Jury in Unabomber Case Is Selected

After nearly six weeks of wrangling, a jury of nine women and three men was selected Monday to hear the case against alleged Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, even as a puzzling new wrinkle added mystery to the proceedings.

Amid the selection of the jurors and six alternates--all identified only by number--came a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. to delay the start of the trial by a week, until Jan. 5.

All the while, courtroom observers were left wondering what to make of the three secret discussions--including one early Monday--between the judge and Kaczynski’s defense team.

Burrell would only say that the two meetings and a telephone conversation--from which the prosecution was excluded--revolved around “attorney-client matters involving the defense.”

As she left the courtroom late Monday, Judy Clarke, one of Kaczynski’s attorneys, indicated the issue had been resolved but declined to be specific.

Nonetheless, prosecutors and an attorney for a media coalition are seeking to obtain a transcript of the closed proceedings from Burrell.

With several other issues unresolved, Burrell agreed to a request by both sides to delay the trial’s start by a week.

Kaczynski, 55, was not present as jury selection was completed, with attorneys from both sides using their peremptory challenges to remove jurors from the finalist list without having to give a reason.

Quin Denvir, Kaczynski’s lead attorney, said the jury “looks like it will be a good panel.”

Jury selection began Nov. 12. That’s when the first group from a pool of 600 prospective jurors was quizzed about the death penalty, pretrial publicity and mental health issues.

Much of the questioning focused on capital punishment, especially whether jurors who agree with the death penalty could still be open to sentencing Kaczynski to life in prison if he is found guilty.

On Monday, the selection process ended with a 90-minute exchange in which the two sides took turns excusing prospective jurors. It was done in writing, with prosecutors huddled in one corner of the courtroom and defense attorneys meeting in another room.

Those chosen were not present and were notified by telephone.

During courtroom interviews, the anonymous jurors voiced mixed feelings on the death penalty and several had ties to law enforcement.

“I have mixed feelings. . . . Society has a right to exact out its consequences . . . but I’m not a proponent of killing anyone,” said a middle-aged woman with two sons who was selected Monday.

Of the three men, one is retired, one has a construction job, while the profession of the third was not revealed in questioning.

The nine women include a retired law enforcement secretary, a state worker and a woman who has a friend who lived down the street from 1985 Unabomber victim Hugh Scrutton.

Six alternates, four men and two women, were also chosen for the case, which is expected to last two to four months.

At the conclusion of the selection, lead prosecutor Robert J. Cleary asked whether transcripts of the closed-door meetings with the defense would be made available to the government.

“The government simply has no standing,” Denvir said. “They [the proceedings] should remain confidential.”

Burrell said he planned to review the transcripts to see if part of the proceedings could be disclosed. They include a telephone conversation last Thursday and then closed-door meetings with the judge Friday and early Monday before jury selection.

It was unclear whether Kaczynski was present at the meetings, but U.S. Marshal Jerry Enomoto said Kaczynski was taken from the Sacramento County jail to the courthouse for the sessions Friday and Monday.

Diane Amann, a former federal public defender, said such a closed-door conference is “not common but it’s not unheard of, particularly if you have a difficult client who is intelligent but who may have some mental difficulties or a client who has political motivations that they feel are the centerpiece of their case.”

Some legal experts suggested that Kaczynski might be seeking to fire his attorneys.

Malcolm Segal, a former federal prosecutor in Sacramento, said that before Burrell would allow Kaczynski to change attorneys, the judge would grill him quite closely to make sure he was thinking clearly.

Speculation about a replacement centered on J. Anthony Serra of San Francisco, one of California’s most famous and aggressive criminal defense attorneys. A secretary at Serra’s office said that “due to confidentiality reasons, he has no comment” about the possibility of representing Kaczynski.

The Harvard-educated Kaczynski, who has pleaded not guilty, faces 10 counts charging him with sending or placing bombs that killed a Sacramento computer store owner and a timber industry executive and seriously injured a geneticist and a computer scientist.

He was arrested nearly 21 months ago at his Montana cabin, where he had lived for more than two decades after a brief stint teaching mathematics at UC Berkeley.

Prosecutors say that at the cabin investigators found a mountain of evidence, including Kaczynski’s own journals, linking him to a nationwide spree of attacks. They say he is the anti-technology terrorist whose blasts killed three and injured 29 over 18 years.

During proceedings Monday morning, Burrell raised the possibility of imposing a gag order in the case. By late afternoon, however, he backed away, saying the suggestion was premature.

Such a gag order was imposed in the recent Oklahoma City bombing trial of Timothy J. McVeigh.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Profile of the Jury

Here are brief profiles of the 12 jurors selected in the trial of Unabomber suspect Theodore Kaczynski. The information, including quotes regarding their views on the death penalty, was gleaned from questioning of jury candidates in open court. Six alternates were also selected.

JUROR 1: Middle-aged white woman with two sons. Was a juror in a gang-related murder trial which ended with a plea agreement. Worried about the media intruding on her life.

Death penalty: “I have mixed feelings . . . Society has a right to exact out its consequences . . . but I’m not a proponent of killing anyone.”

*

JUROR 2: A young man with a white beard. Has a construction-type job for a large company. He once applied to the California Highway Patrol academy and was accepted, but ultimately did not attend.

Death penalty: “It’s not comfortable enough for me, but I could [vote for death sentence].”

*

JUROR 3: Middle-aged white woman. Retired law enforcement secretary whose ex-spouse and current spouse are retired law enforcement officers. She has a sister who was retarded and had a nervous breakdown.

Death penalty: “I don’t believe it stops other murders. I don’t think the death penalty is the harshest penalty you can give someone, because I believe in God. I think death is not so bad.”

*

JUROR 4: Retired white man with a strong New England accent. Had heart surgery in April but has recovered. Takes a light blood pressure medication.

Death penalty: “If the evidence warrants it and justifies it, I believe the death penalty can be justified . . . If the crime justifies the penalty, I have no problem with it.”

*

JUROR 5: Middle-aged white woman who knew about the mental defect defense controversy. She had a job in which she traveled a lot.

Death penalty: “I’m not sure. I don’t feel strongly either way. I guess there may be times where it may be warranted and times where it would not . . . I’m a middle-of-the-road person.”

*

JUROR 6: Middle-aged white man with a graying beard. Has a neighbor who works for the county sheriff, and another who works for the Forestry Service.

Death penalty: “If someone is found guilty of a long string of events that caused death and they were quite aware of what they were doing,” then he could support the death penalty. But he also said the death penalty could be “more of a vindictive action.”

*

JUROR 7: Middle-aged white woman who was once a juror in a civil trial.

Death penalty: “I don’t know that I can say that it’s particularly effective as a deterrent, but I don’t have a moral problem with it.”

*

JUROR 8: Middle-aged white woman who has a friend who lived down the street from 1985 Unabomber victim Hugh Scrutton. Said of Kaczynski, “When they arrested him, I figured he probably did it. I still figure he did it.”

Death penalty: Serial killers “should be killed just so they don’t do it again.” But said Kaczynski should get life without parole.

*

JUROR 9: Older white woman who works for the state. Has family in law enforcement, including her male partner.

Death penalty: Polly Klass case made her think she could vote for the death penalty. “The fact that it was a child attacks my sensibilities . . . Her defenselessness, her innocence, and the fellow that was convicted of that crime . . . had a criminal history that suggested to me that he wasn’t going to get better, that he wasn’t going to be rehabilitated.”

*

JUROR 10: Young white woman employed by a company whose clients include some FBI agents. Father was sheriff’s deputy. Had premonition she’d be called for the case.

Death penalty: “It depends very much on all of the circumstances. To me, a big philosophy in my life is, ‘It depends.’ ”

*

JUROR 11: Older white woman who once worked in a social service office. Has a son and daughter, doesn’t read newspapers and keeps a diary. She has been on state jury duty several times and is a fan of novelist John Grisham.

Death penalty: “I’m a proponent. I agree with it in extenuating circumstances . . . I would try to be honest, just and merciful.”

*

JUROR 12: Middle-aged white woman family in law enforcement.

Death penalty: Once totally opposed to capital punishment, she now believes “in some cases it needs to be used.” But she added, “Only God can decide that. That’s how I was raised.”