Marihuana possession jury selection by Texas Mexico Law

<h1>Marihuana possession jury selection</h1> P R O C E E D I N G S (9:00 a.m.) (Open Court, Defendant Present) THE COURT: Cause No. 1311541, the State of Texas versus Nicolas Ramirez. Is the State ready? MR. MARCUM: State’s ready, Your Honor. THE COURT: And defense ready? MS. KEENE: We’re ready, Judge. THE COURT: All right. The State have any pretrial matters? MR. MARCUM: State does not, Your Honor. THE COURT: Does the defense have any pretrial matters? MS. KEENE: Not before voir dire. We’ll deal with the Motion in Limine before trial unless you wanna do it now. THE COURT: Yeah. Let’s do it — Let’s do it on Monday. Okay. Mr. Ramirez, go ahead and stand. I’m gonna arraign you now. Mr. Ramirez, you’ve been charged with the offense of driving while intoxicated with a blood or breath score of .15 or greater. The range of punishment is up to 365 days and/or a fine up to $2,000. You &emsp; understand that, sir? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: Okay. May I have the DA up here to read the information, please. MR. MARCUM: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And when you read it in trial, you don’t read the enhancement. (Information Read) MR. MARCUM: “Comes now the undersigned assistant district attorney of Tarrant County, Texas, in behalf of the State of Texas, and presents in and to County Criminal Court No. 7 of Tarrant County, Texas, that Nicolas A. Ramirez, hereinafter called defendant, in the county of Tarrant and state aforesaid, on or about the 2nd of January 2013, did then and there operate a motor vehicle in a public place while said defendant was intoxicated. “And it is further presented to said court that the analysis of the specimen of defendant’s breath in this case showed an alcohol concentration level of .15 or more at the time the analysis was performed.” THE COURT: To this offense do you plead guilty or not guilty? THE DEFENDANT: Not guilty, Your Honor. &emsp; THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. All right. Well, it looks like we’re one short, so we’ll just sit here for a while. We’ve got one missing, so we’ll wait a minute. (Courtroom break from 9:54 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) THE BAILIFF: Everyone’s present, Judge. THE COURT: All right. Let’s bring ’em in. (Prospective jury panel seated.) THE COURT: All right. You may be seated. All right. Let the record reflect that the members of the venire are present, the prosecutors, defense attorney, the defendant are present in the courtroom. I’m gonna ask you first to raise your right hand. I’m gonna swear you in as a member of the jury panel. (Prospective jury panel sworn) THE COURT: Thank you. My name is Cheril Hardy. I’m the presiding judge of County Criminal Court No. 7. Starting my twentieth year pretty soon. So I’ve been &emsp; here a while. Welcome to my court, our court, your court. We are going to try a case today. And I’m gonna tell you a little bit — not about the case necessarily but what it is and a little bit about what we’re doing. It’ll take me about 10 or 15 minutes to do that. I wanna first introduce the attorneys for you. The first table are seated the two assistant district attorneys who are currently assigned to my court. Lead counsel is Josh Marcum. MR. MARCUM: Morning. THE COURT: And his partner is Zane Reid. MR. REID: Good morning. THE COURT: The second table is defense attorney Joetta Keene. MS. KEENE: Good morning, guys. THE COURT: And her client who is Nicolas Ramirez. Okay. Do any of you know — And this is Mary Ann Clifton my court reporter. Do any of you know any of us, had any dealings with any of these attorneys, including myself? Anything? Okay. Well, good. All right. Mr. Ramirez is referred to — &emsp; He is the citizen who is accused. And he is also called the defendant. And the word defendant is not any kind of term that’s used to indicate guilt at all. It’s just a knee jerk thing to say than citizen accused. Mr. Ramirez is charged with committing the offense of driving while intoxicated with a blood or breath score of .15 or greater. That’s the charge that is against him today. Before we start, while I’m starting to talk and give you some instructions — You have said that y’all don’t know anybody in here that I’ve introduced. While I begin giving you instructions, make sure — and even if it makes a noise when you do it, make sure that your phone, beeper, whatever is turned off if you haven’t done so already. Okay. This is a criminal trial. This is County Criminal Court No. 7. There are ten county criminal courts and ten district courts. District courts hear the felonies, we hear the misdemeanors. We have some felony jurisdiction, but this case is a misdemeanor that we’re gonna hear this next week. And I’m gonna give you some little calendar ideas, too, so you’ll know what we’re doing. Criminal trials are all in two phases. The first phase is where the jury is called upon to hear &emsp; all the evidence and make a decision whether or not the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury finds the defendant’s not guilty, that’s it. If the jury finds the defendant is guilty, we go to the second phase, which is punishment. Now, the defendant is entitled — Have we got that done, Joetta? MS. KEENE: What? THE COURT: The — Whether he’s going to the Court? MS. KEENE: Going to the Court. We did not fill that out. We talked about it with all the lawyers except… THE COURT: Okay. Well, we’ll get that going. MS. KEENE: Yes. THE COURT: The defendant is entitled to decide whether or not they want the jury to assess punishment or the court, being me, to assess punishment. And in this case today the Court will assess punishment and does so most of the — Most of the time that’s the election of the defendant. But — so — but your part — If you’re chosen to be on the jury of six people, your part will be to — the very most important part. And that’s to make — to decide whether or not &emsp; the defendant is guilt or not guilty. But those are the two phases of every criminal trial in every state in the United States. Some of your original juror members — You know, you were down there on the first floor. Some of those original juror members have already been eliminated by what we call legal disqualifications or exemption. Not that long ago we got a little postcard. And now I think you probably get a two or three page letter about jury duty. But in this postcard – they were able to put it all on one card, but now in the letter you see some exemptions. It could be because you have a child of a certain age or because you’re a student or because you’re a caretaker of someone or you’re over a certain age or things like that. People may or may not elect to take that exemption. They may just wanna serve on the jury and be here anyway. But that’s the first level of elimination. What we’re gonna do today is really a way of — It’s a way of eliminating without choosing who we’re getting and who we’re not. And I’m gonna explain this in just a minute. It is selection of a jury by elimination. Now, I have a little chart here with everybody’s name on it. Ms. Miller, you are Juror Number 1. I bet you didn’t know that. And you, Ms. other Miller, are Juror Number 8, and then it goes 9, Mr. Jones to 16, Ms. King. You’re Juror Number 16. There’s 16 of you. The first six that don’t get eliminated in numerical order get on our jury. In other words, we don’t say we like her and her and him and her and him. You know, we don’t do it that way. It’s like starting with number one. The first six that are not eliminated — and I’m gonna explain the elimination process — are on the jury. Now, don’t feel all that safe when you’re back there on the back row and you’re thinking, hmm, I’m at the end, it’s not gonna happen. Because it happens. It happens a lot. Okay? Just depends on the jury panel. Every jury panel is different. But I’m gonna tell you about what happens. Voir dire is a process whereby each side will have 30 minutes to talk to you, ask you questions. Mainly ask you questions about your thoughts and feelings on the law that pertains to this case, the people that may pertain to this case. They can’t tell you anything about the case, though. They can’t tell you anything beyond what you know already. And interestingly enough, you know as much as I know right now about this case. And that’s the way it’s supposed to be. I just know what it is. I don’t know who’s &emsp; coming, who’s gonna witness. I don’t know nothing about it. Okay? So they’re gonna ask you questions. And it’s — They are questions that are not meant to pry into your personal life or the lives of your friends and family, but they might do so. If they do so and the question is so sensitive that you don’t wanna answer it in front of your new 15 best friends, then you have to tell us, and we’ll bring you back individually and you can answer in front of us what the answer to the question is. But we’re not gonna be able to know that it’s a sensitive matter. Probably won’t happen, but in case it does, let us know that. Just like in case you don’t understand something or didn’t hear it, you need to let us know. Not at the end of the trial when none of us can remember what was said in the first place. So let us know right then. That won’t be discourteous or rude or weird in any way. We want you to do that. But they are trying — These attorneys are trying to determine if you can be a fair juror in this particular case, with this particular set of facts and the particular offense. Any bias or prejudice that you may have against any witness or against the law in any way will probably prevent you from following your oath as a juror. So we wanna make sure we can have six &emsp; people tell the truth. If it’s that way, then we need to know it. Right? We need to know it now and not later. Just tell the truth about how you feel about things. Each side, then, at the conclusion of voir dire, will have three strikes. Just like in baseball. They can pick three of you for any lawful reason that they’re gonna strike. It could be what you said. It could be that you paid a whole lot of attention to the other attorney but not very much to them, or that you scowled at ’em or smiled big to the other attorney. I mean, there’s a lot of things. You know? I don’t think picking a jury is really a fine art. It’s — It’s too difficult. But there’s all sorts of reasons. Don’t be offended or have your feelings hurt in any way. And so that is the second level of elimination. And that is — with those strikes that gets us down, generally, to — It always gets us down to a smaller number. Then there’s something that’s called challenges for cause. And we’ll bring those up outside your presence when you have a break after voir dire. You may come in here individually because you’ve been challenged. And it — And a challenge for cause just means that there is a legal issue for which you’re gonna &emsp; be eliminated for. It may be that you have to come in and be asked the same question. A lot of times this happens. And it happens to me, too. A question is asked, and the first person maybe that answers it is not — and first five people are not entirely sure what that question was, but as it gets down sometimes the attorney kind of hones that question into something that’s a little more understandable. And when you may have said no, and it goes along and you say, oh, is that what he or she meant. My answer’s really not no. It’s okay to change your question [sic]. You come in here and say, Ms. Miller, you said such and such or so and so, and you can say, yeah, but I didn’t really kind of get where they were going or get what was — you know, what that meant, and I don’t feel that way anymore. And that is perfectly fine. Also, it is perfectly fine to stay with your answer and say, yeah, that’s what I meant. You may be the only one holding out. But if that’s what you meant, that’s what you meant, and you stick to it. But challenges for cause is an unlimited amount. So after those are made, if I grant them, then we have a smaller number, and the first in numerical order are the six that are on our jury panel. This case will start Monday morning. I &emsp; would strongly suggest if you have surgery planned, if you have a nonrefundable trip to Tahiti planned, anything like that, you need to let me know now and not after you’re chosen to be on the jury. Because that really messes your trip up, and other things. So be sure you let one of the attorneys know when they’re asking you questions. You can just bring it up yourself. Okay. So we will return at 9:00 in the morning. We’ll probably start at 9:00 in the morning on Monday if you’re selected. I anticipate we’ll go all day and that we will finish on Monday. It might not happen, so if we carry over, it’ll be on Tuesday morning. But generally we finish up in a day. And like I said, I don’t know how many witnesses we have. So I don’t know if we will or not. Sometimes we only have one witness and sometimes there are many more than one. Now, let me talk to you a little bit about the function of the jury. It sounds a little bit unusual, but the function of the jury, if you’re on the jury, is to decide what the facts are. Simple enough. But they don’t agree what the facts are, so you have to decide what the facts are. We wouldn’t be here today if we agreed what the fact are, would we? We wouldn’t have a trial. So you’re going to decide what the facts are. &emsp; And in doing that you become the sole and exclusive judge of the credibility of all the witnesses, what weight to be given their testimony. You decide that in determining what the facts are. You determine what weight you’re gonna give to their testimony. Now, I as the judge, I’m not permitted to influence that in any way. I’m not to, you know, let out a big laugh or roll my eyes or do anything that would indicate to you, subliminally or otherwise, what I think about that particular witness. You make that decision. Each of you, all six people, may have six different ideas of credibility, but you stick with what you think it is and you assess it how you assess it everyday. And we’ll talk about that on Monday. When I rule on the admissibility of evidence that — You know, you’ve seen these cases on TV that they’re gonna object or — let’s say, they object to hearsay. And let’s say I agree with the objection; I sustain the objection. If I don’t agree with it, I’ll overrule the objection. But if I overrule one attorney’s every single solitary objection, that does not mean that I don’t like their client or that I don’t like that attorney. Likewise, if I sustain every — this attorney’s every objection, that doesn’t that mean that I’m trying to tell you I’m for that side or I like &emsp; that attorney better or that attorney is better. It doesn’t mean anything. I’m trying to follow the law and uphold the law. I’m kind of like a referee in a trial. Lots of stuff goes on in the trial that I don’t do but I just listen to. Now, we’re gonna talk about a few general principles of law. So that the attorneys don’t have to keep talking about the same thing I’m gonna talk about it. The first and foremost is called the burden of proof, the burden of proving a case. Now, in a criminal case in Texas the job of proving the case rests solely on the shoulders of the district attorney’s office. The prosecutors must prove this case to you beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the level, the burden of proof. Now, it’s a high level. And let me tell you some of the levels. There — the — The burden is a reasonable suspicion to make a stop. The police officer has to have what is needed to detain. That’s the first level. It’s called reasonable suspicion. And you’ve heard of the second level. It’s called probable cause. They have to have probable cause or what is needed to make the arrest, which amounts to more evidence, right? In order — In a — In a civil case, if &emsp; this was a civil case, which it’s not, in order to win a case, if you were to — your neighbor’s dog bit you and you brought a case for your medicals and everything like that, or whether — you know, maybe it’s a question of whether or not he bit you or not or whether some other dog did or you don’t have any medical, those things, you have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, maybe a feather more, that this dog bit you and these are your medicals and so forth and so on to win the case. You have to prove it. In a criminal case it’s a lot more than that. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s much higher. There’s no, like, percentage or anything like that. I’m just, you know — But it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have a reasonable doubt – And you can define reasonable and you can define doubt. Right? If you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, you have to return a verdict of not guilty. If you don’t have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty, you return a verdict of guilt. But beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high — It’s the highest burden in a criminal case. Now, if there’s a civil case where children are taken away from their parents by CPS, let’s &emsp; say, or you’re going to put somebody in a mental health facility for a while, then it’s not preponderance of the evidence, a feather more; it’s clear and convincing evidence. That’s a very high burden. Burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is higher than that. Obviously if you’re taking children away, you have to have clear and convincing evidence. Much more than just, you know, 51 to 49 percent. Much more. Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal -Because you could be taking away someone’s liberty, whether or not they were incarcerated or they had probation, you’re taking away they’re liberty and that is beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re gonna hear some more about that, but those — that’s what’s called the burden of proof. And that’s what they have to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ramirez is guilty. Okay? Now, Mr. Ramirez is not required to prove himself innocent. He is not required under our constitution nor am I required or you required ever in a case against us to prove our innocence. If he does not testify, there is a number of reasons why he might not testify. One of ’em, you know, is obvious. That you’ll all say because, you think, he’s guilty. That is not — that is not — certainly not the only reason a person &emsp; wouldn’t testify. A lot of people are terrible on the stand, a lot of people get very intimidated and trip over their words and say things they didn’t mean to say or didn’t even mean at all. A lot of times the attorney says, no, I don’t want you to. You know, there’s a lot of reasons. So don’t take that in any way against him. It’s not an indication of guilt. You can’t even talk about this when y’all are talking together on – when you come together to decide on your verdict. You can’t even talk about it. I don’t know if he is or he isn’t, but if he doesn’t, you can’t even talk about it or allude to it in any way. That’s very important. Now, the information in this case is in this file. An information is — Like in felony it’s kind of like an indictment. Information is just a piece of paper and it says what the person’s charged with and on what date and stuff like that. It’s a short little paragraph. One of the DA’s will read this to you when you’re sworn in as a jury on Monday. This is not an indication of guilt. This is the — you know, it’s filed, it’s official and all that, but it’s not an indication of guilt. Any of us could have ’em any day. Okay? It’s not an indication of guilt. So Mr. Ramirez, Ms. Keene, his attorney, as well as the prosecutors, Mr. Marcum and Mr. Reid, and &emsp; the whole — our entire system of justice require that a fair jury be chosen today. One without bias or prejudice against the people involved or the law involved, one that is free of opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the — Well, as to the guilt of the defendant. Free of opinion as to that today. You have to be free of an opinion. And one — I think this is very important — is to be impartial to both sides. You’re impartial to both sides. And you can and will follow the law. Now, we all think, well, of course, I’m gonna follow the law. I don’t wanna get in trouble. I’m always gonna follow the law. I’m not talking about that particularly. You will see the law as it’s identified and defined by the state legislature. The law of DWI, the law of this particular offense, you will see it. And in that law — it’s no secret — there’ll be words that are defined because that’s just the way politicians or lawyers or legislatures, that’s the way things are. Things are defined. And I just imagine you’re gonna see that on the screen or on some kind of thing. The law of intoxication, that will be something that needs to be defined. You will see that defined. Just like anything else, some things are defined with the word “and” and some things are defined &emsp; with the word “or.” So if it’s defined with the word “and,” you have to have both of those things, right? If it’s defined with the word “or,” then you have to have one of those things. They all equal weighted. Got it? And you say, well, you know, A, B or C. I really like B the best, and if I don’t see B, this is not happening. That’s an example of not following the law. If you can’t do that — And you’re gonna understand a little bit more in a minute what I’m talking about. If you can’t do that, you have to have B or you have to have C or you have to have A, you’re just not following the law. Because the law says any one of those. Right? So that’s what I mean by following the law. Now, the attorneys are gonna start in just a minute. I’m gonna tell ’em when they’ve got about three minutes left. And we’ll try not to go over much, if any. Hopefully, we’ll have you out of here before noon. But, remember, they can’t talk about the case. It’s not a deal where you ask them questions. This is a deal where they ask you questions. After it’s over with, they’re not able to talk to you in any way or anybody related to this case shouldn’t say anything to you. And if they do, you’ve gotta tell us today or on Monday morning. You know, tell the bailiff and so forth or tell me. &emsp; I’m certifying that the panel before us has been duly qualified according to the law, and we’re gonna proceed with voir dire. Let me say real quickly, if you don’t understand or don’t hear, or both, tell us. Speak up. The attorneys will identify you by juror number or your name, and if not, you identify yourself just so Ms. Clifton can get a very accurate record of everything that’s said in this case today. And that’s what we need to do. Okay. We can get started. Mr. Marcum. MR. MARCUM: Thank you, Your Honor. Morning everybody. VENIREPERSONS: Morning. MR. MARCUM: My name’s Josh and I’m with the DA’s office. Now, as the Judge explained to you, you’re here today for jury selection. And so I’m gonna talk to y’all for just a little bit and I’m gonna ask y’all some questions. The purpose of those questions aren’t to pry into your personal life, it’s not to embarrass, it’s certainly not to put you on the spot. But the purpose of these questions is to get a fair and impartial jury who can listen to the evidence and render a verdict in this case. Does everybody agree that the defendant, &emsp; Mr. Ramirez, is entitled to a fair and impartial jury? VENIREPERSONS: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Does everybody also agree that the State is entitled to a fair and impartial jury? VENIREPERSONS: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Now, some ground rules as to what I do. And my — my mom thinks it’s extremely rude. She watched me during a trial once. But I tend to point at people. And I’m not trying to be rude. I just haven’t found a better way of quickly getting people to understand who I’m talking to. So if that offends anyone, I apologize. But it’s the most efficient way I’ve found to do it. Secondly, this is Ms. Mary Ann. And what she does for a living is extremely difficult. She’s a court reporter. She’s taking down everything that everybody says. So please don’t talk over me; I’ll try to not talk over you. Do the same thing for Ms. Keene. And speak loudly and clearly. If you don’t understand anything, just let me know. Okay? Fair enough? Now, does Mr. Ramirez or his attorney, Ms. Keene, have anything to prove today? Anything at all? Sir, you’re shaking your head. Why not? VENIREPERSONS: Based off what she just &emsp; said, we have to — the burden of proof is on you to prove… MR. MARCUM: Anybody disagree with that? That’s exactly correct. Mr. Ramirez, as he sits here right now, has the presumption of innocence. Everybody heard that term? He’s presumed innocent. It’s my job to prove this case. Sir, will you make me prove my case? VENIREPERSON: Yes, sir. MR. MARCUM: Will you make me prove my case? VENIREPERSON: Yes, sir. MR. MARCUM: Will you require Mr. Ramirez to prove anything? VENIREPERSON: No, sir. MR. MARCUM: Now, I’ve used this word “prove” more than a few times. And the Judge has told you a little bit about my standard of proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Everybody heard that term before? It’s a pretty famous term. And the Judge went into a little bit about what it means. I’m just gonna talk to you about it more generally. Sir, in the back, do you believe you’re a reasonable person? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am, do you believe you’re a reasonable person? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Sir, are you a reasonable person? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am, did you walk through that door today with logic and reason and life experience? VENIREPERSON: I did. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Ma’am, on the back, did you walk through the door today with logic and reason and life experience? VENIREPERSON: I did. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Now the questions are gonna get just a tiny bit more difficult. Ma’am, are you gonna check your logic and reason and life experience at the door if you are selected for this jury to hear the facts? VENIREPERSONS: No. MR. MARCUM: Why not? VENIREPERSONS: It’s part of who I am. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Yeah. We’re not asking you to check your logic and reason and life experience at the door. We’re asking you to bring that &emsp; logic and reason and life experience to the courtroom, listen to a set of facts and render a decision. Do you feel like you’re capable of doing that, ma’am? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Sir, do you feel like you’re capable of doing that? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Now, again I use the word “proof.” What in the world am I, the prosecutor, gonna use to try to prove my case? Just in a general term. VENIREPERSON: The facts. MR. MARCUM: Facts and evidence. All right. I thought I wasn’t gonna get it for a second, but then I did. Appreciate that very much. Can you describe a type of evidence? VENIREPERSON: Eyewitnesses or reports or measurements, statistics, whatever, that you can describe the incident. All kinds of things could be evidence. MR. MARCUM: Okay. All types of things could be evidence. And you mentioned eyewitness testimony. VENIREPERSON: Yes. &emsp; MR. MARCUM: So if a witness swears to tell the truth and tells you what that person saw or what their involvement in the case was, that could be evidence, in your opinion? VENIREPERSON: It could be. Eyewitness could be. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Is there any other types of evidence? VENIREPERSON: I suppose measurements or — Nothing comes to mind. MR. MARCUM: How about a video? Could a video be evidence? VENIREPERSON: That certainly could, yes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. A scientific test, could that be evidence? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am at the back, if you listen to a witness who swore to tell the truth, would you — whoop. I slipped a little bit. — would you automatically believe anything that that witness said? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Why? VENIREPERSON: Because they made a promise. THE REPORTER: Speak up, please. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: Yes. Because they made a promise. MR. MARCUM: Okay. But do you think you could listen to testimony and if you thought that witness — what that witness said didn’t make sense you’d still believe it? VENIREPERSON: I would believe it from their point of view, but make my own judgment. VENIREPERSON: Okay. You’d make your own judgment on whether what they said was the actual facts? VENIREPERSON: My own judgment as to interpreting it. They have their point of view. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Sir, do you feel like you can listen to a witness’ testimony and take it for whatever you feel it’s worth? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Can you make a decision whether you think somebody’s believable or not? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Sir, in the back, do you have any problem with that? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Is there anyone on the panel that for whatever reason, religious reason, &emsp; philosophical reason, can’t sit in judgment of another person? I know there are a few religions where members are barred from sitting in judgment of people. And there’s just — Some people have a problem with that. Is there anyone on the panel that would have a problem with sitting and listening to the facts and sitting in judgment of another person? Now’s the time to speak up on that one if there is anyone. Okay. Now, evidence can be direct or evidence can be circumstantial. What’s direct evidence of something? VENIREPERSON: I would say, in my opinion, direct evidence is something where you pretty much can see. Direct. No way to get around it. I see the action being taken. It’s right there in front of you. MR. MARCUM: Okay. You heard the term circumstantial evidence, other than when I just said it, like, 11 seconds ago? VENIREPERSON: Uh-huh. MR. MARCUM: Is that a lesser type of evidence? VENIREPERSON: In my opinion, yes, it can be. MR. MARCUM: It can be. &emsp; But is it necessarily? What is circumstantial evidence? VENIREPERSON: I would say it’s pretty much — It’s like you have evidence on someone, but it’s not clear. It’s not clearly seen. It’s not clearly proven. It’s not clearly shown. MR. MARCUM: Okay. You have to — You have to draw some inference to get from point A to point B. Are there doors leading into the building? VENIREPERSON: Yes, sir. MR. MARCUM: How do you know that? VENIREPERSON: I see ’em. MR. MARCUM: You see ’em. Did you come through a door when you came in this morning? VENIREPERSON: Yes, sir. MR. MARCUM: So if I wanted to prove that there were doors leading into this building downstairs, I could call you as a witness? VENIREPERSON: Yes, sir. MR. MARCUM: You’d be an eyewitness and you’d swear to tell the truth that you saw doors? VENIREPERSON: Yes, sir. MR. MARCUM: Did you see me come in this &emsp; morning? VENIREPERSON: No, sir. MR. MARCUM: Did I come through a door when I came in the building this morning? VENIREPERSON: I don’t know how else you would have got in here. MR. MARCUM: Is it reasonable that I crawled in through a window? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Is it reasonable that I slept here last night? VENIREPERSON: I don’t know if you’d be allowed to sleep here. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Probably wouldn’t be reasonable, right? VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MR. MARCUM: So did I come through a door when I came in this morning? VENIREPERSON: I presume. MR. MARCUM: Beyond a reasonable doubt did I come through a door? VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MR. MARCUM: Yeah. Anybody disagree with that? That’s how circumstantial evidence works. &emsp; Draw an inference from A to B, and if that inference is reasonable to you, so be it. Is everyone comfortable listening to facts and making those types of determinations if you have to? Okay. Now, as Judge Hardy said, the case that brings you here today is a DWI. Driving while intoxicated. Sometimes called DUI in other states, sometimes just called drunk driving. I don’t like the word “drunk” because it’s undefinable. A lot of words are undefinable, but the word drunk seems to have a wider spectrum and a little more pejorative kind of tune to it. Now, when we talk about DWI and what I have to prove today, I have to prove all the elements of DWI. I don’t have to prove every fact that gets stated. For instance, sir, would it bother you if I couldn’t prove that the car was red? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Why not? VENIREPERSON: Because it doesn’t matter. The color of the car doesn’t matter. MR. MARCUM: Probably not one of the elements of DWI, right? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down.) &emsp; MR. MARCUM: Okay. There’s some things that the State doesn’t have to prove in this case. Among those are we don’t have to show bad driving. Bad driving’s not an element of DWI. We don’t have to show intent to be intoxicated. We don’t have to show that there was any knowledge of intoxication. We’ll get to that a little bit more later. We don’t have to show type of alcohol, where the alcohol was consumed, how much alcohol. Here’s what we do have to show. These are the elements of DWI: The defendant, on or about a certain date, in Tarrant County, Texas, did operate a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. Now, sir, you said that it wouldn’t bother you if I couldn’t prove that a car was red. Would it bother you if I couldn’t prove a car at all? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Why is that? VENIREPERSON: That would — if he’s driving a car — MR. MARCUM: That’s number five, right? VENIREPERSON: If you couldn’t prove there was a car, then you couldn’t prove that he was guilty. MR. MARCUM: Okay. And that’s number &emsp; five, right? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Will anybody make me prove every fact that a witness says for whatever reason? Will everybody make me prove all those elements? Now, the interesting thing about these elements are two through six just about everybody did on the way to this building today. Is that fair enough? So, ma’am, in the back, do you think that any of these elements are more often contested or more often an issue than the rest? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Which one? VENIREPERSON: (Inaudible.) THE REPORTER: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear her. THE COURT: Yeah. Y’all have to speak up so I can hear. VENIREPERSON: Seven. MR. MARCUM: Number seven. Would everybody agree with that? That of this list “while intoxicated” is the one that sticks out the most? Now, any of ’em can be an issue. And I do have to prove all those elements. But why don’t we go ahead and talk about number seven and what that means. &emsp; Let’s start it this way. Ma’am, in the back, what does the word intoxicated mean to you? VENIREPERSON: Means under the influence of alcohol. MR. MARCUM: Okay. You ever seen somebody that’s under the influence of alcohol? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Did you think about a specific person or a specific time when I asked that question? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Sometimes people do that. Sir, have you seen people who are under the influence of alcohol? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Did you think of a specific person or specific time when I asked that question? Something pop into your head? VENIREPERSON: Nothing specific. MR. MARCUM: Okay. What types of things would make you believe that somebody was under the influence of alcohol? VENIREPERSON: Speech was slurred, can’t &emsp; walk straight, things of that nature. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Ma’am, would you agree with those types of things? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am, would you agree with that? VENIREPERSON: If you see somebody drinking, they’re under the influence as well. I mean… MR. MARCUM: Okay. So any amount of alcohol would make somebody — VENIREPERSON: You’re under the influence of alcohol if you have one drink. The more you drink the higher your level of intoxication becomes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. So if the only facts that you knew was that Mr. Ramirez consumed some alcohol, would you find him guilty just for that reason? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Why not? VENIREPERSON: Because I can have some alcohol and not be intoxicated. MR. MARCUM: Okay. So there’s a difference between just having some alcohol — VENIREPERSON: Right. &emsp; MR. MARCUM: — and being intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: You have a — You have a legal limit. I believe there’s a legal limit which qualifies intoxication. MR. MARCUM: Well, I sandbagged her, so let’s talk about this a little bit. Here’s the definition of intoxication. Notice how Judge Hardy pointed out how some things have this word “or.” All these statements are gonna have that “or.” I can show you not having the normal use of mental faculties by the introduction of alcohol into the body, not having the normal use of physical faculties by the introduction of alcohol into the body, or having an alcohol concentration of point 0.08 or more. Now, let’s work backwards. Number three, having an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more. Is everybody familiar with that being the legal limit in Texas? .08 as people typically call it. Everybody familiar with that? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Do you have any opinion about .08? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Any opinion about whether it’s too low or too high? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: I would have to know the intoxication level as far as how it makes a person — how it makes a person act. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: Because I don’t know what that is. MR. MARCUM: So you would wanna see some other facts in addition to the .08? VENIREPERSON: Correct. MR. MARCUM: But notice how they’re all “or” statements. Right? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: So by that definition, the State can prove intoxication simply by showing .08. Are you saying that you’re gonna make me show loss of normal use of mental faculties or loss of normal use of physical faculties? VENIREPERSON: I would say yes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. We’ll get back to that Does anybody think that you need a test or you need a number to determine whether somebody’s intoxicated? Show of hands. Who’s seen somebody that’s intoxicated? Very good. &emsp; And since I asked this question before, psychology would say that the following’s gonna be true. Did anybody think of a specific person or specific time when I just asked that question now? Ma’am? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MR. MARCUM: Ma’am? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MR. MARCUM: Psychology at work. Without telling me who the person was, okay, what about that person made you believe they were intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: How they were acting. MR. MARCUM: How were they acting? VENIREPERSON: Oh, loud. MR. MARCUM: Loud. VENIREPERSON: Obnoxious. Couldn’t walk a straight line if I asked them to. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Anything else? VENIREPERSON: Got sick. MR. MARCUM: Got sick. Okay. Did you have a number? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: But you still believe that person was intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: Yes. &emsp; MR. MARCUM: Beyond a reasonable doubt is that person intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Would that person have been safe to drive a car? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: But you didn’t see ’em drive a car, did you? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Would you say that what you saw of that person was circumstantial evidence of how they would have looked if they would have driven a car? VENIREPERSON: I guess. MR. MARCUM: Ma,am, the person that you thought about. Again, without telling me who. I’ve — I’ve — I’ve had people say my brother at my wedding. See, that’s the whole getting too personal. What about that person made you believe they were intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: Well, you know, some of the times, like, when they got very, very sick, they couldn’t sit up, they couldn’t stand up and they couldn’t leave the bathroom. But in retrospect, the lack of judgment in having way more than they’ve ever had before — &emsp; MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: — of a much higher proof. So if — You know, when you look at it in retrospect, you can see that that was the result. But it was extremely clear they couldn’t even find the car let alone drive it. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Lack of judgment. VENIREPERSON: Very clearly. And I had no idea what the alcohol concentration was. MR. MARCUM: And you didn’t see ’em drive, but you — VENIREPERSON: Oh, absolutely not. They couldn’t leave the bathroom. MR. MARCUM: Fair enough. Anybody else think of a specific person or specific time when I said that? Sir. VENIREPERSON: Just the way they act. They’re demeanor pretty much. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: Did I see how much? No. But could you kind of gain a sense that they were? Yes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. So that person that you thought about, would I have had to show you .08 for you to say beyond a reasonable doubt they were &emsp; intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Would that person have been safe to drive a car? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: You didn’t see ’em drive a car? VENIREPERSON: Huh-uh. MR. MARCUM: But what you saw was pretty good circumstantial evidence of what you would have seen. Fair enough? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down.) MR. MARCUM: All right. Ma’am, you mentioned judgment. Let’s reel this back. Not having the normal use of mental faculties by the introduction of alcohol into the body. Can alcohol affect judgment? VENIREPERSON: Absolutely. Enough of it. I mean, impairment. You’re talking about impairment? MR. MARCUM: Yes. VENIREPERSON: Probably for most people not, you know, more than one drink or something. Alcohol is funny, right? Like anything else, you overdo it. &emsp; MR. MARCUM: Okay. So if I showed you loss of use of mental faculties in this case, would you make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: No. Because it’s an “or.” But it kind of — It depends on the person, right? Like I think the stories people have described they knew that person. That’s was not normal. Somebody that’s suddenly silly, laughing, dancing on the table, that’s obviously not normal. So I think when you’re talking about impaired judgment, you have a frame of reference for that person. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Ma’am, can alcohol affect the way that people — affect how people think about things? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Can alcohol affect behavior? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: So if I showed you, and you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Ramirez had lost mental faculties because of alcohol, would you still make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Even if you’re satisfied personally beyond a reasonable doubt that he lost mental faculties, you’d still make me show .08? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: There’s no scenario where you wouldn’t make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: No. Because it’s the law. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: So based on the level of the law, we have to go by that .8. MR. MARCUM: Even though it’s an “or.” Even though I can show you loss of mental faculties or loss of physical faculties or .08? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. You’re still gonna make me show .08 nonetheless? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MR. MARCUM: Does anybody else feel like that? That they’re gonna make me show .08 no matter what? VENIREPERSON: I have a question. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: These are “ors,” right? MR. MARCUM: Yes. VENIREPERSON: So this is the law and the law is “or.” MR. MARCUM: The law is “or.” VENIREPERSON: Okay. So we are following &emsp; the law if we prove number one? MR. MARCUM: (Nods head up and down) VENIREPERSON: Okay. That’s what I wanted to know. MR. MARCUM: And that’s what I’m asking about. Whether people can be a fair and impartial juror, whether you’ll follow the law. And with the law being written that I can show you loss of mental faculties or loss of physical faculties or .08 whether you’ll follow the law if I don’t show you .08? VENIREPERSON: Yeah, because it’s an “or.” MR. MARCUM: Okay. Sir, you indicated that you’re gonna make me show .08. VENIREPERSON: Yes. And the reason why is because the way I look at it is everyone is different. Everyone can handle their intake of alcohol differently. Mental faculties. There are other reasons. There’s psychology reasons why someone could not be thinking straight. Physical faculties. There are physical reasons why someone could not be okay. You would say, well, I see him limping or walking funny. He consumed alcohol. That’s not necessarily true. He could be limping along due to a past injury or due to something else that might have happened that had nothing &emsp; to do with alcohol. So in my opinion, yes, it is the law you have to prove either one. It really doesn’t matter. But just judging on people, period, I would think you would need a little more – MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: — if you cannot prove, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt that that is the exact reason why he didn’t have mental faculties or why he didn’t have physical abilities. MR. MARCUM: Sure. And you’re talking about alternative reasons for why somebody may be acting a certain way or why they may walk a certain way. What I’m talking about is just a little bit different. And it may be a nuance. But I’m saying that you listen to the facts, you listen to everything and you’re – you personally are satisfied as you sit here beyond a reasonable doubt that he lost his physical faculties or lost his mental faculties and that was because of alcohol. Okay? So you’re satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to one or two. You’re still gonna make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: The fact that just that number is the law and that is what has been said, me personally, I feel that it would be important to show — MR. MARCUM: Okay. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: — that numerical number. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Ma,’am, you raised your hand as well. So if you’re satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ramirez had lost his physical faculties and that was because of alcohol, you’d still make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: Well, see, that’s the whole thing. I wouldn’t be convinced because of what you’re saying. That — because you don’t know him. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: So you wouldn’t know that that was his normal behavior or not. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: And like he said, everybody’s different. And unless you know that person — And I seriously doubt that the officer knew him when arresting him, or whatever. He couldn’t have known him prior to that time and arrested him based on those things. You know? And also the problem with the red car. You have to know what color car he has or else you don’t know what car he was driving, therefore, you don’t know that that was him in that car. MR. MARCUM: Okay. We’re talking just talking about — just about intoxication. What you’re telling me is that there’s no scenario where you could &emsp; vote guilty if I didn’t show you .08? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: Because it’s — Like you say. It’s circumstantial because you don’t know. Ma’am, you also raised your hand. VENIREPERSON: I agree with her. MR. MARCUM: Okay. So if I showed you, and you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt loss of mental faculties or loss of physical faculties, you’d still make me show .08 no matter what? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: And nothing’s changing your mind? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Is there anybody else that feels that way that I didn’t speak to individually? Let’s move on and talk about physical faculties just a little bit. Has anybody seen anyone who’s lost the use of physical faculties because of alcohol? How can alcohol affect your physical faculties? VENIREPERSON: You can’t walk straight. Just loss of basic motor skills. MR. MARCUM: Okay. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: You know, it just – You might slip trying to open up a door. You know, just various — various different things can be a factor. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Any other ways you can think of that alcohol can affect physical faculties? VENIREPERSON: Loss of motor skills. Wouldn’t be able to do things you normally would be able to do. MR. MARCUM: Loss of motor skills. Poor hand/eye coordination sometimes maybe? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Difficulty standing or walking maybe? VENIREPERSON: Probably. MR. MARCUM: Okay. What does safe driving mean to you? See how fast I switched gears right there. VENIREPERSON: Means I’m in control of my car and I’m safe and the people around me are safe. MR. MARCUM: Okay. On my way home there’s a red light camera on Precinct Line Road. And I know it’s there and everybody else knows it’s there. So here’s my question. When you’re approaching that yellow light, how do you decide whether you’re okay to go through or you need to &emsp; hit the brakes and slow down and stop right there? VENIREPERSON: And I know the camera’s there? MR. MARCUM: Let’s say you’re approaching any intersection and you’re trying to be a safe driver. How do you make that decision whether you need to stop or you can go through? VENIREPERSON: I look and see if there’s other traffic approaching and I decide if it’s safe. And if I think it’s safe, then I will proceed. I’ll determine the fact has it been raining? I don’t wanna slam on my brakes at the entrance of an intersection and skid into the middle. So I’ll weigh the factors as I’m approaching and decide whether it’s safe to proceed or not. MR. MARCUM: And so those factors could be how fast you’re going? VENIREPERSON: Clearly. MR. MARCUM: Knowing your own vehicle? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: How far away you are? VENIREPERSON: All those things. MR. MARCUM: Can alcohol affect that type of decision making? VENIREPERSON: Yes. &emsp; MR. MARCUM: Can alcohol affect the hand/eye coordination that it takes to stop? VENIREPERSON: Absolutely. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am, can alcohol affect that type of decision making? VENIREPERSON: It can. MR. MARCUM: Can alcohol affect that type of decision making? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MR. MARCUM: This is a busy highway. I’m gonna put y’all in the green car. Let’s say the red car has consumed some alcohol and their mental faculties or their physical faculties is just a little bit less than normal. Ma’am, is that okay with you, sitting right next to you, that the driver of that car is just a little bit less than normal? VENIREPERSON: I’d prefer he not be. MR. MARCUM: Sir, is that okay with you? VENIREPERSON: (Shakes head side to side) MR. MARCUM: Ma,’am, is that okay with you? VENIREPERSON: I guess I would — THE REPORTER: I’m sorry, but they’re gonna have to speak up. &emsp; MR. MARCUM: Speak up if you will, please. VENIREPERSON: I guess I would prefer they weren’t either. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Ma’am, how about you? VENIREPERSON: I prefer they not be too. MR. MARCUM: Let’s change the scenario. You’re in the yellow and the fellow in the red is just a little bit south of normal and that’s because they consumed some alcohol. Ma’am, is that all right with you? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Does it make it any better that it’s that type of road as opposed to the other road? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Sir, is that all right with you? VENIREPERSON: No. THE COURT: You have about four minutes. MR. MARCUM: Thank you, Judge. Does anybody have any strong personal feelings about the charge of DWI? Anybody had a friend or close family &emsp; member that’s been charged with DWI? Of the people that raised their hand, is there anything about that experience that is gonna impact the way you sit on this trial? Change your direction one way or the other? VENIREPERSON: I don’t know. MR. MARCUM: You don’t know? It’s possible? VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MR. MARCUM: Why do you feel that way? VENIREPERSON: Seeing from that person’s perspective how they were treated, things that happened. MR. MARCUM: Okay. So as you sit here today with that life experience, do you believe you can be fair and impartial in a DWI jury trial? VENIREPERSON: I can try. MR. MARCUM: Okay. But there’s some question in your mind whether you can? VENIREPERSON: I’m not gonna say there’s not. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: All I can say is I will try. MR. MARCUM: Anybody else feel that way? Any personal feelings that you think would get in the way? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: I was involved in an accident. THE COURT: I’m sorry. In what? VENIREPERSON: An accident. And the driver was under the influence. Just the result of that does weigh some on me, but I would try not to because I don’t know this person. And I — I don’t know what — what he was going through at the time. I don’t know anything. So that’s why I said I would try. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Do you think you can be fair and impartial? VENIREPERSON: To my best ability. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am, if I show you and you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt a loss of physical faculties due to alcohol, will you make me show you .08? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Sir? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: You’ve already said that you’re gonna make me show .08 no matter what? VENIREPERSON: Well, yeah. I stand by &emsp; that. Like I say, to me that’s — that just shows you more of a reason on why. MR. MARCUM: Okay. VENIREPERSON: Like I said, that’s a number that was — that was chosen by peers to be the limit, so I think that it should be shown. MR. MARCUM: Even though our peers gave you alternatives with the “or”? They could show you loss of mental or physical faculties or .08. VENIREPERSON: Well, how I feel about the mental and physical faculties, I think that that would just help. MR. MARCUM: Okay. But you’re gonna make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MR. MARCUM: Ma’am, if I showed you loss of mental or physical and you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, are you still gonna make me show you .o8? VENIREPERSON: Not necessarily, no. MR. MARCUM: Sir, if I show you – I haven’t talked to you at all. VENIREPERSON: You’ve been busy. MR. MARCUM: I appreciate that answer. Thank you very much. &emsp; If I show you loss of mental or physical faculties and you’re satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, are you still gonna make me show a .08 or more? VENIREPERSON: No, sir. MR. MARCUM: How about you, sir? VENIREPERSON: No, sir. MR. MARCUM: Ma’am? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Sir? VENIREPERSON: No. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: So no matter what — say we go through this whole trial and you say I know he consumed alcohol and lost his physical and mental faculties, but, darn it, they didn’t show me .08, so I can’t vote guilty. That’s what you’re telling me? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Okay. Sir? VENIREPERSON: I’d say no, but I think it would help your case. MR. MARCUM: Okay. But if you see enough and you’re satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt — VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: And, ma’am, you’re still &emsp; saying you’re gonna make me show .08? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MR. MARCUM: No matter what. No other scenario? VENIREPERSON: No. MR. MARCUM: Now, this trial’s not gonna be like TV. Ms. Keene and I aren’t gonna yell at each other. I can almost guarantee nobody’s gonna jump out of the stands and confess to anything. And if we start talking about DNA, something has gone tragically wrong. So that said, does everybody feel like they can keep an open mind and listen to the testimony? I have nothing further, Judge. THE COURT: Ms. Keene. MS. KEENE: Thank you, Judge. How are y’all doing? Does anybody need a break or anything? Yes, no. Speak now or for 30 minutes hold your peace. Is everybody okay? All right. My name is Joetta Keene and I represent Nick Ramirez, this young man right here. How many of y’all think that the government is always right? I don’t know how to make this go black. There we go. How many of y’all think the government is always right? None of y’all think the government’s always right. Y’all think the government screws things up sometimes? Tell me about it, Ms. Caryon Miller. We’re gonna make you talk. What does the government do sometimes where they screw things up? VENIREPERSON: I work in health care, so we have a lot of issues with various things through health care. MS. KEENE: And so through health care you’ve seen a lot of different problems with the government? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: I would imagine through health care you’ve seen problems with doctors? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Is anybody 100 percent correct all the time? VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: Doctors make mistakes. VENIREPERSON: Right. MR. MARCUM: Have you seen tests come back that weren’t correct? VENIREPERSON: Absolutely. MS. KEENE: Labs screw things up, don’t &emsp; they? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MS. KEENE: Well, then, you may be a good person to ask this question. Why do we have jury trials on things like DWI? VENIREPERSON: So that all the evidence can be considered and a decision made. MS. KEENE: And so if a lab says it’s .08 or above, why wouldn’t we just say, well, that’s a given? That’s a done deal. Why do we have a jury trial to listen to that and decide if that’s real? VENIREPERSON: There can be mistakes. MS. KEENE: And so what would your job as a juror be if you’re selected? VENIREPERSON: To see all of the different information and make a decision based on all of the information. MS. KEENE: And who you are and just be logical and smart? VENIREPERSON: Correct. MS. KEENE: Does that make sense? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: How many of y’all — All of y’all have seen somebody who’s intoxicated, correct? This is not brain science on whether or not someone’s intoxicated, is it? Is anybody concerned that if you watched a video of someone that you would not be able to tell whether or not that person was intoxicated or not? You see what I’m saying? Some of you know people, you see ’em on the street sometime, and you can tell, even though you don’t know who they are, that they’re intoxicated or that they’re not. Correct? So you don’t have to be a doctor to know somebody’s intoxicated. Is that fair? What do you think about that, Ms. Miller? That you could also judge whether or not someone’s intoxicated. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: You have a stepfather that works in law enforcement. VENIREPERSON: He did many years ago. MS. KEENE: What sort of law enforcement was he? VENIREPERSON: It was before my mother and him were married, so… MS. KEENE: It’s just a long time ago. He’s not really that relevant, him working in law enforcement? VENIREPERSON: (Shakes head side to side) MS. KEENE: Who has a relative or a good &emsp; friend that works in law enforcement? You do. All right. Let’s start with you. We talked to him a bunch. Let’s start with you. The other Ms. Miller. We went from Miller to Miller. Ms. Miller, tell me who you have that is in law enforcement. VENIREPERSON: I have a friend whose husband is on PD in SWAT. He’s a SWAT guy. MS. KEENE: Okay. And do you have an belief system — or does anybody. This includes everybody, but you because you’ve got experience with a police officer — that police officers are always right? VENIREPERSON: No, they’re not. MS. KEENE: Where does that — You say, no, they’re not and you shake your head with some confidence. Where does that come from? VENIREPERSON: Just — We’ve had issues, outside of alcohol, involved at our home where they come and they’re all cocky and, you know — They’re just being cocky and not really doing their job protecting citizens. So they’re not always right. MS. KEENE: There are some that definitely are. VENIREPERSON: Oh, yeah. MS. KEENE: Not always right. But there’s definitely some that don’t act all cocky. VENIREPERSON: Oh, definitely. MS. KEENE: And there certainly are — and I think all of y’all, if you’ve been pulled over like I have for speeding, have probably met both in your life. Right? You’ve met really nice people, and you go, I’m so glad you’re a public servant up thereprotecting us. And then you’ve met people and you go, oh, my God. You’re gonna be on TV before this is over, before your career is over. Right? Is that fair to say? VENIREPERSON: Sure. MS. KEENE: Is there anybody that would judge the credibility of a police officer, if they testified, different than you would a civilian? MS. KEENE: Yes, ma’am. Talk to me. Ms. Johnson. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Ms. Vicki Johnson. VENIREPERSON: I would because I’m not sure I could tell by looking at someone if they were intoxicated or not. If they didn’t have any of those mental or physical, they could still be impaired but not immediately obvious. I think particularly patrolman, people that drive on the highways all day long look for &emsp; certain kinds of erratic behavior. Now, it may not be because of intoxication, but that’s part of their job to protect. So I think they do have certainly more ability to see problems than I do. MS. KEENE: All right. What about just flat out credibility. If someone comes in with a uniform — let’s say — Let’s say it’s about any issue. Was the car red, which could absolutely be a relevant consideration. If a police officer says I pulled over a red car and it turns out the car was yellow, it would be a big deal. Correct? It would be a issue, even though it’s not one of those elements. Right? But if — We’re talking about just credibility of people. By putting on that — that badge and putting on a uniform, does that witness become more credible to you than if — a person who looked like one of y’all walked in and sat down? VENIREPERSON: No. I mean, you take an oath you’re gonna tell the truth. MS. KEENE: Does anybody feel like – You feel like that their — the uniform makes them more credible so to speak? That’s an easy way of saying it, or trying to say it. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Okay. You’re Mr. — VENIREPERSON: Oakes. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: — Oakes. Tell me about that. VENIREPERSON: I don’t think a police officer’s gonna be here and lie on the stand and risk getting caught. That and maybe losing his job. Where somebody that we don’t know, that has nothing to lose, would come in and lie. MS. KEENE: Okay. So in your mind the uniform itself just gives that witness just an ever so slight edge over anyone else? VENIREPERSON: Yes. VENIREPERSON: It could give them credibility and experience. Now, maybe, you know, they’ve been doing it for a long time or maybe they’re brand new and this is their first pullover. I don’t know. I think there’s a lot of factors. But I do think they have more credibility. Just like I have more credibility in my job than someone who’s never done it before. MS. KEENE: Okay. Does anybody else feel like Mr. Oakes? We’re just flat out coming in here them themselves have more credibility and he’s gonna really presume they’re not lying. Is that correct? VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: Because they have a uniform &emsp; on. Anyone else? You added some more facts into it. Just — You presume that they’re not gonna lie just because they have a uniform on? VENIREPERSON: No. Because they are people. MS. KEENE: Right. So you add the other facts and say, well, I’m gonna — I’m gonna assess them — You start assessing their whole career when you add it in. Correct? VENIREPERSON: Yeah, perhaps. MS. KEENE: Okay. VENIREPERSON: Again, based on other things. They all can lie or tell the truth. MS. KEENE: Yes. So does anyone have just such a positive belief in police officers that you would not fairly assess this case? That’s what I’m looking for. It’s a global I love cops. Nobody? All right. All right. Does anybody have a global hatred of cops that they could not assess it fairly? So we’re all just neutral? That’s the way we’re supposed to be. What if a police officer — or do you &emsp; think a police officer should be held to a higher standard when you’re dealing with them committing crimes or them driving while intoxicated? You’re shaking your head, Mr. Wilson. Did I do that right? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Okay. Mr. Wilson, tell me what you’re thinking. VENIREPERSON: I think the role itself — If you’re gonna be upholding the law, then you need to be obeying the law. I was in real estate for a while, and there were ethics that we had to abide by. Not every realtor did that. But it’s — To me it’s not any different than a police officer or a medical practitioner. MS. KEENE: If a police officer were charged with a crime and a civilian’s charged with a crime, would beyond a reasonable doubt be just ever so slightly lower for you on the police officer to say guilty than on the civilian? VENIREPERSON: No. I mean, because I think you would still have to do reasonable — If that’s the guidelines of the law, you have to do reasonable doubt. MS. KEENE: And is reasonable doubt &emsp; different for a police officer than it would be for a civilian? That’s what I’m looking for. VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: Okay. Does anybody else feel like it would — and think about it for a second. Okay? Does anybody else feel like Mr. Wilson? That there’s a higher standard for police officers and crime, being defendants? Yes, sir. VENIREPERSON: Yes, I do. MS. KEENE: Mr. Powell. VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. Just like he said. This is what you do. You’re — you’re — You’re a public servant to uphold the law. Lead by example. MS. KEENE: Absolutely. Yes. VENIREPERSON: I feel like that’s more of a moral thing than actually a thing for the legal system, though. That’s more of — we hold them more accountable, but the law should be the same for everyone across the board. MS. KEENE: Can a cop go have a drink with some friends, get in a car and drive home? Does anybody think he or she can’t do it? Can we go have a cocktail with some friends? &emsp; Mr. Zertuche? VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MS. KEENE: Did I pronounce that right? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Wow. All right. Mr. Zertuche, what do you think about drinking and driving? VENIREPERSON: Gotta know your limit, what you’re supposed to drink. MS. KEENE: Can you go to a friend’s house and have a barbecue, drink some beers, eat some food and still safely get in your car and come home? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: What’s the difference between that and getting labeled a criminal driving while intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: I was gonna say that if you think you have too much, don’t even drive. MS. KEENE: Have you ever been in a situation where you’ve had to make that judgment call for a friend and say, you know what, Bud. Let me have the keys. VENIREPERSON: Yes, I have. MS. KEENE: And there is a line, isn’t there? VENIREPERSON: That is correct. &emsp; MS. KEENE: How many of y’all have at least encouraged your friend to give them your keys [sic] and just hang out at my house tonight or let me drive you home? Okay. The majority of us. Who hasn’t. VENIREPERSON: (Raises hand.) Sorry. MS. KEENE: You’re living my mother’s life. Okay? My mother would go, I’m not gonna be around people like that. VENIREPERSON: [Unintelligible], but mom wasn’t around. MS. KEENE: Mom was good. We’ve got a couple other good ones. We’re about half and half. VENIREPERSON: They always tell me that, though. MS. KEENE: Okay. well, the half that have, what makes you make that call as a human being? Mr. Zertuche. VENIREPERSON: Again? MS. KEENE: Yeah, again. I’m gonna make you talk. What — what — What allows you as a human being, what makes you say tonight I’m gonna make that call for my good buddy? VENIREPERSON: Just keep an eye on – If you’re having a party, just keep an eye on if they’re drinking. If they’re having too much to drink, stop their drinking, take their keys away and, you know, let ’em spend time there or just drive ’em home. MS. KEENE: And that’s pretty normal at parties these days, is it not, unless you’re 18? Correct? Or 19. Well, that’s underage, right? Okay. Does anyone feel like it is just — it should be against the law to drink and drive, period? Does anyone feel like — Do you know what your own limit is? How about you, ma’am? You have not talked. Ms. King, do you know what your own limit is? I’m gonna go out with my friends from work, we’re gonna celebrate my promotion. VENIREPERSON: I have a pretty good idea. I don’t have an exact number. I can drink three and I’m okay, but I know the rules. MS. KEENE: And so you know that if I — if I’m gonna tear it up tonight, are you gonna make plans for that? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: And so you’re gonna do that ahead of time? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Or at least have a friend &emsp; that’s there to keep an eye on you? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Is that pretty standard these days? VENIREPERSON: It is. MS. KEENE: It kind of is, isn’t it? It’s not the way it was when I was a kid. I’m gonna be honest with you. It has changed. Correct? We’re all about the same age. Some of you are younger. Sorry. You’ve always lived in a responsible world. When I was young, it wasn’t responsible. But, yes, you get to a place, certainly at a certain age, where you know how much you can drink, correct, and safely drive or I need to go ahead and spend the night with my friends. Does everybody feel comfortable with their own way that they judge themselves, those of us that drink? If someone said that you were intoxicated after you had two drinks, would they be telling the truth or knowing that that is a fact and a correct fact? VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: And would you know that? In other words, if you had two drinks and you’re driving and you get charged with DWI, would you know that you were not drunk while driving while intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: Yes. &emsp; MS. KEENE: How come? VENIREPERSON: Just know what I’m capable of. MS. KEENE: Okay. Does anybody feel uncomfortable with that concept, with the concept of drinking, knowing what your limit is and still driving safely? Everybody’s fine with that. VENIREPERSON: Well, it’s a judgment call, right? MS. KEENE: It is a judgment call. VENIREPERSON: And you may get it right and you may not. So you do have to make the other arrangements. The only thing I worry about is the fact when you drink you don’t realize you’re out of control. So you do have to make sure you have somebody there that doesn’t drink. MS. KEENE: Absolutely. Or somebody there that’s got an eye on you or that you made a prior plan. That’s what I talked with her about. VENIREPERSON: And if it matters to y’all, I don’t drink at all. I don’t like the taste. I never have. So I’m kind of an oddball. MS. KEENE: You’re not an oddball at all. VENIREPERSON: Only one in my family, but anyway… Not that they’re drunks, but… &emsp; MS. KEENE: You probably are gonna live to be a hundred versus the rest of us. VENIREPERSON: Probably the opposite. MS. KEENE: But we’re gonna have more fun. Okay? No. Not at all. Okay. Let me get to some more things. Is there anything about — Ms. Miller, Number 1. You’re Juror Number 1. So the likelihood is that you are going to be on this jury unless you say something that either I freak out about, Nick freaks out about or the prosecutors freak out about and we strike you. Okay? So if you are sitting on this jury, is there anything that you can think of that I’ve not asked you or that Mr. Marcum has not asked you that we need to know about? VENIREPERSON: Not that I can think of. MS. KEENE: No plans for Monday or Tuesday? VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: I’d be shocked if we go into Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, but you have no plans next week? VENIREPERSON: Just work. MS. KEENE: Okay. We’ll weird things happen. People get sick. Would you like to be on this &emsp; jury? MS. KEENE: If I’m chosen, that’s fine. MS. KEENE: Okay. Either way? VENIREPERSON: (Nods head up and down) MS. KEENE: All right. You have nothing– no questions of me, period? VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: Do you feel like you understand what beyond a reasonable doubt means? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: And you understand that it’s the highest burden in all of the law? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: And you understand it’s a constitutional burden? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: And would you require Nick to prove that he was not intoxicated? VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: Who’s gonna have to prove to you that he was intoxicated while driving? VENIREPERSON: The State. MS. KEENE: Okay. Mr. Crane, you are retired military? VENIREPERSON: Six years Navy. &emsp; MS. KEENE: Lockheed? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Okay. You have sat on a criminal trial before. VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: And was that here? VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: How long ago? VENIREPERSON: Just over two years. MS. KEENE: Oh, how fun for you. You’ve been here. VENIREPERSON: That’s what I was thinking exactly. So you came — Was it a felony or misdemeanor? VENIREPERSON: Felony. MS. KEENE: So you came, you sat out there? VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: It was a bunch of y’all? VENIREPERSON: Oh, yeah. MS. KEENE: And so out of all those, usually 45 to 60 people, they reached out and snatched your reasonable self and put you over here and you sat on a jury? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: There were 72 of us, and yes. MS. KEENE: So what do you think your changes are? Seventy-two if you’re one, what are your chances in 16? And you’re number two. VENIREPERSON: At this point pretty good. MS. KEENE: Kind of what I’m thinking. What kind of a case was it you sat on before? VENIREPERSON: He said/she said sexual assault. MS. KEENE: Did y’all reach a verdict? VENIREPERSON: Yes, we did. MS. KEENE: Was it a not guilty or guilty? VENIREPERSON: Guilty. MS. KEENE: Did y’all also assess punishment? VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: What did y’all — Did y’all have a choice at probation or prison or was it the whole gamut or was it a smaller amount that you’re trying to decide? VENIREPERSON: The choices were zero to 20, probation if everyone agrees, and up to a $10,000 fine. &emsp; MS. KEENE: And what did y’all ultimately assess? VENIREPERSON: Fifteen years, no fine, no probation. MS. KEENE: How was that in the jury room talking, dealing with the other people? VENIREPERSON: I was the foreman, so it wasn’t a real fun time. MS. KEENE: Yeah. I knew you were the foreman. I was about to ask you that. You’ve got this foreman old school look. VENIREPERSON: It was not — MS. KEENE: Since — since — In the past two years we have a lot more female foramens. VENIREPERSON: Yeah. It wasn’t the best three days I’ve ever had. MS. KEENE: Yeah. It’s hardcore. VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: Do you want to do this again? VENIREPERSON: I will serve if I’m picked. MS. KEENE: Okay. Is there anything that I have not asked you about that you think that we need to be aware of? VENIREPERSON: No, ma’am. &emsp; MS. KEENE: Anything about your kiddo that would affect you one way or the other on a case like this? VENIREPERSON: I hope he got up and went to work. MS. KEENE: Okay. VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: Okay. I like that. All right. Thank you. Mr. Zertuche. I feel like I’m slottering it, but I’m not, am I? You also have sat on a jury. How long ago was that? VENIREPERSON: I’d say probably six years. MS. KEENE: Was it here in Tarrant County? VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MS. KEENE: And was it a felony or misdemeanor? VENIREPERSON: Misdemeanor. MS. KEENE: What type of case? VENIREPERSON: I can’t remember. It’s been a while. MS. KEENE: Okay. Do you remember if y’all reached a verdict? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: It was a hung jury? VENIREPERSON: I don’t remember. MS. KEENE: What happened? VENIREPERSON: I don’t recall. MS. KEENE: You just knew you came down here. Did you leave — Did you ultimately go and listen to evidence and make a decision? VENIREPERSON: Yes, we did. MS. KEENE: Okay. You just don’t remember what it was? VENIREPERSON: That’s correct. MS. KEENE: Anything about the person that has had the prior DWI that you think one way or the other would affect you sitting on this jury? VENIREPERSON: No, ma’am. MS. KEENE: Anything about you that is not reflected in the questionnaire that we need to know about? VENIREPERSON: No, ma’am. MS. KEENE: Do you feel like you would be a fair and impartial juror? VENIREPERSON: If I’m chosen. MS. KEENE: Would you just look at the evidence for what it is? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Would you entitle — or give Nick the presumption of innocence? That he’s presumed innocent until they prove the opposite? VENIREPERSON: Well, I would listen to the evidence. MS. KEENE: Right. But he would be presumed innocent. He would start off innocent? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Okay. Thank you. You were Number 3. You said nothing scary, so you may get a stay. I don’t know. Anything else? No? VENIREPERSON: That’s it. MS. KEENE: All right. Ms. Russell, you work for the City of Arlington? VENIREPERSON: I do. MS. KEENE: What do you do for them? VENIREPERSON: Administrative secretary in the water department. MS. KEENE: Oh, how fun. They also have a city prosecutor’s office. Anything about your sister and the issues with her, other than what you’ve already talked about, that we need to know about? VENIREPERSON: Other than she thought she &emsp; was treated unfairly. THE REPORTER: Ma’am, you have to speak louder. MS. KEENE: Would that have an impact on you as a juror in this case to the extent you would not be fair? VENIREPERSON: I’m hoping no. MS. KEENE: Okay. Do you know that — How many of y’all are just sceptical of government? Is anybody skeptical of government? You know it’s in our DNA, right? We had a revolution a long time ago. We’re Texans. Right? As a general rule we are skeptical of government, even when you work for the government, the water department. Right? And sometimes — I used to be a prosecutor — being in the government makes you more skeptical of them. Just like working in the medical field makes you more skeptical of lab tests. Right? That’s okay. All right? Because what it is is it’s saying I’m gonna give him the presumption of innocence. That’s all it’s saying. I’m skeptical of government to the point that he gets to be presumed innocent. I’m not gonna assume that he drove around DWI. I’m gonna make them prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s called the constitution. Our founding father’s were very skeptical &emsp; of government power and so they built a whole lot of safeguards to make sure that we don’t live in a police state. How many of y’all wanna live in a police state? Does anybody know what that means? Who knows what a police state is? Tell me about it. VENIREPERSON: I came from a communist country. MS. KEENE: You’re Ms. — one, two — VENIREPERSON: Callahan. MS. KEENE: Callahan. You came from a communist country. Which country? VENIREPERSON: Romania. MS. KEENE: Romania is a communist country, or was. VENIREPERSON: Was. MS. KEENE: And it was a police state when it was a communist country? VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: Tell us what it’s like to live in a police state. VENIREPERSON: You’re afraid. MS. KEENE: But why? VENIREPERSON: Because they can arrest &emsp; you and take you to jail. MS. KEENE: And whatever the police officer says is just true, isn’t it? VENIREPERSON: Yes, ma’am. MS. KEENE: Can you — Is there a presumption of innocence? VENIREPERSON: Not really. MS. KEENE: There’s actually a presumption of guilt. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: I mean, if a police officer says come with me, it’s — it’s done. VENIREPERSON: Done deal. MS. KEENE: How different is it to live in freedom here? VENIREPERSON: You are presumed — THE REPORTER: I’m sorry. I’m not understanding her. VENIREPERSON: You are presumed innocent until they prove you guilty. MS. KEENE: How does that feel to live in that country? The rest of us have only lived in that. We were born, raised and probably take it for granted. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Tell us how it &emsp; feels different? VENIREPERSON: It’s great. MS. KEENE: Like in what way? VENIREPERSON: You are free to think and to do and obey the law. By obeying the law you are not in trouble. MS. KEENE: And if a police officer pulls you over and takes you to jail, you at least can have a lawyer and end up with a jury trial and come in and make them prove it. VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Right? And there’s some feeling in you that makes that feel better and more free, doesn’t it? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: So we — None of us want to live in a police state. You’ve chosen to — VENIREPERSON: No. 19 MS. KEENE: — to come here. So being skeptical — I’ve done all that because you said I’m skeptical of government. And it’s okay to be skeptical of government. It is. What I’m looking for is the people who just say if a police officer said it, it’s true. If these young men, very nice young men, but they’re the government, say he’s &emsp; guilty, then he’s guilty. Because that’s a police state. It really is. I’m looking for six citizens that will say I’m gonna be skeptical. I’m gonna sit here and I’m gonna make them prove it to me. And if they do, they do Nicolas Ramirez. I’m sorry. If they don’t, they don’t. THE COURT: You have about six minutes. MS. KEENE: But it’s a high burden. All right. And you feel like you can do that? Hold them to their burden? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: All right. Mr. Powell, we have talked to you. Ms. Johnson, we’ve talked to you.I would love to keep talking to you, but… Mr. Oakes, Ms. Miller. All right. Mr. Jones. There we go. We’ve not talked to you. I’m gonna move over here for a second. Have you ever served on a jury? VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: Is there anything about anything we’ve talked about that you need to say something because you’re gonna be on this jury if you don’t? Speak now or forever hold your peace, Mr. Jones. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: I mean, I believe that if he’s — This is my personal opinion. And just because — I guess I’m impartial because of kind of my – my dealings with officers and the way I’ve been treated. So I kind of have [sic] 100 percent faith in ’em. You know what I mean? So I’m down the middle with everything, though. So I’m — you know, they – they have — they’re gonna have to prove him, you know, guilty. And I stand in the middle. You know, they have to — they gonna have to bring the facts to say he was over the legal limit. That’s just how I feel. I mean… MS. KEENE: Well, I think what you’re saying is what is the law. VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MS. KEENE: So you’re still gonna be on the jury. And that’s a good thing. Because you said I stand in the middle. You said I stand in the middle. You’re saying — You said you’ve never had a bad experience with police. VENIREPERSON: I’ve had a few. MS. KEENE: Okay. You’ve had bad experiences with police, but you can still listen to the evidence, and if he’s guilty, he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s where it is. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: And if he’s innocent — MS. KEENE: Right. Or if he’s just right up to beyond a reasonable doubt. You understand that? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: He could look guilty. Y’all get that? He can look guilty. You could think he’s guilty. You could say I think he’s guilty, not guilty. How would that happen? Let’s bother you, Ms. Wilson. How would it be that you would say I think that – that Mr. Ramirez is guilty, but I have to vote not guilty? VENIREPERSON: Because of the evidence. MS. KEENE: In what way? VENIREPERSON: Going off the facts. VENIREPERSON: Okay. Can you imagine a situation where you think that he’s guilty but you don’t believe it beyond a reasonable doubt? VENIREPERSON: Not really. MS. KEENE: Okay. Can someone else go there with me conceptually? You see how there’s a difference? I think he’s guilty. Because I probably think he’s guilty is not beyond a reasonable doubt. VENIREPERSON: That’s profiling. MS. KEENE: Yeah. He’s probably guilty. &emsp; VENIREPERSON: You’re profiling. MS. KEENE: Okay. VENIREPERSON: You can’t profile people. MS. KEENE: It’s beyond a reasonable doubt, not he’s probably guilty. Does that make sense? Have you ever had a — Have you ever thought a boyfriend was cheating? Okay. And so until you knew beyond a reasonable doubt you might not have kicked him, you know, thrown him to the curb. Or maybe in personal life I think he cheats is enough. You see the difference? So I think or you’re probably is not the standard. It’s beyond a reasonable doubt. So ifyou finish this evidence, if you say all — the only place you are is Nick Ramirez is probably DWI, the verdict is what? VENIREPERSON: Nothing. VENIREPERSON: Not guilty. MS. KEENE: Not guilty. It’s a weird rule for the courtroom. But it’s the way we keep the government in check, it’s the way we don’t have a police state. Do you wanna be on this jury, Ms. Wilson? VENIREPERSON: If I was picked. MS. KEENE: You have anything that we have not talked about with you? &emsp; VENIREPERSON: No. MS. KEENE: What about Ms. Sanchez? VENIREPERSON: Hi. MS. KEENE: Hi. You haven’t been talking. You better talk quick. You got anything about your life experiences that we should have asked you? If they had just asked me that. VENIREPERSON: I don’t think so. MS. KEENE: Okay. You think you’d be a fair and impartial juror? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Judge the evidence for whatever it is? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: Would you give him the presumption of innocence? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: And make the government prove the case guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: We talked to you, you, you and I think the rest of you. Do y’all have any questions of me? Anybody that I skipped over? Well, it’s not — as the &emsp; prosecutor said, if we’re talking about DNA, we’re in trouble. This is a simple case to you and me. Of course, it’s not a simple case to the citizen accused. Yes, ma’am. VENIREPERSON: I don’t think y’all will go past Tuesday, but there’s no way I can go to Friday. MS. KEENE: The only reason that was is because somebody got sick. I mean, you see what I’m saying? Weird stuff can happen. But you have something on Friday — VENIREPERSON: Yes. MS. KEENE: — that would be a big problem? VENIREPERSON: Yeah. MS. KEENE: I would be in shock if we were still going on Friday. I mean, it is a DWI, and there’s only so many witnesses that we can bring on DWI cases. Okay? Anybody else have any other questions or concerns? Because I would be concerned if I was going some place on Friday. Well, y’all have been wonderful. Thank you for talking to me as well as talking to the prosecutor. THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. &emsp; All right. Now remember. Be careful on the back row, especially stepping down. You’d be surprised how many people have fallen after I’ve said this. My bailiff is going to lead y’all out the double doors. And if you’ve gotta run to the restroom real fast, do that. We might have some people that are called to come in again, but just remain outside the double doors if you would. And be really careful. (Prospective jury panel retires to the hallway.) THE COURT: Are there any challenges from the State? MR. MARCUM: Challenges for cause, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MR. MARCUM: Yes. The State would challenge Jurors 5, 12, 14 and 15 on the grounds that they’re gonna require the State to prove .08 under any scenario. We would charge — We would cause [sic] Juror Number 4 based on her statement that she wasn’t sure she could be fair and impartial based on her family experience with DWI. THE COURT: Any agreement? MS. KEENE: Yes. I believe that 5, 12, &emsp; 14 and 15 are gone. THE COURT: Granted. MS. KEENE: Four qualified herself in her understanding. She said she’d hold them to their burden of proof. THE COURT: I have here that she said she can try to be fair and impartial. Didn’t get a yes or no out of her. We can bring her in if you want to. MR. MARCUM: Her last statement was — Ms. Keene asked if she could be — if it would cloud her judgment, or something to that effect, and her quote was “Hoping no.” THE COURT: You need to get something clear from her. Anymore from you, Joetta? MS. KEENE: And then number — Oakes. Number 7. And I don’t remember what it was. I can’t read my own notes that I wrote, but I need to challenge for cause. THE COURT: I think — Isn’t he the one that said he didn’t think a police officer would — MS. KEENE: Oh, that’s it. THE COURT: — lie? MS. KEENE: Yeah, yeah, yeah. That’s exactly what it was. Yes. You’re correct. &emsp; THE COURT: Okay. I’m gonna — Let’s just take a three-minute break and then we’ll come back and I’ll bring in 4 and 7. Did you have anymore? MR. MARCUM: No, Your Honor. MS. KEENE: I did not. I did not. THE COURT: All right. (Courtroom break from 11:31 a.m to 11:37 a.m.) (Open court) THE COURT: Bring ’em in. (Prospective jury panel seated) MS. KEENE: Judge, I think we’re gonna all waive our things and just proceed on the strikes. THE COURT: Both of you? MS. KEENE: Yes. THE COURT: All right. There’s an agreement? MR. MARCUM: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: All right. Then let’s give the jurors a 15-minute break and do our strikes. So we have 5, 12 — I’m sorry. Five, 12, 14 and 15 are out. MR. MARCUM: Correct, Judge. THE COURT: All right. (Attorneys make their strikes) &emsp; (Open court) THE COURT: Strikes from the State are 3, 4, 11; from the defense are 2, 6 and 13. We have 1, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 16. (Prospective jury panel seated.) THE COURT: All right. You can be seated. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I wanna thank you initially. Thank you so much for everyone’s contribution. I really think this was just a good panel. You know, I said earlier some panels — You can have some panels that are just way out there and some panels that are way the other way, and some panels you have two or three people on it that just say the craziest things you’ve ever heard in life. This was a good panel. This was just a good panel. So thank you. And thank you for your time here. We have six that are — have not been eliminated. I was gonna say chosen. But have not been eliminated. And so we’re gonna have enough to have a jury on Monday. So that will be great. I’m gonna call your names. But let me tell the rest of the panel, after I call the names, I’ll excuse you. And it is ten till twelve. And I will not call your boss or your husband or your wife and tell ’em &emsp; that you left here at ten till twelve. So you’ll have the rest of the day. You’re on jury duty, right? But you will go down — The officer has some papers he’ll give to one of you and you’ll all go down as a group to the first floor and get your check or whatever they do down there. I’m not exactly sure. So the jury members are as follows. Caryon Miller, Number 1. Come sit in the jury box, please. George Oakes, Number 7; Kathryn Miller, Number 8; Jonathan Jones, Number 9; Darla Wilson, Number 10; and Jennifer King, Number 16. (Jury seated.) THE COURT: All right. The rest of you take your paperwork. You may go down. Thank you so much for your time. We appreciate it. You’re released. (Remaining panel excused.) THE COURT: All right. Okay. So I am not gonna swear you guys in until Monday morning. You can be here any time before nine because I wanna started at nine. We might have a little motion hearing before nine, but we’ll try to get that over with at nine sharp. If you wanna bring your lunch tomorrow, that’s fine. There are a few places. We usually – I usually give y’all an hour half to two hours for lunch because sometimes, I’ve learned, it’s very hard to get &emsp; served. There’s just not a whole lot of places up here around the courthouse. Park at LaGrave Field if you can. The other parking is ten or $12. It’s very expensive, I think, downtown and you have to be out by a certain time. I wanna finish up on Monday — and I said tomorrow. I wanna finish up on Monday, so we’ll probably go past five if we have to. Don’t worry about getting back to LaGrave Field. Even if we went past the time that these buses take people back and forth, we have access to squad cars and can get you back to your car. So don’t worry about that at all. I think that’s about it. I’ll swear you in in the morning [sic]. We’ll start at nine. We’ll go all day. If you have any arrangements to make, make ’em, because you might not be home. Yes sir. VENIREPERSON: You said tomorrow. THE COURT: I did say tomorrow. I can’t keep my head straight for two seconds. Monday morning. Yes, sir. Any other questions? Okay. We’ll see you Monday morning. Thanks a bunch. (Voir dire examination concluded) &emsp; STATE OF TEXAS | COUNTY OF TARRANT | I, Mary Ann Clifton, Official Court Reporter for County Criminal Court No. 7 of Tarrant County, Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of all portions of evidence, and other proceedings requested in writing by counsel for the parties, to be included in this volume of the Reporter’s Record, in the above-styled and -numbered cause, all of which occurred in open court, or in chambers, and were reported by me. I further certify that this Reporter’s Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties. WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the November 29th, 2015. /s/ Mary Ann Clifton ________________________________ 20 MARY’s ANN CLIFTON, CSR NO. 2385 Expiration Date: 12-31-15 21 Official Court Reporter County Criminal Court No. 7 22 Tarrant County, Texas 401 W. Belknap Street 23 Fort Worth, Texas 76196 (817) 884-2776

Los Abogados