw, Missouri?

VENIREPERSON 32:

Yes.

THE COURT:

I can assure you that won't be a problem.

VENIREPERSON 32:

For sure?

THE COURT:

For sure.

VENIREPERSON 32:

You'll pick up the bill and everything if there is?

THE COURT:

I can tell you right now, I'm supposed to be at the Lake of the Ozarks Thursday at 6 o'clock myself, and we'll have alternates. So I can't tell you whether you're going to be on this jury or not, but I can tell you, you won't go past Thursday. I can tell you that.

VENIREPERSON 32:

Okay. That will work then.

THE COURT:

All right. Thank you very much. What's the next one?

THE LAW CLERK:

Mr. Miller.

THE COURT:

Bring him in.

Mr. Miller, how are you doing?

VENIREPERSON 24:

Pretty good.

THE COURT:

My understanding is you wanted to speak to Greg about a hardship?

VENIREPERSON 24:

It's not a hardship. It was a follow-up. I wanted to get the question clear. It was about working at a law enforcement agency. Is that currently or ever?

THE COURT:

Have you ever worked for law enforcement agency?

VENIREPERSON 24:

I was hired by the Missouri Highway Patrol back in 1980 as a recruit, and I only stayed two weeks, and I don't know. I got thinking, well, that may count.

THE COURT:

I appreciate you thinking about it.

VENIREPERSON 24:

But I thought, well, I was there two weeks. But then I thought, well, did he say ever. It was about 20 years ago.

THE COURT:

The fact that you had a two-week employment history with the Highway Patrol, would that affect your ability to be fair to both sides in this case?

VENIREPERSON 24:

Right. Not at all.

THE COURT:

You could judge the case and the law and evidence and nothing else?

VENIREPERSON 24:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Ms. Crayon, do you wish to follow-up?

MS. CRAYON:

No questions.

THE COURT:

Mr. Lance?

MR. LANCE:

Was there anything about that two-week experience that was good or bad that might have you thinking about that, thinking back to that when you're trying to listen to the evidence?

VENIREPERSON 24:

No, not at all. Actually, it's a very long process to get hired by the Highway Patrol. In the course of that, like, two-year process, I kind of decided against it, but then, when they called, I thought -- and then when I got there, I was like no, that's not for me. It was that type deal.

Technically, I did work for them for two weeks, but I was never a law enforcement officer. I couldn't remember exactly if you said currently or ever.

MR. LANCE:

That was my question. That was my question.

VENIREPERSON 24:

I wanted to make sure.

THE COURT:

Appreciate your diligence very much., So we'll go ahead and see you at 1:30. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Let me go through these numbers to make sure I got the numbers right so far.

So far the following are off: 3, 5, 7, 8, 19, 26.

MS. CRAYON:

Twenty-six?

THE COURT:

Not 26. 28. I'm sorry. 40, 44, 47, 50, 55, 56, 58 and 60.

MS. CRAYON:

That's what I have.

MR. LANCE:

Agreed.

THE COURT:

So that gives us 14. So that would give us 46. For two alternates, we only need 28, right?

MR. FRY:

We have one more strikes for cause.

THE COURT:

So we got plenty. Right?

We got plenty of jurors. All right. On the first page, State have any additional -- keeping in mind there are a couple we held in abeyance. Anybody that you want to discuss on the first page, which is 1 through 19?

MR. FRY:

Your Honor, we would like to move to strike number 1 who expressed her thoughts about her son and identifying with the Defendant. It would be concern with thinking about her own son.

MR. LANCE:

Judge, I don't object. I had other reasons why I may not want her.

THE COURT:

Well, if you're telling me you're not going to object, I'm going to sustain the challenge.

MR. LANCE:

I'm not objecting to the State's strike.

THE COURT:

we'll sustain number 1. Anybody else on that first page?

MR. FRY:

First page being 1 through 19?

THE COURT:

Yes. Anybody you got?

MR. LANCE:

Yeah. Judge, we move to strike number 15, Mr. Ramirez. He used to be good friends with the State's witness named Epperson.

And I believe Ramirez said the magic words, that he didn't think he would be fair.

MR. FRY:

I consent. I think it's too risky.

THE COURT:

All right. We'll show consent. Any others on that page? Do we want to let 14 go and not have to hassle with him whining about his business?

MR. FRY:

Could I have a business card first?

THE COURT:

What will you -- I'm just saying, what do you think?

MR. FRY:

That's fine.

MR. LANCE:

Yes.

THE COURT:

I don't think it's a hardship that's sending me off the moon, but it's a distraction. I'm not going to do it unless you both agree. If you both agree, I'll take him off.

MR. LANCE:

Defense agrees.

THE COURT:

14 is off. All right. So that gives us -- on the first page, we go forth with I'm on the first page.

Now, Mr. Williams had the hardship that I didn't grant.

MR. FRY:

I couldn't get him to say enough to get him off.

THE COURT:

I think his hardship is just off the moon. I don't think he's particularly with it is what's going on. If you guys want to take him off, I'll take him off.

MR. FRY:

I would agree for cause.

MR. LANCE:

Judge, defense agrees to take him off.

THE COURT:

I agree.

MR. LANCE:

He was kind of all over the place.

THE COURT:

I don't think he would be a very good juror. We're going to take him off. That's number 14. So that gives us 10.

Let's go to page 2. Beginning with juror number 20, any additional strikes by the State? 20 through and including 38, any additionals? We've already taken 28 off.

MR. FRY:

We have none.

THE COURT:

None by the State on that page? Okay.

MR. LANCE:

Judge, we had the two hardships.

THE COURT:

Do you have any 20 through 38?

MR. LANCE:

I have the two hardships, 36 and 32.

THE COURT:

I think we ought to let Ms. Garcia go to the computer class, don't you think?

MR. LANCE:

Yeah. I'm moving to strike her for hardship, but I'm also moving to strike 32.

MR. FRY:

She doesn't care if she goes.

THE COURT:

Well, okay. You don't have any for cause on 20.

Who do you have, Mr. Lance, from 20 through 38?

MR. LANCE:

I had Garcia and Walker. For some reason, this wedding, she called it a hardship. I'm concerned we should let them both go, 32 and 36.

THE COURT:

Hold on a second. If I took those two people off, we would be at 26 at the end of this page, and we only have to go to 28.

MR. LANCE:

Defense is moving to get rid of those two, 32 and 36.

MR. FRY:

I don't believe the record reflects that they have a hardship, Judge.

MR. LANCE:

Judge, we let Mr. Lawn Business go for hardship already.

THE COURT:

Anything else?

MS. CRAYON:

Well, I guess -- go ahead.

THE COURT:

Anything else? I'm going to sustain it as to Deborah Garcia and deny it as to Elizabeth Walker. That gives us 27. Let's check and see.

Let's make this simple. Anybody have a motion as relates to juror number 39?

MR. LANCE:

No.

MR. FRY:

No.

THE COURT:

So that gives us the regular panel, right?

THE LAW CLERK:

Yes, sir.

THE COURT:

And then among 41, 42, 43, and 45, are there any strikes for cause?

MS. CRAYON:

No.

MR. FRY:

We would move to strike juror number 45. We believe she slept during the jury selection of the State and defense.

MR. LANCE:

I don't object.

THE COURT:

Hold on.

THE LAW CLERK:

I thought it was 28, including the two alternates.

THE COURT:

That's right. It is 28, including the two alternates. So we're done.You're exactly right, Greg. Thanks for that. So basically the regular strike panel ends with Sandra Smith. Would end with her. And then the alternates would be numbers 37 -- wait. 35, 37, 38 and 39. Okay?

MR. LANCE:

We're done through George Torres?

MS. CRAYON:

Just two alternates? As long as you have them, to have them come over the weekend, what do you think?

THE COURT:

Do you want to sit a third alternate?

MR. FRY:

I have never done a weekend thing. Out of an abundance of caution --

THE COURT:

If we do a third, that means they each get two strikes. So we would need an additional seven. So we would need -- instead of 28, we would need I think 31. Because you got 12 seated. You got 12 peremptories. That's 24 and 7 would be 31. See if that's right.

So then instead of stopping at George Torres, we would go William Evans. Any strikes for cause I'm missing in that group?

I don't think there are.

So the regular panel, excluding strikes for cause, is 1 through 34, six apiece, and then the alternate panel is each side gets two, and it's 35 through 43. Okay?

Tell you what, if it's all right, go ahead and make your strikes and get them to Horton and, if you want to take -- if you guys want to stay here, you can take him to the jury room if you want to. Would that be helpful?

Either we can go to the jury room or you can.

It's easier for us to be up there since we strike last.

That's fine.

(A recess was taken.)

(Tbe following proceedings were had in the courtroom out of the presence and hearing of the venire panel:)

THE COURT:

Do you want to tell me your strikes in order of the list, if you would Mr. Fry?

MR. FRY:

State one is Juror 9.

State two is Juror 13.

State three, next page, juror 23.

THE COURT:

That's Mr. Perez?

MR. FRY:

Correct. State four is number 27, Ms. Davis.

State five is 29, Mr. Martinez.

State six is number 33, Mr. Rodriguez.

The alternate one, number 35, Mr. Johnson.

State alternate two is number 43, Mr. Evans.

THE COURT:

Okay. Mr. Lance, do you want to do that in the same order?

MR. LANCE:

Yes. We struck number 11, Hall.

THE COURT:

That's Defendant's one?

MR. LANCE:

Yeah. Defendant's two is 16, Nguyen.

THE COURT:

Defendant's two is Nguyen.

MR. LANCE:

Defendant's three is 21, Murphy. Defendant's four is 22, Lewis.

THE COURT:

Twenty-two is Defendant's four.

MR. LANCE:

Defendant's five is number 26, Moore.

Second Alternate will be George Torres, which will be 14.

And Kathleen Carter will be the 15th juror and the third alternate; is that agreeable?

MR. LANCE:

Agreed.

MR FRY:

Yes.

THE COURT:

Any reason we shouldn't bring them back in?

MR. FRY:

No reason.

THE COURT:

When we get done, I'm going to excuse them, and I think what I'm going to do -- couple things. When we get done, there has been some media requests, and I want to run them by you. We'll get the jury out of here and deal with that.

And then the other issue I want to talk to you about is it seems to me what I'm going to do is just remind them, since it's the weekend, I'm going to emphasize to not talk about it. And I was thinkng, Mr. Lance, I would tell them -- I don't know necessarily there will be any media coverage, but they should be on guard against that. Do you have any problem with that?

Juror number 1 is Linda Collins.

Juror number 2 is Melissa Martin.

Juror number 3 is James Robinson.

Juror number 4 is Patricia Turner.

Juror number 5 is Ruth Phillips.

Juror number 6 is Karen White.

Juror number 7 is Jessica Baker.

Juror number 8 -- is is Alan or Christopher Miller?

JUROR 8 (VENIREPERSON 24):

I go by "Chris".

THE COURT:

Mr. Miller. Juror number 9 is Richard Parker.

Juror number 10 is Stephanie Brown.

Juror number 11 is Susan Roberts.

Juror number 12 is Sandra Smith.

Juror number 13 is Pamela Adams.

Juror number 14 is George Torres. Did I pronounce that right, sir?

JUROR 14 (VENIREPERSON 39):

Torres.

THE COURT:

Torres. Okay. And juror number 15 is Kathleen Carter.

Okay. First of all, I would like to talk to those of you who were not selected.

I wanted to emphasize to you how much I appreciate your service in this case and the fact that you were here to participate in this process.

It is because you were here and among those who participated in the process that we're able to have the kind of trials that we have and give justice to all people.

I've often said our system may not be a perfect one, but I think it's the best one on earth, and it's because of people like you that that sacrifice and give of your time and effort to participate in the jury system.

I know it's an inconvenience and hardship, but all of you should be complimented for what you did. I am convinced, because of people like you all across this country, we as a people are better for it and we are freer for it. Please accept my sincere appreciation for your services. You're done.

When you leave, you can give your badges to Greg, and you'll be mailed both a certificate and a check. As I think I mentioned to some of the other jurors, I would recommend not spending the check all at one place.

(Laughter)

With that being said, again, thank you so very much and have a great weekend. You all are excused. Thank you.

Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we're done for today. We'll start again on Monday morning. Before you leave today, what's going to happen is Greg is going to show you the jury room which is the room you'll be in when you're not in court dealing with the case.

The jury room is around the corner, and he'll show you where it is and how to get to there. There is a way to get to it without having to come through court. I think on Monday we're going to try to start the evidence around 9 o'clock.

I'm going to ask that you be in the jury room shortly before 9, and I suspect that usually Debra is here by 8 o'clock. There will be coffee and doughnuts there available for you probably by 8:15 or so. I would like you there shortly before 9 o'clock.

As I indicated to you, it's our desire to attempt to complete the evidence within three days or certainly by Thursday. With that in mind, I don't think that to be a problem. Normally what I do is I usually try to start sometime between 9 and 9:30 and finish between 4:30 and 5, usually giving an hour or hour and a half for lunch.

In order to make sure that we're done by Thursday, if we get a little behind, I would like to reserve the right -- I'll give you notice, we might stay a little bit past 5 a day or two if we need to get the evidence in. I think it's important we get this case to you by Thursday.

I don't think that's going to be a problem, but I thought I would give you some forewarning.

I'm going to read you this required instruction in a moment. Let me emphasize to you, you'll have the whole weekend before the time starts. So, obviously, don't be talking to anybody about the trial. You haven't heard any evidence yet. I don't anticipate or predict there will be any media coverage but, obviously, if you see a newspaper or radio or TV that talks about this case, make sure you divorce yourself from that.

Don't listen to any media coverage.

If by accident there is media coverage and you hear something about it, it's not the end of the world. Just get away from it as quickly as you can, and when you come back on Monday, let Mr. Cotton know about it.

Also, as was mentioned between now and the time the trial is over with, I think all of you -- it's best we all stay away from the area of Mount Washington Cemetery and the area where these allegations occurred.

With that being said, consistent with the Supreme Court Pattern Instruction Committee, I'm going to read you this instruction:

The Court again reminds you of what you were told at the first recess of the Court. Until you retire to consider your verdict, you must not discuss this case among yourselves or with others or permit anyone to discuss it in your hearing. You should not form or express any opinion about the case until it is finally given to you to decide.

Do not read, view, or listen to any newspaper, radio, or television report of the trial.

With that being said, if you would go with Mr. Cotton, and then you're free to go. We'll be in recess. All rise, please. Jury is free to go to the jury room with Mr. Cotton.

(The following proceedings were had in the courtroom in the presence and hearing of the jury)

THE COURT:

Ms. Crawford is on her way. There has been apparently a written request. I don't know whether it's timely for the Court's procedures, I'm not sure, but there was a written request from the Independence Examiner to allow a still photographer in the courtroom. There has possibly been some oral request for some Tv coverage.

My inclination -- I want to seek your input and kibitz about it. My inclination is as follows: I will likely not grant any TV coverage for this reason. It's very important for us in these cases that they follow the rules.

Since they're so late, under our procedures, I think, independent of what you all want to do, I likely will not let them do that. Because, if we start granting media requests that are not done timely, it's chaos for the Court.

My inclination -- what I generally do is -- what I frequently would do, I'm not crazy about giving the still photographer carte blanche in front of the jury when things are going on. But, basically, if he wants to come in and take a couple shots before the jury is seated and they want to use it, I generally let them do it. That's kind of my inclination.

Any thoughts or ideas?

MR. LANCE:

Judge, actually I think I'm right in line with you. I object to any TV coverage. I think it greatly enhances dangers next week that the jury is going to see something and we'll get a mistrial or handle it outside of the presence of the jury.

THE COURT:

I don't know. What's your experience? Some of the judges have allowed it when they want to do it, but I don't want to distract the jury. So, if they want to come in and get a flavor of what's going on with court that they can put on the front page, that's fine with me. But I would like to do it out of the presence of the jury would be my thinking. Is that okay with you?

MR. FRY:

We have no objection.

THE COURT:

All right.

MR. LANCE:

I can work with the still photos the way you were describing. I think that's a great idea.

THE COURT:

If that's all right with you all, that's how we'll do it. Both of them are untimely requests, but I'm going to let The Examiner do that in the manner I suggested.

Why don't we -- let's try to get here shortly before 9. I don't think there will be, but if there are any matters that need to be taken up, we can take it up.

The other thing is, when we get here, if there is any motions or legal record anybody wants to reassess I'll give you a chance to do that Monday morning.

Also, if either of you are going to use -- I'm sure you probably thought about this, but if there are going to be demonstratives used in opening, you might want to get here early so both sides can see what's going on.

We'll see you quarter, 10 till, Monday morning. Have a great weekend.

(Court was adjourned until April 29, 2002.)