IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,

vs Case No: 99-21857
MMANO-E
ROBERT S. MINTON,
Defendant.

(Whereupon, the jury panel was sworn and seated.)

THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am
Judge Robert Morris. I will presiding over the trial
of this case today. As you have been told this is the
State of Florida versus Robert Minton. This is a
criminal trial, the charge is battery. Before we get
underway I want to cover a few things with you. First
of all, I want to welcome you all here. I recognize
that many of you may have never sat on a jury before,
you may have never been part of a judicial proceeding
before. In fact, you may have never been in this
building before. Consequently, I realize that these
surroundings and these proceedings may be very
unfamiliar to you and you might be nervous about
that. Please don't be. Part of my responsibility as a
judge is to make sure that you have the information
you need to perform function, and I will try to make
sure that I give you that information as we go along.

I also understand that all of you gave up
something to be here today. All of you would be
at work, you would be attending to family matters
or business

-73-
matters, or things that are very important to each
and every one of you, and it was a sacrifice to be
here. We recognize that. We appreciate that. We
will try not to inconvenience you any more than
is necessary. But it is important that you realize
that it is Monday morning across all of America
today and that in every jurisdiction in this nation
people like you were summoned to the courthouses
in the big cities and the small towns to sit in a
courtroom to talk to a judge like me. And this is
one of the unique things about our system of
justice. We are unique in the world about the way
we resolve disputes.
You, like all of these other citizens, are
going to be asked questions by the Court, by each
of the sides, so that there can be an opinion developed
on your ability to fair and impartial in a case like
this. Because that is the way that we decide disputes
in America. Juries of the peers, the parties are
impaneled to listen to the evidence and make these
determinations. We are unique in the world in this
regard.
So your involvement in this process is vital.
If you didn't come here today, if people you all
didn't come to the courthouses as they did today the
judicial branch of government couldn't function, because
it is an important ingredient in what we do. So we

-74-
appreciate you being here.
Now, as we go forward I want to explain a couple
things that are going to occur here. The lady in the
middle of the courtroom here, speaking into what looks
like a mask, she is the court reporter. She
basically is responsible to make a record of these
entire proceedings. She will take down everything
that is said. When I am speaking now she i~ taking
it down. When you speak she is taking it down. When
the lawyers speak she is taking it down. It is
important for us to be mindful of that when we have
an opportunity to speak, we need to speak loudly,
slowly, clearly so that she can understand what we say.
Please be sensitive to that when you have an
opportunity to speak. Speak so that she can hear you,
so that she doesn't have to say, sir, ma'am, I can't
hear you. Also understand that she can't take down
shakes of
the head or nods. She has to have an oral articulation
of a response. Be sensitive to that.
We humans communicate in a variety of different
ways, and it's not always orally, but we need to
communicate for that purpose. Because she will take
down these entire proceedings we will do things from
time
to time, or say things that may appear obvious to
you, but we will have to say them so the record will reflect who is in and out of the courtroom, for example, and what

-75-
is going on.
I am going to do one of those things right now.
One of the things that I have to do is confirm that
both sides are ready to proceed to trial. So I am
going to do that now. Counsel for the State, are
you ready to proceed?

MR. TYSON: That's correct, Judge.

THE COURT: Counsel for the defense, are you ready
to proceed?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We are ready, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you very much. Now, as you all know
from viewing the material down in the central jury
room, the purpose of the jury selection is for us to
try to select six jurors who can fairly and impartially
try the issues in this case. Understand that we need
to ask you questions in order to that. No one is going
to ask you questions to try to embarrass you, or
pry into your personal lives, or put you on the spot
in any way. But we have to ask you questions so that
an opinion can be developed as to your ability to be
fair and impartial relative to the people seated around
you.
Please understand, and you know this, life is a
collection of experiences, how we view the world, how
we make decisions, who we are is largely a product of

-76-
where we have been. Because of that no human is uniquely
situated to be fair and impartial in every type of
situation. There may be things in your background that
would make it difficult for you to be fair and
impartial in certain situations. That is why we have
to ask you questions.
If you are not asked to sit on this jury no one
has said anything bad about you. Your integrity has not
been impugned in any way. Merely a decision has been made
about you in a relatively short period of time, with a
relatively small amount of information about your ability
to be fair and impartial with the people seated around you.
The fact of the matter is, we might even be wrong.
But that is what our effort is, is to try to give both
sides a fair trial here today. That's all both sides are
asking for here today. We need to try to select a jury
that can give them that opportunity.
Now, what I am going to do, I want to go through is
have you identify yourselves for us. We have questionnaires
on you. We know who you are. We know some important things
about you. It's important that we are able to put names with
faces, and I do that for a lot of reasons. First of all, I'd
like to try to identify the names and faces. Second of all,
some of you have

-77-
difficult to pronounce names. So I view it as my job to
mispronounce your name first to save the lawyers the
embarrassment of having to do it. So bear with me as we
sort of go forward and do this. What I am going to do
is ask each of you to stand in place and briefly tell
us your name. Tell us where you live in the county. We
don't need to know your address, just generally what
part of the county you live in. What you do for a living.
If you are retired, what you used to do. What your
significant other does, if that person is retired, what
they used to do. If you have grown children, what they
do.
The reason that we want to do that is to try to
understand the expertise in your immediate circle, and
these are the things that you might draw on in your
decision making process, and it is helpful for us to know
that.
I am going to go from my left to right, first row,
second row, et cetera. So, Mr. Donald X, that makes you
first, sir, and I appreciate you doing that for me.

MR. FULLER: No problem. My name is Don X. I live in
Clearwater near Countryside Mall. I work for the State of
Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration. My wife
does accounting type work,

-78-
accounts payable, accounts receivable. No children.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mary x?

MS. X: My name is Marianne X. I live in X and I have
been in the real estate title business for a long time.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?

MS. X: Deborah X. I live in Clearwater. We have our own
family business. My grown child works in the family
business and goes to school.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X?

MR. X: My name s James X. I live in Clearwater. I do
quality assurance for a technology company. I have
four children.

THE COURT: Do I know you, sir?

MR. X: I don't believe so.
THE COURT: Ms. X?

MS. X Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Not even close?

MS. X: Beautiful. Rose Marie X, X. Retired school
teacher and educational service employee. My husband
is deceased. Grown children. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?
MS. X: Katrina X. I work
as a claim's administrator. I live here in Pinellas

-79-
County. My husband is a air conditioning technician, and
I have three step-sons and one son.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X?
MR. X: Scott X. I am a service technician for X First,
a Division F
Huffy Corporation. My wife is a marketing manager for
AAA Auto Club South. I have three children, thirteen,
ten and two.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.
Mr. XMR. X: My name is Felix X. live in X and I a barber.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. X?

MS. BALDWIN: My name is Paula X. live in Northeast
(inaudible). My husband is retired.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X?

MR. X: My name is Aaron X I work at a restaurant as
a waiter. I live in PX. No kids, no wife.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. X?

MS. X: June X. I am a CNA. I have three grown married
children, one teenage son, and six grandchildren.

MR. DENIS DEVLAMING: What city?

MS. X: Clearwater.

THE COURT: Ms. X?

-80-
MS. X: Stephanie , I live in Clearwater. I am not
married. No children.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?

MS. X: My name is Tina X. I live in X. I am a server
at X, and a hairdresser. I am a single parent, and I
have a sixteen year old daughter.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?

MS. X: I am Melissa X. I work X Equity Group in the
law department. I am a single parent with three
children in a daycare situation.

THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am. Mr.X?

MR. X: My name is Don X. I live in Clearwater. I work
at X College. I am an advisor there. My wife also
works at the college as a secretary. We have four
children, all grown.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr.X?

MR. X: My name is Michael X. I am a director of
construction for a local construction company. I
have a wife, and two adult children. My wife is a
managing supervisor for an

-81-
insurance benefits organization.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X?

MR. X: My name is Leroy X. I live in X. I work for
Pinellas County. My wife also works for Pinellas
County. We have four grown children.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X?

MR. X: My name is Gerald X. live out in X. I am
the owner of an air
conditioning wholesale company. My wife is a
housewife. My son works with me in the business. My
daughter is a student.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X?

MR. BAKER: George X. I work as an electrician. My wife
is retired. We have three grown children.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

MR. DENIS DEVLAMING: City please?

THE COURT: Where do you live, sir?

MR. BAKER: X

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. X, Ms. X, excuse me.

MS. X: Sharon X. I live in Clearwater. I am a technical
support person for a research company. (Inaudible.) No
kids.

-82-
THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?

MS. GREEN: My name is Joyce X. I live in St. Pete. No
kids.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?

MS. X: Hi, my name is Josefine X. I own and operate an
auto repair shop with my son, and have two daughters,
which are both married. live in X.

THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. X?

MS. X: Maria X. I am employee of X. Corporation. At
this time my
husband is unemployed. He is an entrepreneur. I have
three Stepchildren, twenty-five, twenty-three, and
nineteen. I reside in X.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X?

MR. X: My name is Peter X. I reside in Largo. I
retired from X aircraft. worked on a government
contract for military engines.
do volunteer work for X Police Department. I have
two grown children.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Now that you have had
an opportunity to introduce yourselves I am going to
ask the parties to introduce themselves. I will start
with counsel for the State, if you would.

MR. TYSON: Thank you, Judge. My name is

-83-
Bill Tyson. I work for the State Attorney's Office.

THE COURT: Counsel, for the Defendant please introduce
yourselves and your client.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes, my name is Denis de
Vlaming. This is Douglas de Viaming, my brother;
and an associate in my law office, Kym Rivellini.
We are here with the Defendant, Robert Minton, here
to my left.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the panel, at
this time we would like to try to understand who
might know each other in the courtroom. My first
question to you as a group is, do any of you know
each other?

(No response)

THE COURT: Are we all strangers back there? There
should be twenty-four of you, and everybody is a
total stranger?

(No response)

THE COURT: Okay. It's not bad that you all would
know each other. We would just need to know that
if you did. Okay. The next question is, do any of
you know any of us? And sometimes we don't need to
recognize each other. Yes, sir, Mr. X?

MR. X: I served on a jury before you

-84-
about a year ago.

THE COURT: Okay, you know me because you were a
juror before, is that right?

MR. X: Correct.

THE COURT: Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.

MS. X: I had a client here. You were filling in
for Judge Ramsberger. I had a client here.

THE COURT: So you know me again in a professional
capacity?

MS. BURKE: Yes.

THE COURT: Any one else?

(No response)

THE COURT: Okay, so we are all strangers here, and
that is perfectly fine. What I want to do is try
to understand a little bit about you and I am going
to ask some general questions of the group. I am
going to ask you to raise your hands in you have
information to give me in response to my questions.
You will get the hang of this as we go along. Some of
my questions might involve a lot of hands coming up,
so bear with me. I will go through the first row,
then the second row, then
the third row, and I will start from my left or right.
So if you initially raise your hand you might want to
just put it down until I start getting close to you
and then you raise it again. Okay, so you will get
the hang

-85-
of this as we go along.
What I want to try to understand first, how
many of you have ever been on a jury before? Okay,
a lot of hands. Mr. X, I know about you. So I am not
going to ask you any questions about it. Ms. X, yes,
ma'am. Was it a criminal or civil jury that you were
on?

MS. X: It was petty theft.

THE COURT: Was it here in this jurisdiction?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: Was it in this courthouse?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: And how long ago would it be?

MS. X: Quite a while ago.

THE COURT: Anything about that you think might make
it difficult for you to be fair and impartial here
today?

MS. X: No, I don't think so.

THE COURT: I just thought I would ask. wasn't there,
and I don't know. And you all are going to have to
bear with me a little bit because that is the question
of the morning. And you are going to hear this over
and over again. Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial

-86-
here today? That's really what we need to know. So
I will probably follow almost every question up that
I ask with that question, and when I am through
beating that to death the lawyers will probably do
something similar. But that is what we need to know.
Is there anybody else in the first row with hands
that I need to identify?

(No response)

THE COURT: Nobody else has been on a jury in the first
row. Second row? Yes, Ms. X, tell me, was it civil or
criminal?

MS. X: Criminal.

THE COURT: Was it here?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: Was it recently?

MS. X: A while ago.

THE COURT: What kind of case was it, do you remember?

MS. X: (Inaudible)

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would make
it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today?

MS. X: No.
THE COURT: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am, that is
Ms. X.

-87-
MS. X: Criminal, it was about two years ago.

THE COURT: What kind of charge was it?

MS. X: Criminal.

THE COURT: And you don't remember the specific charge?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: That's okay. That's fine. Anything about
that experience that would make it difficult for you
to fair and impartial here today?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: Anybody else in the second row? Ma'am, I
missed you in the first row. Ms. X, yes, tell me
about your experience.

MS. X: It was in New Jersey quite a while ago.

THE COURT: Anything about your previous New Jersey
experience that would make it difficult for you to
fair and impartial here today?

MS. X: No, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you. And that was a criminal case?

MS. X: Civil.
THE COURT: It was civil. Thank you. I appreciate that.
I have found my first civil juror. Do

-88-
you understand that the burden of proof in a civil trial
is different than it is in a criminal trial? In a
civil trial the Plaintiff must prove their case a
preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal trial the
State must prove their beyond and to the exclusion of
every
reasonable doubt. Do you understand that there is a
difference there?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay, because you have civil experience
will you be able to set that civil experience aside
and listen to the criminal instructions that you will
hear at the end of this case?

MS. X: I believe so.

THE COURT: I think I got everybody in the first row. I
am jumping back to the second row. And then, Mr. X,
are you next?

MR. X: Yes. I was in a criminal case in Escambia
County.

THE COURT: How long ago was that.

MR. X: About twelve years ago probably.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would
make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here today?

MR. X: (Shaking head)

-89-
THE COURT: And you shook your head, you did what we all
do a lot, but this lady can't take down shakes of the head.

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir, I appreciate using you as
an example here for all of us. Anybody else in the
second row. Yes, sir, Mr. X?

MR. X: Yes, it was a criminal case. It was a
burglary.

THE COURT: Here in this county?

MR. X: Yes, it was.

THE COURT: How long ago, sir?

MR. X: About twenty years ago.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair and
impartial here today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Third row. Anybody? Mr.
X, yes, sir, tell me about your experience.

MR. X: It was a homicide case.

THE COURT: Was it in this county?

MR. X: It in Clearwater about seventeen years ago.

THE COURT: Seventeen years ago. Anything

-90-
about that experience that would make it difficult
for you to fair and impartial here today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr.X, did I see
your hand?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Mr. X? I thought I saw another hand in
that area. Mr. X?

MR. X: I believe mine was civil. It was a condemnation
case down in St. Pete.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would
make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here
today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: And you heard my discussion with Ms. X
about the difference between a criminal burden of
proof and a civil burden of proof, didn't you?

MR. X: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Did you understand what I was trying to
explain to her?

MR. X: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the
third row? Yes, sir, Mr. X?

MR. X: Yes, about twenty/thirty

-91-
years ago in Connecticut, civil.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial
here today?

MR. X No.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Next question is similar
but not exactly the same. I asked you about your
prior jury experience. My next question s, have any
of you ever been involved in a judicial proceeding
of any type, in any capacity, whether it is a witness,
a party, whether it is a traffic matter, a military
matter, a domestic matter, a civil matter, criminal
matter? I just want to know those among you have had
any exposure to this process at all in any way, shape
or form. I am
going to go through the same process, first row first.
Ms. X, yes, ma'am?

MS. X: I was involved in a case where I was defrauded
of a considerable sum of money.

THE COURT: So you were the victim?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: Was that a civil case or a criminal case?

MS. X: I'm not sure that I understand the difference.

THE COURT: A civil case is usually

-92-
an action between private individuals and the result
that is sought is money. A criminal case that is
brought by the State to enforce criminal laws of
the given jurisdiction.

MS. X: It was civil then.

THE COURT: It was which one?

MS. X: Civil.

THE COURT: Civil, okay. Anything about that experience
that would make it difficult for you to fair and
impartial here today?

MS. X: Other than it was a horrible experience.

THE COURT: Okay, but are you going to hold that against
either the parties here today?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: I'm sorry that I have to ask these questions,
but I do. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else in the first
row have an experience we need to know about?

(No response)

THE COURT: Nobody else in the first row has ever been
involved, even gotten a speeding ticket and went down
to court to challenge it? Yes, ma'am, you are Ms. X?

MS. X: It was a criminal case, I was the Plaintiff, and
I don't wish to discuss the

-93-
details.

THE COURT: That's fine. It was a criminal case, and
you said that you were the Plaintiff, which maybe means
that you were a victim?

MS.X: Yes.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would
make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here
today?

MS. X: I don't think so.

THE COURT: Thank you. Okay, everybody in the first row
I got. I'm sorry, Mr. X?

MR. X: I don't know if this relates, but it was a very
nasty divorce and there were a lot of accusations.

THE COURT: That's kind of what we are talking about.
Anything about that experience that would make it
difficult for you to fair and impartial here today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Thank you. And, Mr. X, that brought a memory
or something?
MR. X: Yeah, a long time ago I was called as a witness,
it actually didn't go to court, but I had to go before
the State Attorney and give a deposition on a case up
in Illinois.

-94-
THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial
here today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you, sir. Second row. I will
start with Mr. X I think you are first.

MR. X: I was pulled over and harassed by a cop. He
gave me a paraphernalia charge. had to go to court,
at that time it was thrown out.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial
here today?

MR. STEWART: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. X?

MS. X: Criminal case against a member of my family.

THE COURT: Were you a witness in that criminal case?

MS. X: (Shaking head)

THE COURT: You were just aware of it, it was in your
immediate family circle, so you had knowledge of it,
right?

MS. X: (Nodding head)
THE COURT: Ma'am, you have got to speak

-95-
for this young lady. You are nodding, and we all do
that, but I have to remind you.

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would
make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here
today?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, Ms. X?

MS. X: I had a speeding ticket that I took to court
in Hillsborough County.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would
make it difficult for you to fair and impartial
here today?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: So you think that you can put that aside,
and it's not going to be a problem?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: Sometimes these little matters have a
tendency to incur our ire more than bigger matters,
and that's why we ask about things like traffic
matters. Anybody else on this side of the room? Yes,
ma'am, Ms. X?

MS. X: Just traffic court.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair

-96-
and impartial here today?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: Yes, ma'am, Ms. X?

MS. X: A civil matter down in St. Pete, also a divorce.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything about that experience that
would make it difficult for you to fair and impartial
here today?

MS. X: No.
THE COURT: Okay, same question, you are okay with both
of those things, they are not going to get in your way
of your ability to just listen to the evidence and make
the decision today?

MS. X: I don't think so.

THE COURT: Anybody else? Did I get everybody else? Mr. X?

MR. X: Yes, it is a criminal case, and it is still ongoing.

THE COURT: Are you a witness?

MR. X: No, I am not a witness. It deals with a family member,
and yes, it is bothering me.

THE COURT: So it is a family member and you are not a witness,
and you are not a party, but it's inside your immediate family
circle, and you are

-97-
disturbed by it?

MR. X: Yes, I am.

THE COURT: Are you disturbed to the point where you could not
give both sides a fair and impartial trial?

MR. MCALLISTER: That's correct, I surely am.

THE COURT: I appreciate knowing that. I'm sorry that you are
going through that, but I appreciate you sharing that with us
because we need to know these things. Last row, anybody have
something that they
need to tell me about? Yes, Mr. X?

MR. X: I was in the military police in the service. There were
several uncomfortable situations.

THE COURT: So, these are previous experiences that you have
had. I guess the question is, are any of these experiences
going to make it difficult for you to be fair and impartial
here today?

MR. X: Some of these experiences bother me, and they tend to
stay with me.

THE COURT: So you are concerned about them, is that right?

MR. X: Yes.

-98-
THE COURT: I don't mean to probe, and I'm not trying to do
that, but I need to get the $64,000 question answered, and
that is, whether these things are going to be impacting on
your ability to sit here and
listen to the evidence, and give both sides a fair trial
this morning?

MR. X: It's a possibility.

THE COURT: I appreciate that. That's probably the best answer
that you can give me, and I appreciate that. Anybody else in
the back row that I
need to -- yes, sir, Mr. X, tell me about experience?

MR. X: Divorce and a motorcycle accident. A woman
pulled out in front of me, and I had nowhere to go. I
was injured and that went to court. A
parking citation that my partner had issued and the
person brought it to court and I was there as a witness.

THE COURT: Okay. Anything about any of those experiences
that would make it difficult for you to fair and
impartial here today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Did I get everyone? I didn't get everybody.

MS. X: Right now I am involved in a lawsuit regarding
a car accident.

-99-
THE COURT: Okay. Is that going to be a problem for you
to be fair and impartial here today?

MS. X: It could possibly be, yes, sir.

THE COURT: And that is a civil matter, though, isn't
it?

MS. X: Well, right now it is in mediation -- it was
in mediation. It is scheduled to go to trial.

THE COURT: It is weighing on your mind though, and you
are not sure that you can listen to the evidence and
give both sides a fair trial, is that what I am hearing?

MS. X: Quite possibly, yes, sir.

THE COURT: Okay, did I get everybody? Next question.
Anybody here have anybody with a close friend, or in
their close family circle who make their living in
the judicial system? I am going to expansively include
in that police officers, sheriff's deputies, lawyers,
court clerks, judges, things of that nature. Do you
understand my question? I just need to go through this
process and identify you all and these relationships.
Mr. X?

MR. X: I have an uncle who is a

-100-
sheriff up in Iowa.

THE COURT: Anything about that experience that would
make it difficult for you to fair and impartial here
today?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: The thing that we worry about in these
situations, there is somebody in your close circle of
friends, and you get asked to sit on this jury, when
you are thinking about this case things start creeping
into your mind and say, Boy, I better make the right
decision because when I see so and so, my close friend,
or my brother, or my father-in-law, who is a sheriff's
deputy, judge, or the lawyer I don't want them to say boy,
you did something stupid here. Do you understand my point?
I don't want anybody sitting here and have somebody
outside this courtroom who is going impact on this
decision. We worry about relationships like this that
could be so close, and so strong that you
would feel that you would be searching your mind to
make sure that you did what they thought you should do.
We don't want that to occur. So that is why we ask these
questions. All right. Anybody else in the first row?
Yes, Ms. X?

MS. X: I work with a lot of attorneys in my dealings
with real estate title. I also

-101-
have several clients in the Pinellas County Sheriff's
Department.

THE COURT: Anything about those relationships that
would be so strong that we should be concerned about
what I just explained?

MS. X: I don't think it would. I am honestly not sure.

THE COURT: Okay, as we go along we are going to ask a
lot of questions. And some of you may have answers
like this from time to time. We certainly understand
that. Sometimes you have got to search your mind a little
bit. I understand that. When, Ms. X, in your case in
particular and others of you in general, if you have a
situation like this I only ask that you consider it while
we are asking questions. And don't rely on us to come back
to you. If you get to a point in this question and answer
process where all of the sudden it becomes real clear in your
mind, you have had a change to think about it, and you can
now clearly take a position on it, would you just raise
your hand and say, "You know, I have thought about that
question that you asked me and this is really how it is."
Okay?

And for those of you that have these soul searching
kind of responses please do that for us. There is a lot
of you, and we would not want to inadvertently

-102-
not get back to you and give you a chance to really
take a firm position. Okay?

MS. x: Okay.

THE COURT: Anybody else in the first row? Yes, ma'am,
Ms. X?

MS. X: I have a distant family member who is detective
in Clearwater, and also a close friend who is police
officer in Clearwater.

THE COURT: Anything about those relationship that is
going to be difficult in the areas that I have described?

MS. X: I don't believe so.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Yes, ma'am, Ms.
X?

MS. X: My father-in-law is a retired police officer and
my sister-in-law is an active police officer, and I don't
think that it will have any bearing.

THE COURT: Any of them agencies in this county?

MS. X: My father-in-law retired from the St. Petersburg
Police Department several years ago.

THE COURT: And you don't think it will have anything to
do with your ability to be fair and

-103-
impartial, is that correct?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: Okay. Anybody else in the first row? Did I
get everyone? Second row, does anybody have something
that they need to tell me? Yes, ma'am, Ms. X?

MS. X: My brother is retired from the Sheriff's
Department in Pasco County.

THE COURT: Which county?

MS. X: Pasco.

THE COURT: Pasco. Anything about that will make it
difficult for you to be fair and impartial?

MS. X: (Shaking head)

THE COURT: Thank you. Anybody else second row? Yes, sir,
Mr. X?

MR. X: I have a son who is employed by Escambia County
Sheriff's Department. He is a corrections officer.

THE COURT: Anything about that is going to make it
difficult for you to be fair and impartial?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Did I get everybody in the
second row? Third row, please. Does anybody have any of
these relationships that we need to discuss? I don't
see any hands on this side of the room,

-104-
and I think the first hand that I see is Ms. X? Yes,
ma'am?

MS. X: I have a good friend who is a bailiff in Pinellas
County in civil court.

THE COURT: In civil court, okay. Anything about that
relationship that is going to make it difficult to be
fair and impartial?

MS. X: I do not believe so.

THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. X?

MR. X: I have a cousin who is an attorney in Connecticut,
and two nephews who are police officers in Connecticut.

THE COURT: Any problems in this area?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Did I get everybody? Okay.
Other questions that I am now going to shift to are
really designed to give you some information that you
need to help you understand this process a
little bit. What I would like to do, you will get the
hang of this as we go along. It would be helpful -- or
it is important that you give me an audible response
as a group. And you will see how this works as we go
forward. Okay.
Okay, Do each of you understand that the defendant
in every criminal case is presumed to be

-105-
innocent unless, and until the State proves each
material allegation of the charge, and that guilt is
established the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond
every reasonable doubt? Do all of you understand that?

(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you understand that the Defendant's
presumption of innocence stays with the Defendant
throughout all stages of the trial until this burden
has been met? Do you understand that?

(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you understand that if you are chosen
as members of this jury you will be the sole judges
of the weight, and sufficiency of the evidence, and
the credibility of the witnesses? Do you understand
that that is the juries functions?

(Jury panel responded yes.)
THE COURT: You are the sole judges of the weight and
sufficiency of the evidence, and the
credibility of the witnesses? Everybody understands
that?
(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you understand that in determining the
believability, and the credibility of the witnesses
you may properly consider the demeanor of the
witnesses, the frankness of the witness, the
intelligence

-106-
of the witness, any interest that the witness may
have in the outcome of the case, the means and
opportunity of the witness to know the matters about
which they are testifying, the ability of the witness
to remember about which they are testifying, and
the reasonableness of the
testimony considered in light of all the other evidence
in the case. Do you understand that these are some
things that you should consider in performing your
function?

(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you also understand that if you are chosen
members of this jury you must disregard the consequences
of any verdict that you may render? Do you understand
that the consequences are not the province of the jury?
That is what the Court does. Does everybody understand
that?

(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you also understand that you must lay
aside any personal of sympathy, bias, or prejudice and
that those things play no role in an American court?
Do you understand that?

-107-
(Jury panel responded yes.)
THE COURT: You lay aside all feelings and sympathy,
bias, or prejudice, they play no role in this process.
Everybody understands that?

(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you understand that at no time in the
United States of America is a defendant in a
criminal case required to prove his or her innocence,
or to furnish any evidence whatsoever, and that
this right
is guaranteed to everyone under our constitution?
Does everybody understand that?

(Jury panel responded yes.)

THE COURT: Do you promise that if you are chosen as
members of this jury you will follow the instructions
on the law that the Court gives you at the end of the
trial, and that you will follow and apply this
law, even if you don't like the law, even if you don't
agree with the law? The Court tells you that that is
the law applies to this case that you will follow it.
Will anyone have any difficulty in doing that?

(Jury panel responded no.)

THE COURT: Everybody understand that law is not made
in the judicial branch of government, it is made in
the legislative branch of government. What we do
here is interpret and apply the law, and if we tell
you that is what the law is, you must use the law.
Is anyone going to have a problem with that.

(Jury panel responded no.)
THE COURT: Let's cover now our schedules,

-108-
because there are some things that we need to
understand here. Counsel, is it fair to tell this
panel that this case will not be concluded today?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes.

THE COURT: Everybody agrees with that.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes, Judge, and I think Mr.
Tyson might agree it might be wise for the Court to
inquire, it might even spill into Wednesday.

THE COURT: That's what I thought. So we need to
understand your schedules and the impact that this
trial could have on it. You just heard that we expect
that it is possible that this could be a three day
trial. Is anybody going to have a problem with that?
Let's identify those of you now, and let's go through
them. I am going to have it discuss it with you, so
bear with me with your hands. Mr. X, as always you are
first, sir. Tell me what your problem is.

MR. X: In my position at work I have three days a
month in which a report has be generated for
Tallahassee, and that starts tomorrow and it has to
be completed by Thursday.

THE COURT: And there is no one who could cover you
and do that?

MR. X: No. I am the only one who has the security
to do that.

THE COURT: No way that could be postponed?

MR. X: No.

THE COURT: It has absolutely got to be done
tomorrow, and you are the only person that can do
it?

MR. X: It has to be finished by Thursday and I
am the only one there who has

-109-
the security clearance to do that report.

THE COURT: And you couldn't do it on Thursday? I
don't mean to pressure you, but I have got to ask
these questions.

MR. X: Not in one day, no. If I was on the jury I
would have to work at night to finish it. That
would be a problem.

THE COURT: Okay. Who was the next hand? Mr. X?

MR. X: My wife and children were involved in an
accident on Friday where they had to Bay flighted
out and they are basically -- they got released and
they are home now, but they are pretty much bedridden.

THE COURT: So they need you to care for them?

-110-
MR. X: Pretty much.

THE COURT: Who is there now?

MR. X: One of my friends is there now until I get
back. They had to take off work to get there.

THE COURT: And that couldn't continue three days?

MR. X: No, definitely not.

THE COURT: All right. Did I skip anybody? I thought
I saw a hand. Yes, Ms. X?

MS. X: I am in the process of closing down a
business and right now I am the only one there.
It would be difficult, not impossible. But it
would be difficult to be away three days.

THE COURT: And you are closing a business? Is the
business not open right now?

MS. X: In my business you don't just stop. It takes
months to close it down. And I am in the process of that.

THE COURT: And three days would just be a real
undue hardship, is that what I am understanding?

MS. X: It would difficult, not impossible.

THE COURT: I appreciate your candor. Thank you
very much. Anybody else in the front row?

-111-
Ms.X, tell me what you are worried about?

MS. X: My things are medical.

THE COURT: So for medical reasons being here three
days is a bad thing for you?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: Is it a serious thing?

MS. X: I wont' know until the tests.

THE COURT: I see, you have tests that you are
waiting to hear about?

MS. X: No, I am having the tests Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday, and the results of
that depends on surgery scheduled on the 31st.

THE COURT: I see, thank you. Who else? Ms. X?

MS. X: I work for a small entrepreneurial company.
I am the only one that does my specific job. And
it would be a major hinder to business
for me to be out for three days. One day they can
work around.

THE COURT: Three days is going to be a hardship
in the people that you work for?

MS. X: Yes, it's going to be a hardship on my
company.

THE COURT: Okay. Who else? Mr. X?

-112-
MR. X: Financial-wise I have three children to
support. The job that I am in is paid piece work,
that would be three days that I would be out of
work without pay.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Anybody else in the
first row? Second row? Ms. X?

MS. X: I work for hospice and I do long-term care.
People who I take care of are at the end stages and
they would have a very difficult time to find anyone
to replace me.

THE COURT: Three days is too much?

MS. X: It's difficult for them. They get very upset.
They are in the end stages, and it is difficult for
them if someone else has to come in.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Who else? Ms. X?

MS. X: I am a single parent. I need to get my
daughter to school and work.

THE COURT: And you can't be covered at work?

MS. X: Not my work, her work.

THE COURT: So when do you pick her up and take her?

MS. X: I take her to school in the morning, she
goes to school in Largo.

-113-
THE COURT: What time is that though? What time of
day are we talking about?

MS. X: 7:00.

THE COURT: So that doesn't sound like it would be
a problem at that end. It must be the other end
that is the problem.

MS. X: I pick her up at 12:30and I take her to
work, and then I pick her up at night after work.

THE COURT: There is no one else that can do that?

MS. X: I have no family here.

THE COURT: How old is your daughter?

MS. X: Sixteen.

THE COURT: She does not drive herself?

MS. X: No.

THE COURT: Anybody else? Ms. X?

MS. X: I am also a single parent. My children --
I don't know if it will have any bearing on the
court, my children have to be picked up at
6:00 at night. I am the only one, I have no family
here. Also, I have two herniated discs which makes
sitting very difficult, I have a doctor's note that
says that I cannot sit for any length of time over
thirty minutes.

-114-
THE COURT: At any time that you want to stand,
please do that, you are not going to upset anybody
here. I don't want you be in any discomfort. I wish
you had told me that right away. You have been
sitting longer than thirty minutes.

MS. X: Yeah, I know.

THE COURT: You can stand right now if you want to.
Thank you. And you can stay standing as long as you
would like. Please don't feel the need to sit down
if your comfort level is enhanced by that. Anybody
else in the second row? Mr. X?

MR. X: Yes, sir. It would impact on my
responsibility as the director of construction
for our company. One of my duties is, I am charged
with the responsibility for out of town work. I
have a number of projects that are out of town,
and they are not receiving my attention as I sit
here today. And then for the next two or three
days would be an even
greater burden. I don't have anybody that is able
to take over my position at the moment. The only
other people that would be available would the
president and vice-president of the company, and
each of those individuals have tasks that involve
the operations in their side of the house. So based
on that I feel that that is a burden on me right
now.

-115-
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Sheriff, we have a padded
chair for Ms. X. We can pull that up next to Ms. X,
and I know she would be more comfortable in it. So
why don't we do that.

MS. X: Thank you.

THE COURT: Third row please. Those of you who have
problems with being here for three days. Anybody
in the third row please? No hands in the third row.
Yes?

MS. X: I would just like to get approval of
my employer, I think it would be okay.

THE COURT: So, you think it would okay, but
you just need to clear it?
MS. X: I think it would be okay, I just want
to make sure.

THE COURT: So you need to make a phone call.
All right, did I get everybody? Thank you. You
heard it will be three days. Sometimes we go
into the evening, it's difficult to anticipate
how late we would go. A trial like this I would
try to break it around the 6:00 hour, but we like
to break logically. As evidence is being presented
sometime we might run beyond that. But I would try
not to let it be egregiously beyond that. Is
there anyone who would have difficulty with that
who

-116-
has not already said they can't be here for the
three days? And you are Ms. X?

MS. X: Are you saying that the trial would go on

after 6:00?

THE COURT: It is possible that it might, but it's
not my intention to let it go well beyond 6:00.
Just once in a while it may be the wrong time to
break because we are in the middle of something
that should finish before we break. Okay. Is 6:00
a concern for you?

MS. X: Yes, because I catch the bus out here.

THE COURT: When is the last bus, do you know?

MS. X: I think about 5:00 or 6:00.

THE COURT: Does anybody know? Nobody knows.

THE SHERIFF: We have the schedule downstairs.

THE COURT: We will figure that out, ma'am. I
appreciate you telling me that. Anybody else that
we need to hear from on these issues? Ms. X
brought a very good point. We brought you down here,
we are going to ask you to sit here for three days.
I sure hate to do that and torture somebody

-117-
unintentionally because they had some physical thing
that if I had known about I could have accommodated.
Is there anybody here who has anything like that makes
it difficult to sit in these hard benches, you don't
hear well, you don't see well? Do you have something
about you that if I knew I could be sensitive to and
make it easier for you to be here? Does anybody have
anything like that?
I asked that question once of a panel and we
tried the case well into the night, about 9:00 at
night two jurors let me know then that they were
diabetic and because they hadn't eaten that this
was a problem. I said, I asked you these questions,
tell me these things.
I don't want anybody to be in that situation. Yes,
sir, Mr. X?

MR. X: I am a diabetic.

THE COURT: So you just need to eat in regular intervals?
Is that right.

MR. X: It is at the point now where they are
controlling it with a special diet at home that I take
and three prescriptions that I do take. I have to
monitor my blood sugar three or four times a week. From
what the doctor tells me it is kind of important that I
eat about the same time everyday, not to vary too much
from it.

-118-
THE COURT: Okay. I am glad to know these things. I
appreciate you telling me. Anybody else?

Yes, ma'am? Well, you have kind of told us, right?
Unless you want to add to that, but you don't
necessarily have to. You have explained to me that you
have some health concerns. Is that right?

MS. X: And I tried to express them prior to coming here.

THE COURT: You raised these before in hopes that you
wouldn't have to come, and then it didn't work out, is
that right?

MS. X: Yes.

THE COURT: I appreciate it, ladies and gentlemen.
I just ask counsel to approach the bench briefly. I
don't need the court reporter at this time.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held out of the
hearing of the jury panel that was not reported at
this time.)

THE COURT: What I want to do is read a list of
potential witnesses. I don't know if some or all of
these people are going to testify, but this is a list
of people who could. I read this because if you know
any
of these people we need to know that. So, please listen
carefully.

-119-
I am going to butcher these names too, so please forgive
me. I will spell them when I am not sure. Officer Mark
Beaudette, Clearwater Police. Officer Ron Heck,
Clearwater Police. Officer James Moore, Clearwater Police.
Officer Michael Stewart, Clearwater Police.
Richard Howd. Stacy Brooks. Jessica Burns. Philip
Dellar. Ken Kramer. Jesse Prince. Frank Oliver. John Lenz.
Ray Emmons. Does anyone know any of these people?

(Jury panel responded no.)

THE COURT: What I would like to do is give you all a
momentary opportunity to stretch your legs, go to
the restroom, get a drink of water. But I am going
to ask the Deputy Sheriff make sure that there is
no one else out there so that you might accidentally
bump into a witness, and have an improper
conversation. Okay. If there are witnesses in the area
I need them to go into the witness rooms so that
members of the panel can do this very briefly. This
is going to take about ten minutes. It will give you
chance to stretch a little bit before we proceed to
the next process. Are we all clear? All of the
witnesses are in a room somewhere? Okay. The only
people that are going to leave the courtroom are
members of the panel. Everyone else is here who is
not on this panel will remain here with us, so we
don't have any intermingling of the panel with
anybody else. Okay. Thank you. You are excused for
about ten minutes.

-120-
Please stay close by because we will need you right
back.

(Jury panel was excused for a brief break)

THE SHERIFF: The panel is out of hearing of the
Court, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you, Sheriff. Counsel, ordinarily
what I would do is turn it over to the State to ask
their questions and then Defense could do it. Is
there any reason any of you would like to discuss
cause challenges now though, and if not we will
proceed to the next stage.

MR. TYSON: If you would like we can do it now.
If you want to use the time.

THE COURT: Do you want to do them now?

MR TYSON: We can do some of them if you like,
Judge. It would seem to me that there are some
clear, and we agree there is no sense in keeping
them here, and belaboring the point.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's a good idea. Let's use
the time.

THE COURT: If the other side wants to go first, if
you heard somebody?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I wrote down what they said. I
guess it's up to you to make a decision.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We might be in agreement,
go ahead.

-121-
MR. TYSON: Number one, the first guy, a problem
with his work, Mr. X.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: He has got a problem, does
he? I say cause him.
THE COURT: Everybody agrees, Mr. X is stricken
for cause. What I will do, and again, let's talk
about how we handle this, when they come back my
intention is to announce that to them right now,
and let them ago, unless you all would like me
not to do that.

MR. TYSON: No use wasting their time, Judge.

THE COURT: That's what I am thinking.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I believe Ms. X, I'm not sure
how you pronounce her name, closing down her
business. She is the only one there. It's
extremely difficult, but not impossible.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Cause, good, I mean if we
are in agreement about -- there is no sense in
us arguing.

MR. TYSON: Yeah.

THE COURT: Agreed, if everybody agrees no point in
beating it to death. She had two good reasons and
that was one of them.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes.

THE COURT: What else?

-122-
MR. TYSON: Judge, I believe the gentleman number
four was saying that his wife and children were
Bay-flighted Friday.

THE COURT: Mr. de Vlaming, do you agree?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I agree, cause.

THE COURT: Number four is gone for cause.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, Judge.

THE COURT: She has tried repeatedly to get out of
it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Well, not only that, I think
she should get out.

MR. TYSON: I agree.

THE COURT: I agree. Everybody agrees, Ms. X
is gone, number five. Who is next?

MR. TYSON: Ms. X is saying that there is a
hindrance to her business. It is a small company.
I am not sure where we will go on that one.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you have a problem
with excusing her?

MR. TYSON: I am not sure we are going to get a
panel, that's my problem.

THE COURT: Does everybody agree, is she gone
or not?

MR. TYSON: Judge, can we hold off on that

-123-
one at this point in time?

THE COURT: That's fine. Who is next?

MR. TYSON: Mr. X says it is a financial burden.
I'm not sure that rises to the level of cause.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: It probably doesn't. We might
hold a little bit on him. We will see how he exercise
preempts, and if it is we might be able to let him go.

THE COURT: Okay, who is next?

MR. TYSON: Ms. X, long term hospice care with
patients during the last stages of death. I don't
have a problem with releasing her either.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I don't either.

THE COURT: She is gone. Who is next?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: X I have next.

MR. TYSON: I say hold on to her. Her daughter is
sixteen, Judge.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Single parent, nobody else in
the state of Florida and I don't think that we can
accommodate that type of scheduling without a
tremendous interruption.

MR. TYSON: She is sixteen, can we hold off on that,
Judge?

-124-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Oh.

THE COURT: That's fine. Let's hold off on that
one. Who is next?

MR. TYSON: Ms. X, the one that has the special
chair. She can't sit for thirty minutes. I'm not
sure she is going to be pay attention to this
trial, Judge. If she is standing up that will be
a problem, Judge.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: She also has minor children,
no husband, or no family in the area. I wrote that
down.

THE COURT: She has health problems, she has got
work problems, she has got child problems. Any
reason that we want to keep her?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: No, cause.

THE COURT: Okay, she is gone. Who is next?

MR. TYSON: Judge, Mr. X. I had a problem with
him -- says that he can't be fair and impartial in
this case. Maybe we need to talk to him at
the bench and discuss what that is about. I didn't
catch everything he was saying.

THE COURT: He had a work problem, and it appeared
that he is concerned that other people would have
to do what he would do if he were there, and they

-125-
already had full plates. He did indicate that he
had a family member that was involved with the
criminal justice process in some way and we was
clearly upset about it and said that he couldn't
be fair. I wrote down, "can't be fair."

MR. TYSON: I say we cause him also.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I agree.

THE COURT: I agree. Number sixteen, he is gone also.
Who else?

MR. TYSON: Number twenty-three, she says if okay
with employer, we can keep her, too.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I had marked nineteen. Let's
see.

MR. DOUGLAS DE VLAMING: Military policeman he
had some problems -

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yeah, being fair and impartial,
that's what I had written down.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I would like to bring him to the
bench and ask what those are before we release him.

THE COURT: That's fine.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's fair.

THE COURT: He said that he has some health concerns
as well. That's fine, we can talk him to further.
Who else?

-126-
MR. TYSON: That's all I have.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's all I have.

THE COURT: What I propose to do then is bring the
ones that we all agree are challenges for cause,
thank them, release them. I will rely on you all to
proceed with the others that we did not release in
any way that you all see fit. If you want someone to
approach the bench then we can cover it all at that
time.
Let's bring them back in, and go forward. Is
everybody okay, does anybody need a break? Ladies and
gentlemen, let's take a five minute break, and let
those of us who need a break, quickly take one.

(Brief break)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, the following people
will be excused at this time. Please listen carefully.
And as you go I want to make sure that you know that
you go with my sincere thanks. You have spent a long
time with us already, but we have determined that
there is no reason to detain you any longer and we
would like to tell you that sooner rather than later.
Okay.

Donald x, Mary x, James x, Rose x, June x, Melissa x,
Michael x, you are excused at this time. You go with
my sincere thanks. Please be careful going

-127-
home.

(Potential jurors excused.)

THE COURT: I'm going to turn this over to the lawyers
to ask questions. The last thing I want to do at this
time in this process is read the information to you.
This is the charge against Mr. Minton. This is
not evidence, but it helps you understand a little
bit about why we are here. It reads as follows:

State of Florida and Robert S. Minton, Battery, in
the name and by the authority for the State of Florida,
Bernie McCabe, State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial
Circuit of Florida, in and for Pinellas County,
prosecuting for the State of Florida, in the said
County, under oath, information makes that Robert S.
Minton in the County of Pinellas, State of Florida,
on the 31st day of October in the year of our Lord,
1999, in the County and State aforesaid did then and
there actually
intentionally touch, or strike, or cause bodily harm
to Richard Howd, against the will of Richard Howd,
contrary to Chapter 784.03, Florida Statutes, and
against the peace and dignity of the State of Florida.
This is the charging instrument. It is not evidence.
It is the instrument upon which the State has moved this
case forward. So I turn it over now to the State Attorney
to ask their questions. Mr. Tyson?

-128-
MR. TYSON: Thank you, Judge. Good afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen, it's a little after 12:00 right now. The
Judge has asked you a lot of
questions. I've already got a lot of the answers. So I
will be a little briefer. As Mr. de Vlaming told the
Judge, you heard that this may be a two, maybe a three
day trial that we have here. One question I have, we
already have who were prior jurors. On this side who was
a prior jury, raise your hands?

(Jury panel responded as requested.)

MR. TYSON: Okay, that is Ms. X. Was that criminal?

MS. X: Yes, sir.

MR. TYSON: I don't need to know the verdict. Were you
able to reach a verdict in that case?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Were you the foreman in that case?

MS. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X?

MR. JOINER: Yes.

MR. TYSON: You said that that was a homicide case
seventeen years ago?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Did it get all the way through

-129-
to a jury verdict?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Was the jury able to reach a verdict?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Were you the foreman of that jury?

MR. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Anyone else on this side of the courtroom?
Anybody on this side of the courtroom? I'm sorry, Mr. X?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: You sat on a jury, sir?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Was that in Pinellas County?

MR. X: Yes, it was.

MR. TYSON: Criminal case?

MR. X: No, civil.

MR. TYSON: Were you able to reach a verdict in that case?

MR. X: Yes, we did.

MR. TYSON: Were you the foreman of that jury?

MR. X: No, sir.

MR. TYSON: Anyone on this side of the

-130-
courtroom?
(Jury panel raised their hands.)

MR. TYSON: Okay, Mr. X.

MR. X: It was a criminal case.

MR. TYSON: How long ago?

MR. X: About twelve to fifteen years.

MR. TYSON: Were you able to reach a verdict in that case?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Were you the foreman of that jury?

MR. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X?

MR. X: Civil in Connecticut, and they reached a verdict.

MR. TYSON: Were you the foreman?

MR. X No.

MR. TYSON: How long ago was that?

MR. X: Twenty/thirty years ago.

MR. TYSON: You will learn in this trial that the victim
in this case is a Scientologist. That will come out.
Obviously I need to know, there are some strong feelings
in Pinellas County about Scientologists.
We are starting from this side of the room.

-131-
Ms. X, do you know anything about Scientology?

MS. X: Just a little, what I have read.

MR. TYSON: Do you have any feelings one way or the other
against Scientologists?

MS. X: Not really.

MR. TYSON: Would you agree with the proposition then that
nobody is above the law, and that the law protects everyone?

MS. X: I'm sorry?

MR. TYSON: Nobody is above the law, and the law
protects everyone, would you agree with that?

MS. X: I agree with that.

MR. TYSON: Will you keep that in your mind when you
are considering if you are picked for the jury today?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Let's talk about the people in the second
row. Ms. X, do you know anything about the
Scientologists at all?

MS. X: Not much. I don't agree with what they believe in.

MR. TYSON: Do you believe that the law should protect
them as well as everybody else?

-132-
MS. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: If you find that a battery was committed
against Mr. Howd, who is a Scientologist, will you be
able to render a verdict based on the evidence, or will
your feelings interfere with that?

MS. X: I don't think so.

MR. TYSON: There are a lot of religions out there,
and we don't necessarily agree with different
religions. We all agree that you respect the right of
people to be protected by law. Ms. X, what do you
think about that?

MS. X: I really don't have an opinion.

MR. TYSON: Excuse me?

MS. X: I really don't have an opinion one way or the
other.

MR. TYSON: But do you believe that everybody should
be protected by law?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X?

MR. JOINER: I don't know that much about Scientology.

MR. TYSON: Okay. Mr. X, what do you think about it?

MR. X: It's not a religion that I

-133-
follow, but it wouldn't affect on my decision.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X, you said at one point in time you
had a problem with the police. Was that the Clearwater
Police Department?

MR. STEWART: Yes. It was an illegal search, and a
false charge. They charged me with paraphernalia. I
had to take it court, and the charge
was dismissed.

MR. TYSON: Let me tell you this, a Clearwater police
officer, at least one will testify today. It's Officer
Beaudette, you heard several other names. Did any of the
names of that you heard, were they any of the officers
involved in that?

MR. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Would it influence the way you judge their
credibility on the witness stand today?

MR. X: Excuse me?

MR. TYSON: If Officer Beaudette from the Clearwater
Police Department testifies today, which he will, will
your prior experiences come into play when you judge
Officer Beaudette's credibility?

MR. X: No, sir.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X, do you know anything about Scientology,
or do you know any Scientologists?

-134-
MR. X: I don't believe that I know any Scientologists,
but I know what I read about Scientologists.

MR. TYSON: Could you tell me what you read?

MR. X: I put it in the same category as a cult.

MR. TYSON: Regardless of that, I represent the
State of Florida as you know. I don't represent the
Scientologists, I don't represent Mr. Minton. Mr. de
Vlaming does. I represent the State of Florida, and
we are here to prosecute for violation of the law. If
you find that a law was violated can you convict, or
will your feelings interfere with that?

MR. X: Knowing it was a Scientologist I feel that
my feeling may interfere with that.

MR. TYSON: Fair enough. Thank you. Judge, may I have
a moment?

(Brief pause)

MR. TYSON: Mr. X, what do you think about Scientology,
do you know anything about it?

MR. X: I don't know that much about, but what I have
read about it and everything, I kind of think it is a
cult myself.

-135-
MR. TYSON: Okay. Regardless of what you think, would you
put whatever your feelings aside and if you find that Mr.
Minton has violated the law, would you let that interfere
with your decision, or can you make a
fair and impartial decision in this case?

MR. X: I am not sure.

MR. TYSON: Okay. Ms. X?

MS. X: I have heard all about Scientologists. It is a
religion. It is their choice what they want to do. I have
no problem with that.
Nobody is above the law.

MR. TYSON: Thank you. On this side of the courtroom, Ms.
X, do you know anything about Scientology or Scientologists?

MS. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Since you don't know anything, I guess it is
fair to say that you can be fair and impartial regardless
of who they are?

MS. X: Yes. I have a question though?

MR. TYSON: Certainly.

MS. X: Was the dispute involving religion? I don't
understand why it is being brought up.

MR. TYSON: Well, we are not supposed to get into the
facts of the case, but it some way, yes.

-136-
That's why it is being brought up. It will come into play
during the trial.

Mr. X, do you know anything about Scientology, do you
read anything in the paper?

MR. X: Yeah, just what I hear. It is supposed to be
like a cult.

MR. TYSON: What do you think about that?

MR. X: They leave me alone, and don't bother me.

MR. TYSON: Do you believe that they deserve the
protection of the law as everybody else?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X, do you know anything about
Scientologists at all?

MR. X: Not very much.

MR. TYSON: Do you believe that the law should
protect everyone?

MR. X: I agree.

MR. TYSON: Do you agree that nobody is above the
law also?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Ms. X?

MS. X: I have no idea.

MR. TYSON: You have no idea about
Scientology and it won't play a role at all?

-137-
MS. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Mr. X?

MR. X: I don't know a whole lot about it. I would
categorize it as a cult as well.

MR. TYSON: Okay, let's say that you feel that way,
regardless of how you feel, do you believe a member
of that organization, and religion is entitled to the
same protections of the law as everyone else is?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Will you promise that you will put aside any
feelings of bias or prejudice that you have in this case
and decide it on the facts?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Ms. ?

MS. X: Don't know what it is.

MR. TYSON: It looks like you were hiding behind there,
when I turned my head -- you don't know what it is?

MS. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Regardless, do you have any feelings one
way or the other about any religions? Is there any
religions? Is there any religions that you don't agree
with?

MS. X: No.

MR. TYSON: Ms. X?

-138-
MS. X: Yes. I don't know too much about it, but I
look at it, to each their own, their choice, and it's
fine with me.

MR. TYSON: Okay. Ms. X?

MS. X: I have no feelings whether it is religion or a
cult, or anything like that. I don't feel that it will
influence my decision either way.

MR. TYSON: Okay. Mr. X?

MR. X: I don't know anything about them.

MR. TYSON: Okay. The charge here is battery and the
Judge read that to you. I am going to talk to people
on this side of the courtroom. Does
anybody here believe that if someone is intentionally
pushed, but there is not much injury then that is not
a crime? Okay, if I intentionally push Mr. de Vlaming
a little bit right here, technically in the technical
sense that would be a battery. But we know more in
the common
sense world that an intentional touch would be pushing
or hitting in anger, or whatever. Does anyone believe
that if there is not a lot of injury, like if I don't
bust his head open it's not a crime?

(No response from jury panel.)

MR. TYSON: Different people from different parts of
the country, let me give you and

-139-
example, I am from Baltimore, sometimes when people
get in fights, when you hit somebody it's not that
big a deal. I'm not saying that it is right or it's
wrong, but people bring different things into their
lives about what is -- the way the law is too picky.
Does anyone on this side of courtroom understand, will
factor that in, do you understand that it doesn't matter,
the level of injury in this case? You will hear that there
is injury. But does the level of injury matter to any of
you?

(No response from the jury panel.)

MR. TYSON: What about this side of the courtroom,
does the level of injury matter to anybody over here?

MS. X: Could you repeat that again?

MS. TYSON: The charge of battery is intentional
touching. Regardless. if you are injured. Mr. X, if
I was in anger to push you, just push
you back, and there is no injury there, would you
agree? If I am to come up to you in anger right now
and push you, everybody saw that. But you are not really
injured, would you agree that I have committed a battery?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Objection, Judge, that is asking
a juror to commit to a specific factual situation.

THE COURT: Sustained.

-140-
MR. TYSON: Would anybody need to show substantial injury
before they will convict somebody of a battery?

(No response by jury panel)

MR. TYSON: The law says that I don't have to show any
injury. Would anybody here make me show substantial
injury?

MR. X: I feel pretty strong about that.

MR. TYSON: You would make me show substantial injury?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. TYSON: Do you think that it is okay for somebody
to come and push somebody in anger?

MR. X: I don't say that it is okay, but I don't perceive
that it should be a lawsuit.

MR. TYSON: Well, this isn't a lawsuit here. Nobody is
suing anybody. Everybody is clear here, this isn't
Scientology against Mr. Minton, and Mr. Minton against
Scientology. This is the State of Florida enforcing the
laws in the State of Florida against Mr. Minton. Does
everybody understand that? I do not represent the
Scientologists.
Mr. Baker you said that there were some prior
experiences that you had when you an MP that may

-141-
influence in your decision making process today.

MR. X: It was just a lot of what we are discussing
right here.

MR. TYSON: Would you like to approach and we can talk
to the Judge in private at the bench so we can get some
more information on that? Could you approach?

THE COURT: Why don't you come forward, Mr. X?

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held out of the
hearing of the rest of the jury panel.)

THE COURT: Is everybody ready? Mr. X we just asked
you to come forward because I think the parties would
like to know a little bit more about it, and we would
like to respect your privacy as much as possible. So
I am going to let either side ask you some questions,
okay?

MR. X: Okay.

THE COURT: And understand that this is all on the
record, but you need to respond to the questions as
best you can.

MR. X: Okay.

MR. TYSON: Could you please express the concerns
about being fair and impartial and prior background
that may influence that?

-142-
MR. X: Well, in some cases in the military
families were involved in it, somebody not doing
supposedly what they are supposed to be doing. It
was kind of getting in the middle of a domestic
dispute in
some cases. In other cases it was a case where just
somebody went out to a lounge or something and things
got out of hand. It just makes me very uncomfortable.

MR. TYSON: The fact that we are charging him at all
makes you uncomfortable?

MR. X: Well, if somebody does something wrong,
that's fine. I think the biggest thing that bothered
me was a lot of times, I am not a violent person, and
I don't like to see families -- That is the part that
really bothers me. Especially women and children.

MR. TYSON: This isn't a domestic violence case, there
are no children involved. Do you think that you can be
fair and impartial in this case?

MR. X: I honestly don't know how I would feel
about it. I honestly don't.

MR. TYSON: That's all I have, Judge.

THE COURT: Mr. de Vlaming?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X, if you were told that this
has to do with an incident between two grown men, not
children, and not women, and that you

-143-
would be asked and called upon to find out and give us
a verdict based on whether you believe he is guilty or
not guilty in accordance with the laws could you do
your best to do that for us?

MR. X: I think that I could handle that part of it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If you knew it did not involve
children, and knew that it didn't involve families or
women, would that make it a little easier for you?

MR. X: Probably.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Thank you, Mr. X.

THE COURT: Anything further?

MR. TYSON: No.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Please go and retake your
seat. Are we all set? Mr. Tyson?

MR. TYSON: Thank you for your time.

THE COURT: Mr. Tyson, are you through?

MR. TYSON: Yes, Judge, I'm sorry.

THE COURT: I didn't realize that. Counsel
for the Defendant you may proceed.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Thank you, your Honor. If it
please the Court. I think members of the panel, once
I finish and the Judge makes come comments to

-144-
you we will probably break for lunch. You should know
that in Florida this is a six person jury so the fact
that you are remaining doesn't mean that everybody is
going to be on the jury. A lot of people think that
there is a twelve person jury, it is not. So many of
you will not remain, in case that was a concern about
who is already gone.

Mr. Tyson was correct that we cannot go over the facts
in detail about this case in Voir Dire, it is not
proper. However I need to tell you a few facts so we
can find out whether you know anything about this case,
because what we don't want is to get in middle of this
or opening statements and you go, "I read all about
that." Then all of the sudden we have got a problem. So
if you will bear with me.

Ms. X, let me just start with you, and let me tell the
panel, this has to do with an alleged battery that
took place outside of the Church of
Scientology on Halloween of last year, October 31,
1999, while Mr. Minton was picketing, going up and
down in protest in front of the church. The incident
happened between Mr. Minton and another member of the
Church of Scientology. That's about all I am going to
tell you right now, just in case it jogs a memory about
Mr. Minton or about the publicity that it might have
generated.

-145-
Ms. X, do you remember anything about this case?

MS. X: I remember basically hearing or reading
about something. Mr. Minton does look a little familiar
to me, but that's about it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: In other words you might have seen
his picture in the paper that way?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: It sounds as if you are rather
nebulous about what you remember. Would it affect your
verdict in any way based upon what you recall?

MS. X: I don't remember the facts.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay, that's all we want to know,
is whether or not you know enough, ladies and gentlemen,
that you say I can't be fair and impartial in this case.

Ms. X, how about you?

MS. X: (Shaking head)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Don't remember the case or the
incident?

MS. X: I saw very little coverage, if at all.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about you, Mr.
X?

-146-
MR. STEWART: I don't remember it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about you, Ms. X?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, do you remember anything
about the case, and for that matter, the name Robert
Minton, I will throw that out, in case his name is
familiar to you? I am not saying that it is, but no
to both, don't know about the incident, don't know
about the man?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X, how about you?

MR. X: No. He just looks familiar from somewhere. I
don't know where.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: He's got that familiar kind of
face?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: But nothing about the facts that
I just told you, the limited facts that you recall reading
about?

MR. X: No.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X, how

-147-
about your sir?

MR. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X, anything about it?

MR. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about you, Ms. X? Nothing
about the case Minton, anything like that?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X?

MS. GROVER: I don't remember anything about it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, how about you, ma'am?

MS. X: No, nothing.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about you, Mr. X?

MR. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: No, sir. Ms. Haley, Mr. X?

MS. HALEY: No.

MR. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X?

MR. X: I am familiar with it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You are familiar

-148-
with it?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Based upon your familiarity with
of it, and we don't want you to tell us all of it, or
we would be defeating the purpose for this dialogue, do
you feel that you would have an opinion or it would
affect your ability to serve on this particular jury?

MR. X: Yes, I do. I think he was baited.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We won't get into that. Mr. X, how
about you, sir, do you remember anything about the case?

MR. X: No, I don't.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ever heard the name, Robert
Minton?

MR. X: Not that I can remember, no.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Anybody in the panel remember
about Mr. Minton, go ahead?

MS. X: I don't remember the name, but I do remember
reading an article in the paper about someone that
had devoted their life to fighting
Scientology.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If it is, would that affect your
ability to sit on the case based upon

-159-
what you have been told or what you have learned?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. Has anybody ever been to
either a seminar or a program where the Church of
Scientology principals have been discussed?

(No response)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay, I see no hands. Has anybody
studied anything about the Church of Scientology,
wherein you feel that you know some of their principals,
and dogma about the church itself, other than what you
read cursory in the newspaper?

(No response)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Has anybody picked up a book
by L. Ron Hubbard and read it, let me ask you that?

(No response)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: No one? I see no hands. Okay.
You just heard me talk a little bit about what the
case was about so that I could find out about it. I
want to know your opinions now about a person's
right, constitutional right to protest. And we have
all seen that, walking up and down street with a placard
in protest. Ms. X, what are you feelings about a person's
right to do that?

MS. X: It's a free country. They

-150-
have a right to do that.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. Does that offend you,
that someone may want to protest, or walk up and down
the street with a placard, whether they go lousy
service at an air conditioning place, or a care repair
place, or a lousy lawyer for that matter, and go up and
down the street?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, how about you, does
that offend you in any respect?

MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. Do you think that in
this country that citizens have the right to do that?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you think while they are
doing that, Ms. X, that they have a right to be
left alone, that is not people invade that --

MR. TYSON: Objection, your honor, may we approach?

THE COURT: Please do.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held out of the
hearing of the jury panel.)

MR. TYSON: Judge, I understand that he has to get
into a little bit of the facts of the case,

-151-
but I think now we are getting into a defense in
front of the jury.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, with all due respect,
I think I am entitled to ask a few limited questions
about whether or not they can go along with a defense
in this case and what defense we are going to put
forward. If these people say that they will reject a
defense of a person agreeing to be touched, or that
they are entitled to be assaulted if they are walking
up and down on private property I need to ferret those
people out.

THE COURT: It's pretty much the same as where Mr.
Tyson asked if they need an injury, isn't it?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I am going to try not to be
fact specific, but I would like to ask some general
questions about the defense.

THE COURT: I think you can do it. I am going to
overrule the objection.

MR. TYSON: Judge, I just talked about the law in mine
though.

THE COURT; Well, that is what he is doing, too. These
are legal defenses.

MR. TYSON: I just don't want him to try the case in
voir dire.

THE COURT: I would just ask that you keep

-152-
your remarks limited to this. Okay.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Thank you. Are we all set?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yes.

THE COURT: Please proceed.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, I think I was asking you a
question at this particular time. It might be easier if
when you give an answer I
ask the panel if they agree or disagree with you, rather
than go up and down the lines like we have in this case.
I think I asked you whether or not agreed that citizens
I have a constitutional right to protest if they so desire?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: And what one person may protest
another person may embrace. Do you agree with that, different
strokes?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Does everyone agree with her in that?

(Jury panel answered yes.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: While are you exercising that right
to protest, do you feel that person should also be free from
being assaulting or accosted?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Does everyone agree

-153-
with Ms. X in that respect?

(Jury panel answered yes.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Walk up and down, let alone?

MR. X: I believe the opposition or the other side of that
protest has the same right to protest in the same place.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Absolutely. Okay. But do you
understand the question that I asked her, in other words
do you feel as if that individual has a right in order to
stop your protest, to either assault you or go after you?

(Jury panel answered no.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X, is that how you pronounce
your last name?

MR. X: Yes, that's it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Did you hear the Judge when the
Judge read the charge in this case, it has to do with
touching, striking, or harming another person against
their will, did you hear him say that that is
battery to do that?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If you are told by the Court that
there are certain elements to battery, in other words that
he has to prove certain things, if the

-154-
definition of battery is something that is different than
what you might think, but the Judge tells you what the
elements are, will you follow the dictates of the Judge?
In other words, will you follow the law?

MR. X: Right, yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: And if you are told that one of
those elements that it was against the will of somebody,
can you hold the State to the burden of proving that
the person did not want to be touched?

MR. X: I don't understand the question.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me ask you this, did you
ever play basketball?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Did you ever watch NBA
basketball?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Someone is driving towards the
hoop, the only one to stop them is to stand in front of
them. It's called a foul. Okay, he does it for the cause,
right. He takes the foul. He is on his fanny on the floor,
right?

MR. X: Correct.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Did he want to be touched?

-155-
MR. X: Obviously.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay, because he wanted to take
the foul and stop the shot, right?

MR. X: Right.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If an element in this case is
that the person did not want to be touched, and the
defense establishes that he did, do you understand that
that is a defense in this case? Think of the NBA thing.

MR. X: Okay.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I am getting some wrinkled
foreheads. Ms. Robinson, you are one of my wrinkled
foreheads. I go up and I touch somebody, all right? It
would have to be against this man's will in
order for it to be a crime, correct?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If he didn't mind being touched,
or he invited to be touched, then what?

MS. X: No crime.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay, okay. Does everybody
understand that, and agree with that?

(Jury panel answered yes.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: It has to be against your
will. Uncle come around you, puts his hands over your
shoulder, no problem. A stranger,

-156-
problem. Okay. Does anybody have a problem with that
element, that there is an element in every case that
it has to be against the expressed or implied
permission to be touched? Does everybody understand
that precept of law? Ms. X, Ms. X?

MS. X: Agree.

MS. X: Sure.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Can you envision cases where
conduct may be invited?

MS. X: It depends on what the situation is.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay, you have to hear more
about it to make that determination, correct?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you think that every
citizen has a right to defend themselves?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you feel strongly about
that?

MS. X: It depends on what the circumstances
are.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If a person has reason to
feel threatened do they have a right to defend
themselves?

MS. X: It depends on the situation.

-157-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You would prefer that they
try to retreat first before they have to defend
themselves perhaps in certain circumstances?

MS. X: Try to work it out.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: And if you are attacked
after that, do you think that a citizen has right
to defend themselves?
MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, how about you?

MS. X: I agree.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Other than the amount of
force used, do you think there are any limitations
on a person's right to defend themselves or their
children, or their wife, or spouse?

MS. X: Other than --

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Other than the amount of
force used, do you think there are any limitations,
for example -- I am not going to use any examples.
Do you think there are any limitations in that respect?

MS. X: I don't agree with someone killing someone
because they got pushed.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Right. Okay. So there are
limitations in that respect. But other than

-158-
that you believe in right of self-defense?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You were hesitant, Ms. X?

MS. X: Because it conflicts with what I teach the
kids that I work with. That's the only thing.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: When they are this big you
say when you are pushed don't push back, just go over
there and shake his hand, right?

MS. X: Or go tell someone, or just walk away.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you understand that there
are times if you walk away that you may still have to
use defense?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If there is an assault or an
attack?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, do you understand that?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you understand that
occasionally there is a need to defend yourself?

MS. X: Yes.

-159-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you think that
somebody can pick a fight without throwing the first
punch? Do you understand my question?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X, I can look over her
shoulder and see you nodding your head. Do you think
there are occasions where that can happen?

MR. X: Yes, it can be instigated.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Say it again.

MR. X: If you push someone a little too far just
by words a lot of people will step over the line with
words and instigate a fight.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Does anybody disagree with Mr.
X? Do you understand what he said? That somebody can
pick a fight, instigate it
without throwing the first punch? I am seeing all nods,
shake your head -- raise your hand if you say, "No, I
don't think that could happen." Ms. X raised her hand.
Go ahead, ma'am.

MS. X: No, I was agreeing with what he was saying.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Now, that you have raised your
hand, that will teach you. It went out of my head. Let
me take a look. Oh. Did you ever hear the expression
"somebody's personal space." Has anyone ever

-160-
heard that expression? Ms. X, you have heard it?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, have you ever?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, okay. Did you ever hear
the expression that somebody is invading your personal
space?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me start with Ms. X since
she is the one that raised her hand. What does that mean
to you? If I invaded your personal space, what does that
mean to you?

MS. X: How do I say it?

THE COURT REPORTER: Judge, I can't hear her.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: She said, "How did I say it?"
She hasn't said yet.

MR. X: You are saying --

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I am going to invade your
personal space, what am I doing? How about getting in
your face?

MS. X: Yeah.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Pretty close?

MS. X: It's wrong.

-161-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: It's wrong, what do you take
by that, Ms. X?

MS. X: I see either verbal comments, just the
closeness, threatening gesture, or threatening words,
or words that are politically sensitive, shall we say.
Certain words should not be
used in front of certain groups of people, or it will
incite violence.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about invading personal --
well, I never thought of it that way, and now that you
say it, I understand it. In a physical sense, invading
your space. Ms. X, do you know what I mean? I am a
stranger to you, if I came up and got in your face --

MS. X: Touching.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Touching you. How about getting
real real close to you? You know, when you are talking
to somebody you might do it. You might talk this way.
"Get out of my face." Yes, no? Yes? Ms.
X?

MS. X: I don't like someone being so close to me.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. Ms. X, have you heard that
term, personal space?

MS. X: Absolutely.

-162-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you have personal space
yourself?

MS. x: Absolutely.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. x?

MR. x: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Are you a professor, sir?

MR. x: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I know you work at Clearwater
Christian College.

MR. x: I am Director of Christian Services.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you know an individual there
named x?

MR. x: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Is he an administrator there,
Mr. ?

MR. x: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. x, how about you, personal
space?
MR. x: If someone gets too close to me.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Right. What do you do if he gets
real close to you, up in your face?

MR. x: I would try to back off.

-163-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Back off. Either you would take a
step back or you would try to back him off. Are we all
in agreement? Mr. X, how about you, sir?

MR. X: Yes, I agree.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you have personal space?

MR. X: Most definitely.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you like it when people invade
it?

MR. X: No.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Does anybody like it when it is
invaded? Anybody?

(Jury panel responded no.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, have you ever -- I don't
know how to put this. Have you ever felt as if someone
is staring at you?

MS. X: Sure.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ever have that in your life,
and you look over and they are staring at you? How does
that make you feel?

MS. X: Curious and slightly uncomfortable.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: If it is the opposite sex,
don't know them, and it's not in a social

-164-
setting where you might expect that type of conduct,
would that make you feel uneasy? Or could it make
you feel uneasy?

MS. X: Mostly curious.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay.

MS. X: Mostly curious, why are they staring at me?
Do they think they know me? Do I resemble somebody
else? Is there something amiss about me.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's your first thought.

MS. X: First thought.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: What if it continues throughout
the day, and the person follows you and stares at
you, would that make you uncomfortable?

MS. X: Yes. I would have a problem with that.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me talk to the ladies
first, and it's not a gender question, but I am
going to ask the ladies first. Raise your hand if
you agree with Ms. X that it would make you feel
uncomfortable if someone stared at you and then
followed you.

(Ladies in jury panel raised their hands.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I see no ladies

-165-
with their hands down. Okay. Men, with either
another man or woman staring at them and then
following you, raise your hand if it would make
you feel uncomfortable if you didn't know why they
were staring at you? We have two, three. All right.
I only have one that with no hand up. It would not
bother you, sir?

(Men in the jury panel raised their hands.)

MR. X: No, I don't believe that would bother me.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. Let me ask a question
about following now. Okay. Ms. X, what are your
feelings about if somebody that you did not know
was following you around town, would that make you
feel in any way uneasy? If you didn't know the
reason why they were following you?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Do you feel that rises, if it
continues, to the level of either harassment or stalking,
or could it?

MS. X: Yes.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X?

MS. X: Yes, sir.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about you, Ms. X?

-166-
MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Would it frighten you?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X?

MS. X: Unless I could get away.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Well, let's say that you
probably could get away, let's say if you wanted to
run to the police you could. Let's say that after you
reported it and guess who you saw in the rearview mirror,
same person?

MS. X: Then I would bothered.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. How about you, Ms. X?
Would it bother you to be followed by somebody that
you did not know? Would it cause you any kind of fear,
or concern?

MS. X: Yeah, it would bother me.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X?
MS. X: Yes.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How about you, Ms.
X, yes?
MS. X: Yes.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me do a

-167-
housekeeping matter. There were some of you that
did not indicate where you lived, what city you
lived in. So let me ask you, Ms. X, what city?

MS. X: St. Petersburg.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You are in St. Pete. Mr. X?

MR. X: Pinellas Park.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You are in Pinellas Park. Ms.
X is gone, Mr. X is gone. And, Ms. X, I didn't get
from you?

MS. X: Clearwater.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You are a Clearwater resident?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I suppose I should ask you, have
you ever been in a job or profession where anybody
protested against your company, or you? In other
words, were you ever protested against?

(No response)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I see no hands.

Mr. Baker, let me ask you, I lived through the '60's,
you lived through the '60's. There was a time when
people protested the military, right, I mean there
was?

MR. X: That's true.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I am not saying

-168-
that they did, or if you were in the service at the time,
I'm not saying that, but that would be what I am talking
about, is whether or not you had ever seen -- maybe I
should ask it that way. Has anybody ever seen
protesters on the street?

(Jury panel answered yes.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me start with you, in what
capacity, Mr. X? Were they carrying a sign, for example?

MR. X: They were carrying signs and maybe
protesting some of the company policies.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's right, pickets are an
example of that, wouldn't they be up and down in front
of the airlines, or something like that?

MR. X: Pickets, union, non-union, if it is
something they are uncomfortable with they displayed
it with signs and a picket.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Any problem with that?

MR. X: No.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Who else has seen protesters?
Mr. X, in what capacity?

MR. X: I have seen Scientologists walking up
and down the street. Telephone company.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You said that you

-169-
and your wife both worked for the city?

MR. X: For the county.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: The county, in what capacity?

MR. X: I work for the maintenance department.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Okay. Yes, Ms. Haley?

MS. X: I saw a protest against abortion on 19,
lots of people out there.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Again, if they want to spend
their time doing that, no problem?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Who else has seen protesters
walk up and down the street?

MS. X: I have been a protester.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You have been a protester.

MS. X: I have been a protester from everything from
the Vietnam war on up.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Oh, you are the '60's, too.
You don't look old enough. Who else in the front
row? In what capacity?

MR. X: A friend of mine, his dad used to work for
General Electric, and they had picketers

-170-
out front. They stretched across, her dad drove
through, they shattered his windshield.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Did that have affect on your
feelings about the first amendment? I mean do you
feel - -

MR. X: I mean as long as it doesn't affect -- I mean,
if they want to protest that's fine, but as far as
stretching a cable across, that hurt
somebody, and I don't agree with that.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Of course, and we understand
that. But beyond that, there is no ill feelings
about protesters, or somebody's first amendment
rights to protest. Who else had their hand up? Yes,
Ms. X?

MS. X: On abortion.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: What are you feelings when
you see that? What do you think? Do you have a feeling about it?

MS. X: If they want to do it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: But nothing further than that,
like they shouldn't be doing that, or why don't they
just stay in their house? You have no problem with that?

MS. X: No.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Anybody else in

-171-
there that has actively seen any kind of protest? Mr.
X?

MR. X: I seen people protesting, my feeling is if they
cross the line and antagonize people it's wrong, but
as long as it peaceful and organized properly then I don't have a problem with it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: So what you are saying is that
the protester basically should remain peaceful as he
doing his protest, right?

MR. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: People inside the building should
also remain peaceful, and not come out and get in
people's faces too, or not? Both ways?

MR. X: Yes.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I have got to ask this question
and then I'm done. Everybody brings in to court
lifetime personal experiences, okay. You may be a
great jury for one kind of case, and not a good jury
for another. Let me give you an example. If this was a
DUI case, Ms. Burke, okay, and you lost your sister to a
DUI, it might be pretty tough to ask you to be fair and
impartial, right?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Now, my question is this, this has to
do with an alleged battery, or assault,

-172-
okay? If that has occurred to you in your life where you were
battered or you were assaulted that might have an effect where
you look through the evidence in this case. If that has
happened to you, in other words you were the victim of
this, I need to know it. Even if it is just a
hand raise. If it is further than that you might want to
come on up to the bench. Okay, would you feel more comfortable
to come up to the bench?

MS. X: Uh-huh.

MR. DENIS DE VLANING: Do you mind doing that?

MS. X: No.
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Your Honor, may I?

THE COURT: Please.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held
out of the hearing of the full jury panel.)

THE COURT: Does anybody want to ask her some questions?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I kind of figured based upon what you
said before, and I didn't want to embarrass you, could you
tell us very briefly --

MS. X: Very briefly. I was eight years old and I was gang
raped, and I really don't want to say any more about it.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You don't have to.

-173-
Let me just ask you this, do you feel that because of that
happening, it was a very large invasion upon you, that you
would in any way - -

MS. X: I would tend to side with the victim.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: With the victim.

MS. X: Sure.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Now, knowing that this a battery
case, having nothing to do with sex -- do you feel that
you would still me more sympathetic so that you may lean
towards the victim's side, or do you think that you
could still be fair?

MS. X: I'm not sure if I could be fair. I would be
tossed up between my own personal feelings, and wanting
to be fair to all parties, not wanting to go too extreme
either way. I not sure that I could be fair.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I appreciate you being honest with
me.

THE COURT: Any questions?

MR. TYSON: No questions.

THE COURT: Thank you, ma'am.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Before she goes, could I just ask
a question from here?

THE COURT: Sure.

-174-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I think Ms. X had her hand up?
Ms. X, could you very briefly, without going into a lot of detail,
tell us how you might have been a victim in an assault?

MS. X: It was just a domestic thing with me and my ex.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: He might have hit you?

MS. X: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: The reason why we are doing this,
is not to embarrass you, is if you would be more prone
to be sympathetic towards a victim as you were a victim
in your husband's case, with all due respect I would have to know that. If you would say I would call balls balls, and strikes strikes then I would --

MS. X: No, it wouldn't matter.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You wouldn't.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Ms. X, this is not a sensitive
question. Was the office of the State Attorney here in
any way involved with what you
shared with us?

MS. X: Not this county.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Not Pinellas

-175-
County?
MS. X: No.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's all I have, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the panel I am going to
give you another chance to stretch and take a break here.
Please, just as before, stay in the immediate area. Sheriff,
just as before, please make sure all witnesses are in rooms
so that the panel members won't inadvertently have contact
with witnesses and have a well intentioned, but inappropriate
conversation.
And as before, all the panel members as soon he clears
will and must leave.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, I almost overheard a juror --
all I heard was on the basis of the last question, probably
my error, I talked to the two ladies about whether they have
ever been victims of assault, and I probably left a gentleman
out. Is that what you wanted to tell us.

MR. X: I wanted to be a part of talking to you about it, yes.

THE COURT: Come forward. We are sorry about that, sir.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I apologize.

(Whereupon, a bench conference was held

-176-
out the hearing of the rest of the jury panel.)

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Mr. X is at the bench.

THE COURT: Would anyone like to inquire, or do you just want
to tell us?

MR. X: I just basically want to tell out that I was involved
in a very nasty divorce. I was falsely accused of molesting
my children. I just felt that during the whole thing I had to prove myself. I was more or less accused, and I had to prove my innocence, where
you are always told that you are innocent until proven guilty.
In that case everything I did I had to prove myself. I felt
fairly strongly against that, so I figured that should be brought
in this consideration.

THE COURT: Does anyone want to ask any questions?

MR. TYSON: Would you find it difficult being fair to
either side?

MR. X: Sometimes, it depends. It is a very touchy
subject.

MR. TYSON: Is there anything about what you have heard
so far?

MR. X: Not so far. I just, like I said, I just wanted to
be open, that you are aware of

-177-
this.

THE COURT: We appreciate you coming forward. It's important
that we know this. Does anybody want to ask more?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Just one question, Judge. Do you feel
as if you could keep an open mind and listen to the evidence
of the case and bring back a verdict that --

MR. X: That's where I am unsure about it because there was
evidence supposedly against me, but nothing came up in court,
but yet I still had to prove myself, when there was no
evidence. So evidence isn't as strong as you would think.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me ask you this, could you
provide what was not provided to you to Mr. Minton,
that is that he is presumed to be innocent, and if you
were a juror could you make sure that that precept
is followed?

MR. X: Possibly.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir.

(Whereupon, the jury panel was excused.)

THE COURT: Counsel, what I would like to do is give you
the time that you need to sort out your notes. Let me
know when you are ready. It's ten after one, getting
people to lunch is my objective at this

-178-
point. So I am open to discussion as to how we go forward.
I'd like to go through and see if we can get a jury out
of this panel, and I think we can do that in a reasonable
period of time. If you think it is going to be protracted
let me know.

MR. TYSON: I don't believe it will. There will be a
couple of causes. Let's pick and the ones that are picked
can go to lunch. And then send the rest --

THE COURT: That's what I am thinking. What I want to
do is give the court personnel a chance to take a
break right now while you all sort out your notes.
I am going to go off the bench for ten minutes and
let them leave. We will come back at twenty after, and
hopefully go through this as quickly as we can.

(Brief break)

THE COURT: Is everybody ready.

MR. TYSON: Can we go with causes first?

THE COURT: Yeah, let's go back through causes. Mr. Tyson,
are there any other challenges for causes?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I think both may agree with this, Ms.
Robinson, I think she said that she tends to side with
the victim. I assume Mr. de Vlaming agrees.

THE COURT: Everybody agrees?

-179-
MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Yeah, right.

THE COURT: She's gone. Who else?

MR. TYSON: Number seven, Mr. X. What his statement
was, that he has some concerns, the best he could
come up with, "I possibly can. I will try. Maybe I
can be fair and impartial." The best he did was
"possibly". I would ask that we strike him for cause
also.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, I think that he did
indicate, however, that he felt that system is that
you are innocent until proven guilty. That is a precept
that we all want to accept. He wasn't treated that way.
However, when I asked him whether he could apply the
law to this case as the Court gives him, I believe he
indicated his assent.

MR. TYSON: He indicated that he was falsely accused.
The strongest he said was "possibly" that he could be
fair and impartial.

THE COURT: I wrote down "not sure and be fair". I also
very early in the ball game made notes about his ability
to follow the law, which I have doubts about based on
things he has said. I find there to be a
two-fold basis to strike him for cause. I think the case
law says that I have the totality of what he says, and
if I can in good faith determine that there may be a
cause

-180-
issue I should err on the side of caution, and I
have, I will, and I did. Go on.

MR. TYSON: Judge, number eighteen, Mr. X, he has
already from the start he says that he might not be
able to fair and impartial. He said that he has
heard of facts of the case. He has already made up
his mind, he believes the Defendant was baited.

THE COURT: Any issue there?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We like him.

THE COURT: He's gone. Who is next?

MR. TYSON: Judge, the only one I have concern about
is number nineteen, Mr. X. I still don't think we
are really clear about what his concerns
are about the trial, and his prior experiences. I'm
not sure Mr. de Vlaming --

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I don't want him challenged
for cause. I agree with you that it was a little
bit nebulous, but he had some concern over when he
was an MP dealing with domestic matters, and when
husbands go after wives, and children. When I
indicated that this case had nothing to do with
children or spousal problem and asked if he could
be fair, he indicated yes. I don't think he is for cause.

MR. TYSON: I don't have any strong reasons other
than his uncertainty, Judge.

-181-
THE COURT: He didn't rise to the level of cause.
I agree, so we will leave him alone. Anybody else?

MR. TYSON: No.

THE COURT: Mr. de Vlaming, you agree with Mr.
Tyson's choices, you don't have any to add?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I have nothing more to add.

THE COURT: That's fine. Peremptory challenges,
three per side. I don't care how you use them. You
can back strike them. You can use them any
way you want to right up to the moment that we swear
the jury. I just want a fair jury and let you all
determine how you want to strategically use your
causes. Let's go through and see if I am clear on
who is left. We have juror three, juror eight, we
have nine, ten, twelve, and thirteen. Mr. Tyson, I
am going to let you tell us how you feel about
those first six.

MR. TYSON: Judge, the State will strike number
twelve.

THE COURT: Number twelve. Then we have number three,
eight, nine, ten, thirteen, and fifteen. Mr. de
Vlaming, to you?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We will excuse number nine.

-182-
THE COURT: Nine. So we have three, eight, ten,
thirteen, fifteen, seventeen. Mr. Tyson, back to
you?

MR. TYSON: Judge, I will strike number ten.

THE COURT: Number ten. We have three, eight, thirteen,
fifteen, seventeen, and nineteen. Mr. de Vlaming, to
you?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Let me just see, Judge, we have
got three, eight, thirteen, fifteen, seventeen,
nineteen. No challenges.

THE COURT: No challenges. Mr. Tyson?

MR. TYSON: Strike number nineteen, Judge.

THE COURT: Number nineteen is gone. So are your
preemptory challenges. So we have three, eight,
thirteen, seventeen, twenty, twenty-one. Mr. de
Vlaming?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, you just included fifteen?

THE COURT: Yes, I did, he is still in.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We are going to excuse twenty.

THE COURT: Twenty is gone. That leaves three, eight,
thirteen, fifteen, seventeen, and twenty- one.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How many do I have

-183-
left?

MS. RIVELLINI: One more.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: I have one left?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: How many does the State have?

MR. TYSON: I'm out.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You out?

MR. TYSON: I am out of bullets, Denis.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: We will strike number eight.

THE COURT: Number eight is gone. Let's see what we
have left. We have three, we have thirteen, we have
fifteen, we have seventeen, we have twenty-one, and
we have twenty-two, which means that juror number
twenty-three would be the alternate.

MR. TYSON: Strikes and challenges for cause. I will
strike number twenty-three for the alternate.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: You strike number twenty-three,
that leaves us with twenty-four. We will take it.

THE COURT: Twenty-four is the alternate. Mr. de Vlaming,
for the record, your client has been present for this
process. I assume that he satisfied

-184-
with the jury, is that correct?

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: That's correct.

THE COURT: What I would like to do is bring them in,
give them preliminary instructions and send everybody
to lunch for an hour. Is everybody okay with an hour.

MR. TYSON: Can we swear them after we come back?
Would that be fine?

THE COURT: That's fine, we can do that.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: Judge, there is a small
housecleaning matter. X is the one, you may recall,
that --

THE COURT: With the daughter.

MR. DENIS DE VLAMING: And Ms. X with the bus.

THE COURT: The bus I can work with, I don't know
how to handle the daughter. Does anybody got any
suggestions. I guess she is going to have to sort
it out. Hopefully she can work it. Let's bring them
in and get them seated.

(Whereupon, the jury panel was brought in.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the panel we have
a jury. If your name is called please come forward,
the deputy sheriffs will escort you to the jury

-185-
box, and give you your assigned seats. Deborah X,
Tina X, Donald X, Leroy X, Joyce X, Josef me X.
Peter X, you will be the alternate juror, but please
come forward as well. Ladies and gentlemen of the panel,
those of you who remain, it's 1:30. You have been very
patient with our questions. We appreciate that very
much, however, your jury service is complete. You are
free to go. You have my sincere thanks. Please be
careful going home.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what we
are going to do is give you some instructions,
let you go to lunch. Then you will receive the
oath as jurors when you return from lunch. What
I am going to do now is give you what is called preliminary
instructions. Please pay attention. Okay.

You have been selected and sworn as the jury to
try the case of the State of Florida versus Robert
Minton. This is a criminal case, as you know. This
Defendant has been charged with battery, as we have
already told you. The definition of the elements of
this crime will be explained to you later. It is
your solemn responsibility to determine if the State
has proven its accusation beyond a reasonable doubt
against, this defendant.

-186-
Your verdict must be based solely on the evidence,
or lack of evidence, and the law. The information is
not evidence, and it is not to be considered by you as any proof of guilt. It is the judge's responsibility to decide laws apply to this
case, and then explain those laws to you. It's your
responsibility to decide what the facts of the case
may be, and then apply the law to those facts. Thus,
the province of the jury and the province of the Court
are well defined. They do not overlap. This is one of
the fundamental principles of our system of justice.
Before proceeding further it will be helpful for you
to understand how a trial is conducted.

At the beginning of the trial the attorneys have an
opportunity, if they want to, to make an opening
statement. The opening statement gives the attorneys
a chance to tell you what evidence they believe will
be presented during this trial. What the lawyers
say is not evidence. And you are not to consider it
as such. Following the opening statements witnesses
will be called to testify under oath. They will be
examined and cross examined by the attorneys.
Documents and other exhibits may also be produced as
evidence. After the evidence has been presented the
attorneys will then have an opportunity to make
their final or closing argument.

-187-
Following the arguments by the attorneys, the Court
will then instruct you on the law that applies to this
case. After the instructions are given you will then
retire to consider your verdict.

You should not form any definite or fixed opinions on
the merits of this case until you have heard all of
the evidence, all of the arguments of the lawyers, and
the instructions on the law by the judge. Until that
time you should not even discuss this case among
yourselves. During the course of the trial we are
going to take recesses, and I told you, we will
take one shortly for lunch, but there will be others
during the course of this trial. During these times
you will be permitted to separate and go about your
personal affairs. During these recesses you should
not discuss this case with anyone, or permit anyone
to say anything to you or in your presence about
this case.

If anyone attempts to say anything to you, or in
your presence about this case, tell them that you
are on the jury trying the case, and ask them to
stop. If this person persists, leave them at once,
and immediately report them to the deputy sheriffs
that you see working this courtroom so they can tell
me what has occurred, and I can determine what, in
the interest of justice, needs to be done about it.

-188-
This case must be tried by you only the evidence
presented during the trial, in your presence, the
presence of the Defendant, the lawyers, and the judge,
in other words we have to hear all together for
the first time.

Accordingly, you must not visit any of the places
described in the evidence, and you must not read or
listen to any reports about this case. Further, you
must not discuss this case with any person. And you
must not speak with the attorneys, the witness, or
the Defendant about any subject whatsoever until your
deliberations are finish.

In every criminal proceeding the Defendant has an
absolute right to remain silent. At no time is it
the duty of a defendant to prove his or innocence.
From the exercise of a defendant's right to remain
silent a jury is not permitted to draw any inference of guilt.
And the fact that a defendant did not take the
witness stand must not influence your verdict in
any manner whatsoever.

The attorneys are trained in the rules of evidence
and trial procedure. It's their duty to make all
objections they believe are proper. When an
objection is made you should not speculate on the
reason why it was made. Likewise, when an objection
is

-189-
sustained or upheld by me, which means I stop the
testimony because of the objection, if I do that,
you must not speculate on what might have occurred
had the objection not been sustained, nor what the
witness might have said had the witness been permitted
to answer.

It's 1:35, what I would like to do is resume at
quarter to three, that gives you a little more than
hour. It gives you a chance to make the phone calls
that you need to make and now further arrange your
lives a little bit because you now know that you will be
with us for awhile. It gives you a chance to figure
some of these things out. It gives you a chance to get
something to eat and just kind of stabilize things, and
let people know where you are, and what's going to
happen. So we are adjourned until quarter to three.
Have a good lunch.

(Jury excused)

THE COURT: Is there anything that we need to do
before we break?

(Whereupon, court was recessed for lunch from
1:35 p.m. until 2:45 p.m.)

Start of Trial