Day 1: Jury Selection

We are in courtroom on the second floor of the Arraj Courthouse, named after a legendary trial judge in Denver. The courtroom is not entirely full, although the space for the press is. There is a second room, on the 7^th floor, with seats for 65, and a video feed.

The prosecution is sitting to the right, with four attorneys, Cliff Stricklin in the seat closest to the judge. The defense has five lawyers, with Stern next to Nacchio on the left hand side of the table. Stern is wearing a grey suit, with a red tie and white shirt. Both the suit and shirt look almost a size too large, giving him a slightly rumpled and non-threatening appearance. Nacchio appears impeccable, in a grey suit, with a matching blue tie and shirt, his jacket always buttoned.  

Just before the arrival of Judge Nottingham, 18 jurors filed in, followed by approximately 50 or so alternates. Punctually at 8:30, Judge Nottingham entered the courtroom. He noted having received filings at 2:30 yesterday and reading them until late in the evening.  It was a clear message to the lawyers that he intended to be on top of things.

Judge Nottingham noted that the jury had been selected randomly through the use of a computer program. He then turned to the jury. Although it looked like he had a script or notes, he mostly talked without reference to them, speaking directly to the jurors.  He first asked whether anyone had a conflict that made it difficult or impossible to serve for the length of the trial. One juror, an older man, raised his hand and after a side bar (with three defense lawyers and two government lawyers) was dismissed.  Questions about health, hearing or vision problems elicited some responses about bad ears and compressed discs but no dismissals. 

The most detailed set of inquiries involved information known to the jurors about the case.  Thirteen of the jurors indicated that they had heard about the case.  For the remainder of the morning, each juror who raised his or her hand was questioned by the judge about their source of information, followed by a side bar where the lawyers could ask questions.  In a hi tech era, Judge Nottingham asked not only about newspapers, television and radio but also the Internet, particularly whether jurors had accessed the web sites of the two local newspapers devoted to the case or had read any comments written in by readers. 

There were a couple of mildly intense exchanges, both involving the defense. As the judge questioned one of the jurors, Stern rose and waited until Nottingham noticed him.  It was apparent that Nottiingham wasn’t happy with the interruption. “Can we approach the bench? “ asked Stern. A pause followed, as if the Judge was mulling the question. “No. You can approach the bench at the appropriate time,” he replied, obviously irritated.  Stern indicated some concern with the line of questioning.  “I’ve asked these same questions and you’ve never objected,” Judge Nottingham pointed out.  Despite the obvious annoyance, Nottingham quickly wrapped up the questioning, and Stern got what he wanted. The questions stopped. The juror was, by the way, dismissed.

The other happened after the first break, around 10:40. As the Judge returned, defense counsel did not. Someone had to go out to get them. Stern muttered an apology and received a short lecture from the Judge. “I expect when I take the bench everyone is here. No excuses.” “Right, I apologize. It won’t happen again.” Nottingham also took the opportunity to lecture the press about interviewing dismissed jurors until the jury was seated and the pool of alternatives dismissed. Apparently this was in reaction news stations conducting interviews of dismissed jurors.

We are coming back at 1:00, with only a 45 minute lunch break.  The jurors are having pizza.