The morning began with Judge Nottingham going right to the business of getting the last jurors empanelled. The mood seemed light although the questions were generally dull (stock ownership, media knowledge of the case, business background, service on prior juries). An interesting interaction occurred when one juror revealed that he had previously served on a jury and was contacted after the verdict by the assistant district attorney (ADA). According to the exchange, the ADA told the juror something about the defendant that did not come up during the trial. After a side bar involving the usual three lawyers for the defendant and two for the prosecution (as well as the juror), the juror was dismissed. Nottingham said in open court that the reason for the dismissal was specifically because the ADA "felt it necessary" to discuss aspects of the trial after the verdict.
By 10:00 am, the jury was empanelled. Judge Nottingham dismissed the unselected alternative jurors and began instructing the seated jurors on their upcoming role. The Judge called for an early lunch to provide time to switch courtrooms from the large one on the second floor to his usual courtroom on the 10th floor. The trial will resume at noon with opening arguments.
Just before the morning break, a sharp exchange occurred between Judge Nottingham and Stern (lead counsel for the defendant). After Judge Nottingham announced the government's opening statement would begin after the break, Stern rose, asking about rulings on what he believed were pending motions. Obviously miffed, Judge Nottingham disagreed that there were any pending motions and agreed that Stern had "misread the instructions." He chastised Stern about similar interruptions. "Look, we are not going to go through this song and dance every time I make a ruling." The tension between the two judges continues.