Arnold Botello was stabbed to death on a Thanksgiving night with a turkey carving knife.

Arrested for his murder was Robert Sandoval.

In this program, you will see the American system of justice at work.

This is the actual first degree murder trial of Robert Sandoval.

Robert Sandoval, Arnold Botello and others spent Thanksgiving in this house eating, drinking and fighting.

Near midnight, Sandoval stabbed Botello.

Sandoval says it was self-defense.

Seemed like they were coming at me.

In my opinion.

They were, you know, on the table.

It was a knife.

I picked up the knife.

I started towards the door.

Next thing I know.

Arnold was on the floor and I did stab him.

I guess because I had the knife in my hand.

It was blood on it.

Botellos family does not believe it was self-defense.

I hope he gets what he deserves.

What do you think he deserves?

It should be here, whatever the law goes by.

He's been charged life imprisonment.

You think he should get life in prison or else you know it's the death penalty, if that was possible.

The prosecutor does not believe it was self-defense.

There was a lot of chaos that day, and people shot his van.

He leaves and he goes home.

After telling some of them he's going to blow them away.

I think were his words and whether he had a shotgun or not, we don't know.

But we know he came back with a chainsaw.

And that, to me, is not self-defense.

At that point, he becomes the aggressor and whatever the other people did, it's wrong.

But it doesn't give him an excuse to come back with a chainsaw to do heaven knows what.

And then when the chainsaw doesn't start, he goes and he gets a foot long knife and stabs Arnold Botello.

The defense attorney believes that it might have been self-defense, and the defense has the advantage that the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

I don't think the district attorney can disprove self-defense.

I think there is enough there that you have to believe self-defense might have been the actual case.

And again, I don't have to prove that it was self-defense.

They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.

Our system of justice favors the accused and makes it very difficult to take away anyone's freedom.

That's why the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

And to further protect the defendant's rights.

Sometimes evidence which could help convict is not permitted.

You will see this whole trial played out by a complicated set of rules.

If the prosecutor is to tell the jury what Sandoval said to police the night Botello died, he must prove in pretrial hearings that Sandoval had been advised of his right to remain silent.

Officer Silva said, what happened?

The one party standing upon the porch stated, I stabbed him.

It was Mr.

Sandoval.

What happened then?

Officer Silvis advised the party of his rights per Miranda.

He nodded his head in an affirmative motion, and then he said, yes, I understand.

The course of his conversation was that he had been to the 404 club, and someone took some shots at his van or himself, and from the inside of the van he took a chainsaw, and he took the chainsaw inside of the apartment.

And I asked him, I said, what was the chainsaw for?

And he said he had planned to cut him.

He planned to cut the parties inside the apartment.

He said I was going to cut him or cut him up and he couldn't get the chainsaw started.

I asked him what happened then he said, I went to the kitchen and picked up a knife and I stabbed the guy.

At any point in time, until you went downtown, did Mr.

Sandoval indicate that he did not want to talk to you?

No, sir.

Thank you.

Officer, no further questions.

You knew that you'd given his Miranda rights, and you told him he didn't have to make any statements to you at all.

Correct?

Yes, sir.

And he didn't make any statements to you immediately?

Did he not?

Outside the patrol car?

No, sir.

Okay.

So as far as you knew, he was exercising his right to remain silent, wasn't he?

There was no questions asked him, and we were busy directing the other police officers and the other personnel.

And I don't think if he had to talk, nobody would have listened.

Okay.

But the point is, he didn't make any statements to you at all.

Didn't he?

None was asked of him, sir.

Answer the question, officer.

He didn't make any statements.

No, sir.

You testified today that one of the things Mr.

Sandoval told you was about the chainsaw, and that he said to you that he planned to cut them up.

Yes, sir.

Referring back to your written report that was done that day.

You don't say a thing about that.

Do you?

No, sir.

And at the preliminary hearing when you testified about this, you didn't mention that.

Did you?

Mention what?

That he said he was going to cut the people up.

It wasn't asking me.

No, sir.

It wasn't asked of you.

You talked about the chainsaw, didn't you?

At the preliminary hearing?

Yes, sir.

Now, just so we don't have any more surprises.

I object to that characterizatio Your honor.

Oh, sustain the objection.

Is there anything else that Mr.

Sandoval said that is not in your written report, or that you have not testified to with the preliminary hearing or today?

Not that I can recall at this time, sir, but you might recall something later.

If they're asking me.

Yes, sir.

Well, that's why I just asked you.

Officer Gassman, were there any other statements that Mr.

Sandoval made that night?

None that I can recall.

No, sir.

Okay.

How more specific do I have to be to maybe jog your memory?

I've told you what he told me, and I'm not going to add in anything.

I had no further questions.

Can I call Mr.

Sandoval to the stand for the limited purpose of questions concerning this statement?

Do you recall one of the officers giving you your Miranda rights as they testified to today?

On the on the sidewalk.

Yes, I do.

Now, at some point, Mr.

Sandoval, did you exercise your right to remain silent?

Right after that, when you were standing on the sidewalk, Mr.

Sandoval, and they just given you your rights at that point in time, did you know that you could have had an attorney there before you continue to talk?

Not really.

It didn't cross my mind.

That didn't cross my mind.

Well, they just told you that.

Hadn't they rattle it off?

Yes.

Why didn't you just be quiet right there?

It was in a daze or a shock.

I had no further questions.

Is it your testimony that you don't understand what those rights mean?

No, that's not my testimony.

You do understand what they mean, don't you?

Partially, yes.

Not fully.

All right, let's go through those advisement.

Now, Officer Silva's indicated that you were advised that you had a right to remain silent.

You understand what that means, don't you?

Yes, sir.

Means you don't have to say anything.

At the time.

I wouldn't say I would.

I wasn't that coherent.

You mean that on that particular night someone could say to you, you have the right to remain silent, Mr.

Sandoval, and you would not understand that.

That means you don't have to say anything.

Yes, I would understand it, I imagine, but there's a lot of other things going through your mind at the same time.

Now, Mr.

Sandoval, you've indicated on direct examination with Mr.

Eisner that you don't recall the full action that happened that night.

That you were in a daze, that you were sort of hazy.

Isn't it fair to say, Mr.

Sandoval, that you don't have a clear recollection of what happened on the evening of November 25th, 1982, checking on the form of the question.

Excuse me.

Mr.. Are we talking about the time he was advised?

Are we talking about the entire evening hours at the time the stabbing occurred?

I think that's pretty broad of a question that could later come back to haunt Mr.

Sandoval.

at trial.

I would ask that that limited in terms of time.

Mr.

Sandoval, when you were being advised of your rights, isn't it fair to say, in view of all these other things you've said today in your testimony, that you don't have a clear recollection of what transpired between yourself and the police officers that night?

It seems like when, when, when we both of us caught the TV camera, both of us came to attention that we were in something serious.

That's when I really started taking interest in what was going on.

You had just stabbed somebody.

For whatever reason, you'd been handcuffed.

You'd been advised to your rights and you weren't taking it seriously.

Is that your testimony?

Until TV cameras were there?

Was dazed.

But didn't you just say that until the TV?

Excuse me, Mr.

Sandoval.

Let me finish the question.

Didn't you just say that Not until the TV cameras shown on you and Officer Gassman.

Did you take this all seriously?

Was it that your testimony a moment ago?

That's when.

That's when I realized I actually realized the extent of what was going down.

Is it your testimony that after you got in the police car and the lights shined upon you, after that fact, you have a clear recollection of what happened?

Sir, I'm still I'm still not really clear on what what actually happened.

Further questions, your Honor.

The judge rules that did wave his right to remain silent.

So the prosecutor may tell the jury what was said to police.

But the victim's family has been told that they will not be permitted to hear that or any other evidence in the trial.

They have been listed as witnesses and the judge's order that no witness can hear the testimony of any other witness.

I think this is a case in which those family members have a right to be present in court, and it is quite obviously because their son is the victim of a homicide.

I think it is an injustice to keep out the members of his family solely because, for one, the father will identify his body and has really no other knowledge of the issues of the facts of this case.

Judge, if they've been endorsed as witnesses, I don't see why they should be treated differently than any other witness and not object to that.

I think that prosecutions purpose is to have the family of the victim that is seated here in the courtroom to engender sympathy with the jury, and I think that's improper.

I don't think they should be given any special privileges just because they're related to the decedent in this case.

And I would object.

Well, that's not the intent, Your Honor.

Their son is a victim of the homicide, and I think they have a right to know what goes on in this courtroom in the trial of his assailant.

The rule is very clear.

The judge will not permit the family in the courtroom before they have testified.

But this issue of family members in the courtroom for the jury to see is of such importance that it will come up again.

Next, the prosecution and the defense argue over whether the jury will be permitted to see the victim's medical records on incidents which occurred long before the night of the stabbing.

A key issue in self-defense cases is who started the fight, who was the first aggressor?

Each side will want to persuade the jury that witnesses for the other side are violent people likely to start a fight.

Arnold Botello obviously cannot be cross-examined or examined concerning these particular incidents.

The 1977 incident in which he lost his eye, the doctor's handwriting says patient assaulted.

And I think that it is a real miscarriage of the rules of evidence to allow the fact that someone has been treated for injuries, to jump from that, to conclude that he is himself aggressive.

Whether or not Arnold was the aggressor, I don't think is actually the key inquiry on these medical records.

Judge.

It shows he has a propensity to being involved in violence.

And if the people want to say to the jury, well, he's always the victim, he always gets beat up.

I suppose that's one interpretation.

But, Your Honor, I think the rules do not set forth any kind of a limitation on this as to only saying victorious, aggressive persons, their character can come in.

But if you're getting fights a lot and get beat up and lose, well, that's not admissible.

The issue here, Your Honor, is who was the first aggressor.

How was Mr.

Botello likely to have acted?

We can show through this evidence that he had a character for being a violent person, whether as a loser or a winner is immaterial.

The court, on the basis of these records alone, cannot find that these records have a tendency of showing that, in fact, the victim had a violent character, any more so than he had a nonviolent character.

The defense may not introduce the medical records, but other evidence on the violent character of Botello and the others present may be introduced.

Sondavals character for violenc is another matter.

The structure of the rules tend to suggest that defendant can attack the character of the victim without exposing his own character to prosecutorial attack.

I agree that unless he in effect says yes, I am a peaceful person, you can't cross-examine about that.

In addition, the prosecution may not tell the jury that Sandaval has been in prison before on a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon.

He pleaded guilty to that charge, but now says he did not do it.

The prosecutor now does what is necessary to get the father of the victim in the courtroom, even though it means he will not be able to call him as a witness.

We are prepared at this time to strike from the witness list the name of Mr.

Herberto Botello, understanding fully the consequences of that.

Obviously, if there's anything inappropriate that the parents of Mr.

Botello should exhibit in the courtroom, the court can deal with that like it can with any other spectator.

It is the weekend before the trial.

The prosecutor and the homicide detective are at the police department.

They carefully prepare their case to convict Robert Sandoval of first degree murder.

You found this in a closet, didn't you?

Yeah.

That's correct.

This chainsaw was under the the van.

Did anybody test it to see if it would start or anything?

Not there at the scene?

Okay.

Still got some blood on it.

That darker substances, blood and the lighter stuff is fingerprint dust.

Crime lab people pick that up too at the scene?

That's correct.

T-Shirt with blood stains.

Doesnt it look like it's been out of here.

See, that's been cut from the ambulance people cutting it off of him.

I think it cut probably right through where the stab wound was.

The defense is also getting ready in the county jail.

The defense attorney works with the defendant to prepare his testimony.

District attorney is out there to make you look stupid and trip you up.

And yes, I found out you did it.

The suppression hearing.

Right.

He was able to work you over pretty well.

And I told you, I'm real concerned about your testifying in this case.

But unless you testify, we don't have any self-defense case.

If you don't come across as a believable witness, the jury jury's not going to feel sorry for you.

I'm not going to want to help you, and they're going to convict you.

And believe me, it's the most important thing.

In this case.

It's going to save your life or not.

Okay, let's go over some of the ground rules again that we've talked about before.

Don't fight with district attorney, okay?

He's going to try to get your goat.

I know he is.

He's going to try to show that you're the kind of person that can be irritated and gotten very angry very easily, because what do you think he'll argue to the jury if you get your pissed off?

Sure.

What are you going to say to him?

Look how Mandy got in here sitting in the courtroom.

Imagine how Mad he got when this guy shot his van three times.

He probably wanted to kill him.

You can't outsmart him.

You've already decided that, right?

You know he's smarter than you are.

But you don't need to fall prey to his little game of getting you mad.

One of the things that you're going to look at is if you're looking them in the eyes.

Dont know about you, but when I'm talking to somebody and want to know if theyre truthful Ill look them in the eyes.

And if they're looking up in the air or looking down or trying to avoid me, I know they're trying to hide something from him.

Okay, so if you got nothing to hide from that jury, you got to looking straight in the eye, The D.A.

is goinna make a big deal out of the fact that you were mad when you went over there, and we can't go into court and say you weren't mad.

You were mad enough to confront him.

You were mad enough to maybe have a physical argument, but you weren't mad enough to kill anybody.

As I understand it.

Yeah, I was not to kill anybody.

I was upset.

Okay, grab the chainsaw.

Well, come on, we talk about it.

I threw the chainsaw over the railing.

Mad enoughto throw the chainsaw?

What do you mean?

He just told me.

Get rid of the chainsaw & well talk it over, so I just threw it over the railing.

but you could just put it down on the ground, right?

What I'm saying is you have $100 chainsaw and you just trashed it out.$300 You can't deny that you weren't mad because a person's not going to throw down a $300 chainsaw.

Sure I am, okay.

I know that.

I know that I'm going to tell you the Da will make it.

He's got us either way.

Okay?

If you say you're not mad, he's going to say that's ridiculous.

If you say you're mad, he's going to say, yeah, he was mad and that's why he did it.

Okay, so either way, we're stuck.

But you're more I think if you admit that you were upset, Thats believable.

We started arguing right there in the living room.

Okay.

He stood up.

I started to come at you, and then that's what had happened, right?

Okay.

You were scared.

Did you just say scared of what?

Whatever it was going to happen.

You need to get excited.

You need to tell the jury how afraid you were.

But just saying it.

I thought something worse was going to happen.

That's not going to do it, okay?

I was scared.

So we're asking the jury now, seven months later, 2020 hindsight to look back and see if the situation you found yourself in was such as that you should have acted in self-defense.

That's all I could tell them.

Is the way it came down.

Just what I'm telling you.

Exactly what I'm telling you.

I know that I've been telling you this over and over and over and over again.

I know that it's coming out to same.

And we're not fighting with you about that.

As I recall your statement to us and your statement, to Jenkins, basically, you dont really remember exactly what happened.

It was all really quick at the end there.

It just went down so quick.

you know.

My experience has been that juries tend to disbelieve unbelievable testimony, which makes sense.

I f you're saying something like, I blacked out, I don't remember what happened.

They're going to think that's a bunch of bullshit, okay.

Because the officers are going to say you weren't drunk and you're going to say you weren't drunk.

It happened quickly, and maybe that's why you can't remember it and just say that it all happened so fast that I don't know exactly what happened, but all I could assume happened is either I actually went ahead and stuck him or I got pushed by somebody, but I don't know.

The officer gasman is going to come up again.

Now don't you worry about officer Gassman let me take care of Officer Gasman.

So I'm going to bring the additions to his testimony again.

Well I'll do that with him.

I don't need you to do that.

Okay.

Leave it to me okay.

Don't worry about it.

I can take care of cross-examination, okay?

You trust me to do that for you?

No choice.

Can't do it myself.

Okay.

That's right.

Does that bother you?

Wouldn't it bother you?

Are you looking at 20?

I don't know anything about being a lawyer.

And I had a good lawyer representing me, I wouldn't know.

I trust you guys.

I know, I just.

I just don't know if you if you ever believe me.

You know, that.

That bothered me a lot.

I want to make sure that you believe The defense attorney does not answer Sandoval's questions about whether he believes him.

It would be very easy for me to say, sure, I believe him 100%.

And why I'm going all the way for him, and.

But I am going all the way for him.

I just don't have to believe him 100% to go all the way for him.

But what do you believe about his innocence?

I don't think it matters.

I mean, you're not going to tell me.

I believe in this case very strongly.

So you think Robert Sandoval killed Mr.

BotelLo in self-defense?

Putting me on the spot with it.

Aren't you?

You know, I don't know if my opinion on that really matters.

I think there's some serious questions as to whether it was done in a criminal means, or whether it was done under self-defense.

Would you defend him the same way if you believed he were guilty of first degree murder?

Sure.

I would.

Again, my personal feelings don't matter.

We got four things here.

I want you to talk about being in prison.

I don't want you talking about being a good person.

I don't want you to use the word self-defense.

I don't want you to talk at all about the interview you have with Gassman, okay?

Every time we see you for the rest of the trial, we're going to mention those four things to you, because that's so important.

Okay.

This is one of the reasons the prisons are full.

Because of the game.

The game.

The rules of law.

The technicalities do often appear to work against justice.

If Sondavel forgets one of the rules of the game, it may indeed help to send him to prison.

But in the same way, a rule or technicality can keep him out of prison regardless of his guilt or innocence.

Throughout this trial, you will see the defense looking for just that technicality.

Here's what I envision happening if we set this up right.

Okay.

The D.A.

is going to try to cross-examine you on the fact that you didn't tell Gassman it was self-defense.

And then he's argued to the judge or the jury.

Well, that's a logical inference.

And if a person gets arrested for a crime and they think its self-defense theyre going to tell the police officers that, okay.

Again, they're commenting on your right to remain silent and you exercise your rights to remain silent.

So if he does that, it's a mistrial.

And if the judge doesn't declare a mistrial, you get your conviction reversed on appeal.

The defense attorney sees his job as trying to use every advantage of the law for his client's benefit.

He is not trying to determine the truth of the charges.

I consider the responsibility for uncovering the truth to be the jury's.

I don't think that in any case, the prosecution's case is totally true.

And the defense case is totally true.

In anything in life, you've always got two sides to a story.

And I've never seen a jury yet, as I told them, who has been happy with with their verdict, if they find him not guilty, they're going to still be crying when they come out and they're still going to be hurting.

It's not going to be happy situation for anybody.

Why do you say so?

So they're going to have serious doubts as to whether or not it really was self-defense.

I think they're going to say the people just have not disproven it.

And maybe he did kill this person, but they haven't proven it.

And that's the hardest kind of verdict for a jury to return.

The jury will have to decide.

Did Sandoval return with the chainsaw with the intent to kill, or did he kill Botello in defense of his own life?

12 of these people will be chosen to bear the responsibility of deciding the fate of Robert Sandoval.

Juror number 1934.

Jury selection begins.

Is there anyone who has had a friend or close relative who has been injured in an assault of, or some kind of criminal act?

I have a nephew that was murdered in Aurora three years ago.

Was anyone ever apprehended?

Do you think that you would be influenced in any way and making a decision in this case because of that circumstance?

No.

Not really.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Other than maybe in a in a divorce case or something like that.

Has any.

Have any of you been involved with a court proceeding?

Mr.

Cruz?

Some girl said that I hit her with a dog chain.

And they got me for assault with a deadly weapon.

Did you actually go to a trial or.

I threw a necklace, it was made out of.. No, I don't need to know about the circumstances of the allegation, but did you go to court on it?

Yes I did.

What was the end result?

They found me not guilty.

Any thing about that experience that might make you side with one side or the other?

In this case, just to start off with.No, Sir.

Okay.

Is there anyone who feels that he or she is just unable, because of any circumstance, to be totally fair and impartial in this case?

The more I think about, you know, if I do sit on the jury with school, I think I would feel really resentful or a little bit of anger to know that I could be finishing up my semester and instead I'm sitting on a jury.

Generally, schools, not enough schools consider the same thing as a as a job.

You know, your the employer is going to be really upset when an employee has to be here.

Let's leave it at that.

And I'm sure the attorneys will ask you some questions about that.

As this battle for Sandoval's life is fought out, you will see a carefully planned strategy on each side for winning.

We have seen the battles fought over what evidence the jury will be permitted to hear, and whether the victim's family will be permitted in the courtroom.

Now we will see the battle fought over who sits on the jury.

Each side will try to determine which prospective jurors might favor the other side, and then eliminate them from the jury.

Okay.

At this time, Mr.

Shockley, you may inquire of the jury.

Mr.

Carter, you have indicated you have some difficulty because of your status as a student.

Do you think you would hold that against one side or the other?

No, I don't think it would be one side or the other.

I just don't feel that I'd be able to be really objective about it or have a real clear mind on the case.

You know, I just don't think it'd be fair.

Is it fair to say that you think there's a substantial possibility that you won't be able to pay attention to the evidence because you're concerned about not being in school?

Yes, I think that's fair to say, Your honor, at this time, we would, I think, challenge Miss Carter for cause.

The challenge for cause is one way for an attorney to eliminate a juror.

The attorney asks the court to excuse a juror he believes could not be fair, since the prosecutor must have a unanimous decision to convict.

He does not want anyone on the jury who might have difficulty making that hard decision to convict.

The defense attorney, of course, wants to prevent the court from excusing such a juror.

He will try to do so without seeming unfriendly.

The attorneys used jury selection for many purposes in addition to selecting the jury.

It's a good opportunity for them to try to get the jurors to like and trust them.

Miss Carter, I'm sure you've heard other jurors talk the last day and a half about their own personal problems they have with their jobs.

Do you think the court should look at you differently than anybody else who is working?

I don't know.

I'm not trying to put you on the spot or make you feel uncomfortable.

It's just as the judge indicated, if we had a voluntary jury system, it'd be very hard to get people to come in here.

Right.

We're talking about my future, my career and me having to wait a whole nother year to graduate to.

And another thing is that I'm only 20 years old, and I don't feel maybe mature enough to decide a criminal case.

Okay.

You're probably one of the younger jurors here in the courtroom.

And the Constitution gives Mr.

Sandoval the right to have a trial of a jury of his peers, or a jury of the community, of all walks of life and all types of people.

And if all the young people got off because they felt they weren't mature enough, then Mr.

Sandoval would be deprived of that portion of the population to help decide his case.

So I hope that wouldn't be a concern to you, thinking that just because you're too young, I can appreciate your concerns.

I know that school weighs heavily on you and it is your career understanding that judge, I'll leave it up to the court.

Okay.

Thank you.

I'll overrule the challenge.

At this time, the judge will not excuse this juror.

Another type of juror.

The prosecution will usually try to eliminate is one who might be biased in favor of the defense because he has been a defendant.

Mr.

Cruz, while we're talking to you, why don't you go ahead and give us a little about yourself, sir?

In jury selection, the attorneys often ask open questions rather than just yes or no questions to try to get the prospective jurors to talk about themselves.

They are trying to uncover a hidden bias or prejudice which might make a juror favor one side or the other.

It also helps the attorneys build a relationship with the jurors and helps them tailor their arguments to this particular panel.

Well, I work for Jefferson County in schools, and I'm trying to get my wife through college, and at the same time, I'm trying to raise my little boy.

It's 3 in 3 months.

I'm also trying to take care of my father, and my mother is deceased, and I just feel out of place.

You know, being part of the jury.

I have a feeling my mind is going to be elsewhere.

Do you think that if you were selected to serve, that you'd be able to put all those things aside and concentrate on the evidence here and give Mr.

Sandoval and the state a fair trial?

I'd like to be fair to Mr.

Sandoval.

These past two days, I've tried very hard to give you my full attention here in this court, and I just.

I don't believe I can.

Your honor, we would, on the basis of the jurors statements challenging the cause Some questions.

Just a few questions.

Mr.

crews, have you been able to pay attention to the questions that have been asked the last day and a half, the comments the judges have made?

I I've tried very hard and I gave some attention, but like I said, I just know the more people we get into this situation, the more lose contact you.

Can your wife take care of your son?

So it'd be an inconvenience to her, but she could probably take care of your father and your son.

I know for a fact that my wife couldn't defend my father much l ess herself.

Much less, my boy.

You're really concerned about the neighborhood that you live in?

Well, yes.

You indicated, Mr.

Cruz that you were a defendant in a case a while ago, and you were found not guilty.

Yes, sir.

Did you have a jury in that trial?

Yes, sir.

And you sat through the jury selection procedure, didn't you?

Yes.

And do you remember a lot of jurors kind of bailing out, like saying, I don't want to be here?

This is too heavy of a response.

I don't remember that.

Okay.

So those jurors stayed there and decided your case, right?

Yes.

You glad you had that jury?

I didn't really know.

I didn't really understand what was really going on.

I was just I felt I was a victim.

Well, do you think the fact that Mr.

Sandoval is here, maybe he was a victim like you were, Has that crossed your mind?

Yes.

That came to mind.

I just I never felt I had capability of judging a man other than myself.

There's no question.

This is a very heavy responsibility.

And I'm sure, as I said before, and as a judge indicated, that nobody wants to be here and nobody wants to sit in judgment of a person on a first degree murder case.

I understand very well.

It's just that I feel 50% out of place here.

Well, is it because of your own personal needs, or is because you don't think you're qualified to be a juror?

Well, partially because I'm not qualified.

And at the same time, I'm.

Because my mind is not here.

I don't know why you think you're not qualified.

You know, the judge read the qualifications and you met all those.

You're over the 18.

You can read or write or speak English.

You live in the county?

Yes.

Okay.

That's all the law considers.

And if we had some kind of a higher standard, like you had to have a master's degree and you had to have 15 years experience as a social worker before you could be a juror, wed never have juries.

Juries are made up of people, ordinary people.

And like I told Miss Carter, you got to bring in your life experience, which is as important as any other juror on this panel.

So I don't want you to think that you're not qualified to be a juror because you're who you are.

Okay.

Now.

Okay.

Is that make you feel any better?

Yes.

If you're asked to be a juror and the judge gives you the instructions, and we help explain to you.

What's going on here?

And you've got the benefit of 12 other jurors talking with you in the jury room.

I think you could be a good juror?.

Yes, sir.

And if you sat here for those 4 or 5 days of trial, and I know you have your personal problems, but could you put those aside and listen to the evidence and do your duty as a juror?

Yes, I could try very hard.

That's all we can ask Mr.

Cruz.

Everybody's in the same boat.

Thank you.

Object to challenge for cause.

Overrule the objection or the challenge.

At this point.

The court will not excuse Mr.

Cruz, another prospective juror.

Mr.

McClellan's asked to talk about a concern in the judge's chambers so that he would not influence other jurors.

While in chambers, McClellan said that he would be more likely to believe a police officer's testimony than that of some other witness, and that he would expect the defense to prove its case.

The defense believed that McClellan's was not impartial and asked the court to excuse him.

The judge refused.

Now, in order to get McClellan's off the jury, the defense will have to use one of its 12 peremptory challenges.

With peremptory challenges, each side may excuse any prospective juror for any reason.

Throughout this trial, the defense is looking for grounds for appeal.

The judge's refusal to excuse this juror will be one of them.

This time, Mr.

Shockley, you may inquire of the jury.

Does anyone recall, maybe on the the news the Friday after Thanksgiving, anything about a homicide that occurred on East Fourth Avenue late on Thanksgiving night?

I do believe I did hear something about it, but I don't recall all the details at all, just that the stabbing had occurred.

If in the process of the trial, memories come back to you about what you did here.

Do you think you'd be able to put those aside and just listen to the evidence here in court and not not make your decision.

Rest upon anything you heard out of court?

I think so, because I don't know both sides to, you know, the story.

So I couldn't really make a judgment until I heard everything.

Is there anyone among you who, for any moral or religious or philosophical reason, believes that they could not return a verdict of guilty in this case if they were satisfied from the evidence that the case had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

The defense may now proceed.

The defense now has a chance to try to find those jurors who might favor the prosecution.

You said something that concerns me a great deal, and I want to talk with you about it for a second.

You had a nephew that was murdered in Aurora about three years ago.

Yes.

Mr.

Shockley's already told you that part of the action in this case occurred at a bar, the 404 club.

And the evidence is going to show that a stabbing occurred just a block away in an apartment.

So we're talking about maybe something that's kind of similar to that situation.

And I'm concerned that you might be put in an uncomfortable position of having to relive some of those same things that happen to your nephew.

I'm sure that must have caused you a great deal of distress when it happened.

Yes it did.

That's true.

And the person who was responsible for your nephew's death was convicted.

And obviously, you're not going to try to use this as an opportunity to get back to that person.

No, sir.

No, I don't believe in that.

Does anybody here feel that just because person is dead that somebody's got to pay?

One thing we haven't talked about, and that's something that's called an affirmative defense.

The attorneys also used jury selection to educate the jurors about the issues most important to their side of the case.

Now, the judges told you that the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on all the elements that people have to prove, not only each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt, but if an affirmative defense has been raised, such as self-defense, that then becomes an element of the case as equal in importance as any other element, and the people have to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Does anybody think that that's not fair at the prosecution should have to disprove a defense?

Miss Grossman, you indicated that you wanted to hear both sides of the story.

Well, as the judge indicated, Mr Sandoval does not have to testify if he doesn't want to.

Nobody can force him to.

And in fact, the defense doesn't have to put anything on at all.

We can just rest when the people get done, and the case can go to you, and the jury can still come back with the verdict of not guilty if they're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the people have proven their case.

And that's kind of different than what you were saying before about hearing on both sides of the story, like I said, I don't know anything about the case other than what I you know, I heard at the time, you know, and that was just that there was a stabbing.

That's all I heard.

Okay.

The judge will tell you that you can find reasonable doubt from the people's case alone.

Right.

And there's no responsibility for us to come forward and prove their case for them.

Because we don't have to prove or disprove anything in this case.

Do you think that's fair?

That's the way it should be.

Yes, I do.

I'm just concerned that that you don't give us a burden that we don't have under the law.

Right.

We've been talking about guilty, not guilty, innocent kind of kicking those terms around.

At the end of the case, the judge is going to give you some verdict forms, and they're going to say guilty or not guilty.

They're not going to say innocent.

That's not a choice.

And the reason for that is, is that not guilty means that the people have not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there's four elements and they've only proven three of them, that's not guilty.

But in your mind, you may be thinking, well, Mr.

Sandoval is guilty of something because we've got three of the four elements here, and it's a dead body over here.

But they haven't proven the fourth element.

And under the law, I have to return a verdict of not guilty.

Does that make anybody uncomfortable?

Your honor, I pass the jury for cause.

Thank you.

Both sides have now said they can find no further cause to ask the court to excuse any juror.

Now, each side will exercise up to 12 peremptory challenges excusing any juror they choose.

Mr.

Shockley, you may go first for the prosecution.

Thank you, Your Honor.

We would excuse juror number six, Mr.

Cruz, with our thanks.

These are some of the people that the prosecution excused because they thought they might favor the defense.

Never felt I had capability of judging a man other than myself?

I have always had a very deep sense of things.

Should be fair and just.

And I was really impressed by that movie that they said that 95% of the jury trials are in this country, and that means other countries that people accused of something don't have much chance.

I worked in Massachusetts, in Connecticut in a volunteer counseling program with inmates in the county jail and in the state prison.

These are some of the people that offense excused.

First, the prospective juror who said he would be more likely to believe a police officer than other witnesses.

I wouls excuse With our thanks, Mr.

Clemens.

The defense attorney excused this juror because he does not want any juror who might be in a hurry to make a decision.

I think I would feel really resentful or a little bit of anger to know that I could be finishing up my semester, and instead I'm sitting on a jury.

The defense attorney will excuse any juror he thinks could have a bias against the defendant.

Have you had, over the years, much contact with people of Hispanic descent?

No, no.

Do you think you formed any kind of opinions or feelings about people like Mr.

Sandoval?

Oh.

Not really.

And the defense excused this woman, who seemed very well qualified to be a juror.

Miss Hilton, you've had a great deal of experience in training and group dynamics.

Yes.

Do you think there would be a tendency, because of your experience in dealing with this kind of group dynamic before that would make you better suited to be a foreman, for example, or for personal?

In all honesty, I would say yes, because I'm professionally at the university.

I am the university trainer.

Both sides saw this woman as a probable foreperson.

The four person is a very influential position, and since the defense could not tell which side she would favor, they excused her.

Now other jurors must be called to take the place of those excused.

Good morning.

Tell us a little bit about yourself.

How dit it feel to come to this country from a Governmental structure that was totally different to this country, and then serve on jury service that first time?

The defense is trying to get to excuse people who might have leanings toward the prosecution.

And the prosecution's trying to to excuse people who are have leanings toward the defense, and then you end up with the people that are actually truly in the middle.

Would you consider yourself at the present time to be in the middle?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

You came to the United States about 30 years ago.

No, 13, 13 years ago.

Yes.

Prior to that, you lived in Czechoslovakia?

Correct?

Yes.

Obviously, from what we understand, that form of government is quite different from ours, and it is a form in which the government itself can be quite oppressive.

Would you agree?

I agree.

Now, that concerns me simply because I represent the government in a case like this.

Do you think that any government, because of your experiences in Europe, that to you any government smacks of oppression?

Thank you very much, sir.

You said something that concerns me, and I want to share that with you.

I kind of got the impression that you think we're being dishonest in the way we're excusing jurors.

Do you think I'm doing anything to trick you or to be dishonest?

This jurors questions go to the very heart of our American system of justice.

Whether this battle, this contest played out by a complicated set of rules between two comparably experienced adversaries who may not totally believe their own arguments with the decision in the hands of ordinary citizens, denied access to some of the available information, actually serves the purpose of finding the truth of achieving justice.

I'm going to try to convince the jury that my view of what the evidence shows is correct, not the peoples, and Mr.

Shockley is going to be doing the same thing for his side.

My obligation is to represent Mr.

Sandoval as zealously as I can.

Mr.

Shockley has responsibility of representing the people as zealously as he can.

I have an obligation not to perpetrate a fraud on the court.

I can't put on evidence.

I know his perjured testimony.

So I hope you don't think that, you know, we're condoning crime because we represent person charged with a crime.

Because I'm a public defender, that I think criminals are okay people and everybody should be able to commit crimes because that's not at all what we stand for.

And I just don't want you to be starting me off sort of in the hole as we go through this trial, because we've got to start in the same footing, Mr.

Shockley and myself.

And if you're going to be looking at me, with sort of a jaundiced eye and not of him, that's not fair to Mr.

Sandoval.

You mentioned something about the presumption of innocence, and you said you thought that was sort of at the extreme.

What did you mean by that?

The judge's responsibility is to determine what evidence will come before you legally, what evidence you will hear.

And as you've read in the papers, sometimes the courts will decide certain evidence can't come in for some reason.

And usually that's because the Constitution says the evidence can't come in.

We're not talking about legal technicalities.

We're talking about the Constitution.

Self-defense.

Do you think that's also a fair principle under the right circumstances?

Even to the extent of taking another life.

And you think you can be a fair juror for both sides?

Thank you.

What I think we'll do is recess for the noon lunch hour.

Please heed my admonitions before about talking with fellow jurors and other individuals.

Don't pay any attention to any kind of media coverage.

Court has recessed for lunch.

Sandoval is taken to a jail cell.

Here are the defense would excuse Mrs.

Basnet with our thanks.

Surely B. Hill.

Good morning, Mr.

Eisner Yesterday with some of the other jurors pointed out and he's exactly right, that part of the proof of any criminal act is both the act itself and the state of mind of the defendant.

Would you agree with me that people don't often say or state, I intend to do this, or this is what I intend to do?

Yes.

In jury selection, the attorneys often ask questions not because they want answers, but because they want to make a speech about an issue in the case.

Mr.

Eisner also touched on the concept of self-defense yesterday.

And of course, that's recognized in the law as a legitimate defense.

Now, if the law also states that if you're the initial aggressor.

In other words, if you start something, maybe then what happens as a result of it is not self-defense.

Do you think that's fair?

Yes.

Thank you very much, ma'am.

We would pass, Mrs.

Hill.

Thank you, Mr.

Eisner.

Thank you.

Judge.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Obviously, we're sitting here in a courtroom, things are pretty quiet in here.

This incident occurred seven months ago, and it occurred over a very short period of time.

Would you agree with me that sometimes is difficult to consider facts as they occurred a long time ago.

When you're in a totally different setting and the emotions aren't the same.

I would say yes.

Do you think you have what we refer to as street sense?

Not that much street sense no.

Because we're going to be looking at sort of a hard ball section of society, I think, in this trial, and we're talking about one set of laws that covers all people.

There's no question about that.

But certainly the factors that motivate certain people in different groups of society may seem abhorrent to people in other groups of society.

Would you agree with me on that?

Yes I would.

Juror passes.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, the jury, which is those people in the jury box will be the jury in this case.

For the duration of the trial.

The jurors chosen will be kept in a hotel out of contact with the outside world.

They will communicate only with each other and with the bailiff.

And will not even be permitted to communicate with their families.

I think it's a little early to bring a chainsaw over.

That's an idea.

It's an old trick.

I've seen it before.

Next week, part two of first degree murder trial.

The case for the prosecution.

Sandoval rushes inside to the kitchen, where was kept the carving knife that had been used that day on the Thanksgiving turkey.

It's about a foot long knife.

There's no question that Mr.

Botello died from a knife injury from a knife that was being held by Mr.

Sandoval.

So the issue in this case for you to decide is, what was Mr.

Sandoval thinking at the time this happened?

Yes.

This is the rifle that was recovered from bedroom closet.

And I asked him what he was doing with the chainsaw, and he said he had planned to cut him up in the apartment.

I remember people being pushed around the coffee table that was in front of me was almost in my lap at that point.

He drove his van Rapp on the sidewalk, ran from my house.

Tell us what you recall happening after that.

Bobby coming in with a chainsaw, trying to start it.