1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Jacksonville, Florida

Plaintiff, Case No. 3:08-cr-298-J-32JRK

vs. October 13, 2009

JABARREN RICO HANSELL, 9:07 a.m.

Defendant. Courtroom No. 10D

_______________________________

EXCERPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

(JUROR SIDEBAR)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

GOVERNMENT COUNSEL:

NICHOLAS PILGRIM, ESQ.

FRANK M. TALBOT, II, ESQ.
Assistant United States Attorney
300 North Hogan Street, Suite 700
Jacksonville, Florida 32202

DEFENSE COUNSEL:

THOMAS M. BELL, ESQ.

Thomas M. Bell, PA
515 Newnan Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202

COURT REPORTER:

Shannon M. Bishop, RDR, CRR, CRC

221 North Hogan, #150
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone: (904)549-1307
[email protected]

(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography;

transcript produced by computer.)
 2

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 October 13, 2009 9:07 a.m.

3 * * * * *

4 THE COURT: Anybody think they know any of those

5 folks? Okay.

6 COURT SECURITY OFFICER: One hand.

7 THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry.

8 Mr. Rosati?

9 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Officer Terrell and Nobles.

10 THE COURT: Okay. I think we'll talk to you about

11 that in private if -- so we'll make a note of that --

12 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes, sir.

13 THE COURT: -- and we'll talk to you about that in

14 private. Thanks.

15 * * * * *

16 (Prospective juror joins sidebar.)

17 THE COURT: Okay. Hi, Mr. Rosati. You had indicated

18 that you do criminal defense work over in the state courthouse

19 and that you know Mr. Bell and --

20 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Uh-huh (affirmative).

21 THE COURT: How long have you been doing that?

22 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Ten years.

23 THE COURT: Okay. I don't know that you and I have

24 ever met, have we?

25 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't think so. You know Gene

 3

1 Moss probably.

2 THE COURT: Yes. Okay.

3 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: He's my partner. I work with

4 Otto Rafuse.

5 THE COURT: Okay.

6 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: We have a few cases.

7 THE COURT: Right. And they come over every once in

8 a while.

9 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah. And I have a case pending

10 too. I think it's in front of you, if I'm not mistaken, but...

11 THE COURT: Okay. So then --

12 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: And we see each other like in and

13 out of courtrooms. We don't do lunch or anything, but, you

14 know...

15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, the obvious question is: Do

16 you feel that you can be fair and impartial to both sides in

17 this case given what you do for a living?

18 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I can, actually.

19 THE COURT: Okay.

20 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yeah. I was pretty pumped I got

21 summoned, but I know -- being a defense attorney, but --

22 absolutely.

23 THE COURT: Okay.

24 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Either way.

25 THE COURT: Do y'all want to ask him any questions

 4

1 or --

2 MR. TALBOT: I think you indicated you knew the two

3 officers.

4 THE COURT: Oh, that's right. That's why we called

5 you. Yeah.

6 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That's right.

7 MR. TALBOT: Nobles.

8 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Terrell -- Officer Terrell and

9 Nobles, yes, I've had a few -- probably at least two trials

10 with them, I believe.

11 THE COURT: When they were witnesses?

12 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: When they were witnesses, JSO.

13 MR. BELL: DUI cases or --

14 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Oh, one was, I guess, a suspended

15 license. One was a firearm charge. That one -- that one

16 actually went to trial.

17 THE COURT: And so did you cross-examine them then?

18 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I cross-examined -- I think

19 trials. I did a motion to suppress.

20 THE COURT: Okay.

21 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: That's what it was, in front of

22 Judge Arnold, over in state court, so...

23 THE COURT: Okay. All right. So you've actually --

24 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: And I say I know them. I know

25 them from work professionally. I don't know them personally.

 5

1 I mean, I'll see them on the street, I'll say hi. I know

2 Nobles is -- I think might be going to law school or something

3 like that. But --

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: -- I've had experience with them.

6 THE COURT: Okay. All right. And do you have --

7 based on that, do you have any opinions about their

8 credibility, just from --

9 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Well, from that case I do, you

10 know.

11 THE COURT: And was that -- is the opinion favorable

12 or unfavorable?

13 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I wouldn't -- I would -- I don't

14 want to say it's unfavorable. I just -- I had questions in my

15 mind, is what I'm saying.

16 THE COURT: Okay. Fair enough. Any other questions?

17 MR. BELL: No further questions.

18 THE COURT: Thank you. Appreciate it.

19 PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Okay. Thank you.

20 (Prospective juror exits sidebar.)

21 * * * * *

22 THE COURT: All right. What about Mr. Rosati,

23 Mr. Pilgrim?

24 MR. PILGRIM: Yeah. With respect to Mr. Rosati, I

25 might have been on the fence if his relationship was limited to

 6

1 seeing Tom Bell on a personal basis. Obviously we couldn't

2 delve into the exact nature of their relationship and the fact

3 that they're both defense attorneys.

4 But the fact that he knows a lawyer and may have made

5 determinations about his credibility -- and I think he said

6 he'd been practicing maybe ten years. I might be misquoting.

7 But it seems like the two definitely know each other. And so

8 that would be problematic.

9 The other issue, of course, is the fact that he's

10 come to a determination about Officer Terrell's and Officer

11 Nobles's credibility.

12 And I was watching him when Your Honor asked that

13 question. And to his credit, as a good lawyer, he kind of --

14 kind of tried to qualify his answer. But watching his face, he

15 clearly -- in fact, he expressed to Your Honor that there was

16 something that kind of didn't pass the sniff test in his

17 opinion about the testimony of those officers.

18 So where you have a case that comes down to the

19 credibility of the officers, they're the two arresting

20 officers, and the potential juror has already reached an

21 adverse determination about the credibility of those officers,

22 that's clearly problematic.

23 You add on top of that the fact that he knows

24 Mr. Bell and that they see each other on a daily basis, quite

25 frankly, Your Honor, it looks like a no-brainer that it's a

 7

1 cause strike.

2 Thank you, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: Mr. Bell?

4 MR. BELL: Judge, I object. I think Mr. Rosati's

5 answers as to whatever personal contact that he described to

6 me, which was fairly limited --

7 THE COURT: I'm not so worried about that. What I'm

8 worried about is he's cross-examined these officers before.

9 And isn't that kind of a tough nut to make a lawyer who's

10 cross-examined and questioned the credibility overtly of these

11 officers, and who obviously has formed some impressions about

12 the credibility -- isn't that kind of a tough deal to -- to

13 make him a juror in this case when -- when those are going to

14 be probably the government's prime witnesses? That's -- that's

15 my concern.

16 I don't care that he knows you. I don't care that he

17 does criminal defense work. You know, if he says he can be

18 fair and impartial, then I think that -- I think that overcomes

19 all that.

20 But the fact that he has personal knowledge of these

21 officers and has stood up in court and cross-examined at least

22 one of them, doesn't that make it a little different?

23 MR. BELL: Judge, my position on that is simply this,

24 it's an absolute reflection of his candor to the Court, that,

25 one, he cross-examined them and, yes, indeed, he did have

 8

1 questions about their credibility in that case; nonetheless,

2 despite those -- despite those very candid disclosures to the

3 Court in respect to that case, he nonetheless felt that he

4 could put that aside and decide this case on the evidence and

5 the instructions. I would object to a cause.

6 THE COURT: Okay. All right. I'm going think about

7 that one.

8 * * * * *

9 THE COURT: I would be happy to have Mr. Rosati on my

10 jury, but if -- but he -- since he's actually had the occasion

11 to cross-examine the government's key witnesses in this case

12 and to question their credibility and -- and to already have

13 opinions about it, I just don't see -- if that -- if that

14 wasn't true, I think I would not agree with the government.

15 But since that is true, and since those are key

16 witnesses in the government's case, I just don't see how I can

17 have him on the jury. So I'm going to strike Juror No. 14,

18 Mr. Rosati, for cause, reluctantly.

19 * * * * *

20 (End of requested excerpt.)

21

22

23

24

25
 9

CERTIFICATE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )

)
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA )

I hereby certify that the foregoing transcript is a true

and correct computer-aided transcription of my stenotype notes

taken at the time and place indicated herein.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2021.

s/Shannon M. Bishop
Shannon M. Bishop, RDR, CRR, CRC