Note: This is not a transcript. It's just my notes as fast as I can type. Spelling errors will be corrected later. Earlier posts: Part I and Part II. 3:20 pm. Parties are at the bench. They should be about to exercise their peremptory challenges where each side will excuse those jurors they don't feel will benefit their side, for whatever reason. Judge asks question: Have any of you by approached by or talked to a news reporter or a reporter of any kind? Have any of you been approached by anyone other than court staff since you have been here this morning? One woman in back row says a man asked her if she knew how many jurors had been excused so far. The Judge asks the same question of the jurors in the audience pool. His voice rises. No one should talk to the jurors. If he finds out a press person talked to any of them, he'll revoke press credentials. He's very angry about the contact. He should be. What a no-no. Gov't excuses man in back row. Stern: excuses woman in back row. Two replacement jurors are called, a man and a woman.
They both have heard the questioning of the jurors in the jury box. Did either have any questions they would have answered "yes." The man says he reads the Denver Post on Sundays and the Rocky when it's available. Reads hard copy and online versions when traveling. Has not gone to the web page for this case. Has done google searches on the case due to his interest in business ethics. He's a clinical ideologogist (?) Judge doesn't know what that is , he says it has something to do with hearing impaired people. Watches tv regularly, channel 9 local news. He got some information on the case from 9 news. Listens to KBCO radio, heard this case was starting today. Reads google news, MSN. Remembers searching for news on this case. He moves up to the bench for further questioning. The process after this will be that the prosecutor will excuse one juror at a time, and the defense, which has more challenges, will excuse two. After the recusals, new jurors will come into the box for questioning from the gallery, until all challenges are exhausted. They have to be say whether they would have answered any of the questions "yes." The Court needs 12 jurors and 6 alternates. 3:40 pm The googler is gone. A man has been called in his place. He has no "yes" answers to the questions. Has not heard of the case before this morning. Has lived in Denver, 9 years, before that Ohio. Not married, was married once, works for Habitat for Humanity, uses a computer for drafting construction of houses. Has also done factory work. Example, he made Cadillac bumpers. Assoc. degree in computer drafting. Opinion on compensation: He'd have to look at each one on a case by case basis. Any opinion would be set aside. The new woman: Someone in her family was charged with a crime, but charges were dismissed. Wants to approach the bench to talk about it. My battery is low again and I can't charge it in the courtroom. I'm going to switch to handwritten notes and will update tonight. I don't want to leave the actual courtroom because then I can't see the jurors. Update: The questioning continues. I left at 5:20 pm and it was still going on. Several more jurors were replaced. Interestingly, the defense so far has left on the juror whose in laws retired from U.S. West and who had to go back to work after retirement -- and whose neighbor was the former President of the U.S. West retirees association. Another replacement juror said he knew the Judge -- they went to high school together in Grand Junction. The Judge was a little flustered by the answer, but regrouped pretty quick. The juror, who worked for the Department of Corrections in Canon City (where the state prison is) said he could be fair. Both sides passed him for cause, but he was later dismissed by the defense. More tomorrow.