Mr. Sean McMurrey - Juror in State of Texas v. Alberto Segura, Jr., 147th District Court of Travis County, Texas 2009

Date: 15 November 2009

Place: Austin, Texas

Equipment: Sony 1080i mini-HD DV camcorder; Sennheiser external microphone

Recorded on: Sony mini-DV cassettes

Interviewer: Virginia Raymond

Videographer: Celeste Henery

Transcription: Shane Cruz, Rebecca Lorins, and Adam S. Mehis

Reviewed & edited: Rebecca Lorins

Supplementary material: Charge of the Court (jury charge)

*****

VIRGINIA RAYMOND: Is it on?

CELESTE HENERY: It is indeed.

RAYMOND: Okay, all right. Thank you, Sean, for your patience. Today is the 15 of November 2009 and we are here with Sean McMurrey. Sean, will you spell your name?

SEAN McMURREY: Sure, my first name is Sean S-E-A-N my last name McMurrey M-C-M-U-R-R-E-Y.

RAYMOND: Great, thank you. And this voice talking is Virginia Raymond and behind the camera is Celeste Henry, Dr. Henery. And we are here in central east Austin to interview Sean about his recent experience on the jury. Sean, we have gone through this right before the consent form, but I want to just go over again with you. We are interviewing you today: you are in control of the interview. If you want to stop, take a break, you are in charge. If you want to not answer anything, you are in charge of all of that. After the interview we will give you the D.V.D. and then at some point later, which takes a while we’ll give you the transcript. We’ll ask you to review it, make any edits you want in the transcript and make any deletions you want from the D.V.D. When it’s the way you want, we’ll ask you if you will consider donating it to use for educational and non-commercial purposes, including getting it to libraries and educational institutions. Most specifically right now we’re thinking about giving it to U.T. and the Human Rights digital initiative, (sic) but maybe also other libraries as well. We will also ask you whether if you donate it to us, if it can be public and at what point. And we will also ask you if you donate it to us if you mind if we put it on the web, and again at what point; and that would be so that everybody could learn from your experience. And you know that once things go on the web even though we’re not using it for commercial purposes, or anything other than educational purposes, there’s really no guarantee especially with the rapidly improving technology that somebody else couldn’t use it at some point for some other purposes that neither of us like.

McMURREY: Understood.

RAYMOND: So do you have any questions?

McMURREY: No.

RAYMOND: All right. So you signed this consent form?

McMURREY: Yes I did.

RAYMOND: Thank you. And I will sign it right now that I’ve explained the risks. Risks are simply that we would release something confidential by accident before we are supposed to, or that you would get upset. The benefits are really none other than knowing you are helping other people understand this process a little bit better.

McMURREY: I got it.

RAYMOND: Okay, thank you very much. So Sean, if you could just describe a little bit about yourself, however much you need to, just so we know who you are.

McMURREY: Well, I grew up in Texas. I was born in Bryan, Texas. I grew up there but then moved to Austin at an early age, and pretty much spent my whole lifetime here, growing up through my early years. I left to go to college, and then did some traveling around Latin America, served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Honduras. Then came back to Austin a few years ago and have been working here in Austin.

RAYMOND: And we have discussed that you have a sensitive job, so were not going to talk about it or even name it, but in general, very general, what kind of work do you do?

McMURREY: In my capacity, in my position, in my job, I work with law enforcement and family members that are involved with active cases, and assist them, provide them with technical assistance of how to investigate the cases and try to come to a resolution.

RAYMOND: Thank you. And how old are you Sean?

McMURREY: I am about to turn 27 in a couple of days.

RAYMOND: Happy Almost-Birthday.

McMURREY: Thank you.

RAYMOND: Well the reason why I asked if you would grant us an interview is because you served as a juror recently in a capital murder case.

McMURREY: Correct.

RAYMOND: Would you tell us about that case?

McMURREY: Sure… Well, in September of 2009, I served as a juror on the case for the State of Texas versus Albert Segura, Jr., in which the defendant was charged with, by indictment, with the offense of capital murder, alleged to have been committed in Travis County, Texas, on or about the 18th day of November 2007, to which the defendant pled “not guilty.” And so it was our job to look at the evidence, in the case, and we came to the decision that he was found guilty of capital murder.

And before getting into the whole, justice system, I didn’t know what the difference was between murder and capital murder. There’s different components that can elevate an offense from murder to capital murder. In this particular case, the defendant was charged with having either committed—murdering more than one person during the same criminal transaction, or murdering more than one person during different criminal transactions but pursuant to the same scheme and course of conduct. So, what happened here is A.J. Segura was alleged to have murdered Billy Jean Ferguson in a house off south Austin, and then later murder his mother Patricia Smith off the highway I-35 a few hours later. So it was two murders pursuant to the same criminal transaction.

RAYMOND: And tell us about your experience as a juror.

McMURREY: Well it was actually a very long—my mail goes to my mother’s house, because I have been in and out of the country and moving for different reasons, and so all my mail comes here. And so she got the notice that I had been called for jury selection. So I was like “Oh great jury selection,” nobody really wants to do jury duty. You hear a lot of bad stories about it. So I went online, with the code that they had sent me in the mail, and filled out a few questions there preliminarily and then I guess I passed the basic first process. So then they sent me another email, with questions about how I felt about the death penalty, and different ways I would interpret evidence, and if I had any reason that I couldn’t look at the law and make a decision based on personal bias. And different questions about how I would interpret evidence, if it was presented by one person would hearing a witness testimony from one individual be sufficient enough for me to convict someone. Just basic questions about courtroom proceeding I guess. Maybe ten or fifteen questions there, so I filled that out online, they sent it back to me with another twenty page questionnaire very similar questions but going into a little bit more detail.

So I sent that back to them and they called me in for the actual day of jury selection, we went in, and there was about a hundred twenty individuals there; I think I was number thirty-four. And they brought us all into the room, into the courtroom and they asked questions very similar to the ones that were on the questionnaire that we all filled out: some going into a bit more detail, and then asking questions, and we had our numbers—about this size—and they’d say, “If you feel this way, hold up your card,” so we’d hold up our cards, and then the attorneys would jot down everything, what everybody’s saying, trying to get a feel for it. Granted there were a hundred twenty of us there, so I’m not sure how beneficial it was they said that it’s usually—there are less people there usually—or fewer people, so I don’t feel it was a very productive process honestly.

So that lasted a few hours, and then they called us back in later for individual voir dire—again another term I wasn’t familiar with—I had to learn. But basically in an individual voir dire, what I did was I went in front of both of the teams of attorneys—the prosecuting attorneys and the defense attorneys—and I sat on the witness stand with the judge and they asked me questions based on my answers to the questionnaire that I filled out. That was about a thirty minute, forty-five minute long process.

And if you have ever sat on a witness stand or been questioned by an attorney, you’ll know what I mean by this: it was a very intimidating experience; those guys do not joke around. They don’t speak like a normal person speaks: they use language that’s very confusing and I think they’re trying to trick you while you’re up there. So I did feel some sympathy for the witnesses, when I was taking part in the trial. But they definitely grill you about your beliefs. They asked me how I felt about the death penalty, and my experiences with it in the past. If things with my job would prevent me from being able to listen to the evidence that was presented to us, would I want more evidence? And it was really hard looking at the different types of evidence that was presented in making a decision based on just what was in the courtroom. So they really focus on how you interpret evidence and what kind of things that motivate you when they’re deciding.

And also I didn’t know this for jury selection, is they don’t select you based on your responses. They call it jury selection so I thought “Oh, we want this guy because these beliefs,” but basically what it is, is jury de-selection—so they find reasons to not pick you, reasons why they wouldn't want you. And after my individual voir dire I thought that they were going to kick me out, and say, “Oh, this guy, there's no way.” They sent me out of the room for about ten minutes, came back in and they told me I’d been chosen for jury duty.

So about two weeks there—so that whole process—we're talking about a month later from the time I initially got the letter in the mail. Through that time, about a week or two later, went in on a Monday and I met the other twelve jurors, there were thirteen of us in all. There's typically twelve jurors that make the decision, but they added an extra person there in case one of us got sick and wasn't able to continue coming.

And there was all people from all different kind of backgrounds. I think the youngest juror was nineteen, and went up to people in their older, higher sixties. So we had all people from different age groups, different backgrounds, different races and everybody was very friendly. I guess because they de-selected all the strong personalities and the people that are left over are kind of the ones in the middle. We all got along really well and I think we really formed a beautiful bond with one another. I think that was one of the most interesting aspects of the whole experience was the role that we played for one another, the support system, the personal connections that we made with one another because we couldn't talk about the case outside of the courtroom. We couldn't talk about it with anyone. And even during parts of the case we couldn't talk with each other.

And nobody really understands what you are going through when you are getting these pieces of evidence. And so the first day we went in there as a group of thirteen strangers, kinda thinking, “Hey, I don't have to go to work today,” – not vacation but, you know, you're out of your normal routine. And you're like, “Okay, I am not at my desk,” and you sit in there and you don't really realize the severity of what it is that you're doing.

The first witness that we listened to was a survivor in the case. The defendant Albert Segura, Jr.—we called him A.J. — is what he went by. A.J. attempted—had a conflict with this individual, and when he went to confront this individual and kill him is when he murdered Billy Jean Ferguson—thought he killed this individual, Mario Rivera. Mario lived and actually called 9-1-1 and police responded to his 9-1-1 call. A.J. left the house with Billy's mother because he thought he had killed Mario and Billy. He took Patty—Patricia Smith—with him—Patty—in his car and drove off a field and killed her later.

So our first witness that we heard from was Mario, and seeing him in the courtroom there with A.J., when he pointed him out and said “He's the man who shot me, he is the man that shot Billy Jean Ferguson,” within five minutes of us walking into this courtroom --

we are like “Holy cow, what is going on here?”

You know, you felt the intensity in the juror box. And when we went out for our first break, was like “Wow guys, this is a really, really intense situation.” And hearing that and having—speaking with someone or listening to someone talk that has survived a murder is a really intense experience. And that's when we got pulled into it and realized what we were doing. And so I am trying to think now of where I was going with that.

RAYMOND: You had been talking about the beautiful bonds that form and the support you played for each other when you can't talk about…

McMURREY: . That's right. So, that's, whenever—there was times at night where—another juror and I, we exchanged phone numbers because I think a lot of us were scared of kind of the confidentiality component because A.J. was, you know we found out later that he was a member of the Texas Syndicate, which is a very popular prison gang, well not popular but very powerful prison gang in Texas and around the country.

And so a lot of people were kind of scared I think, his family was there all of them seeing our faces. And we were kind of nervous and so, even amongst ourselves we didn't want to share a lot of personal information, but we had no one to talk to. And, you know, we're dreaming about this stuff at night. I know I was, and some of the other people that I spoke to, they we're dreaming about it. From the details that we heard—trying to piece together that night.

And, for us, there were some that I called, we wouldn't talk about the case but we would just say, I'm freaking out. I talked to my sister, and my mom and other people and said “I'm doing this interview, what kind of things did I talk to you about.?”

Because I kind of put a lot of memories aside. I mean, I remember at the time I was very, I was just kind of all over the place. And so I asked them, “What was I talking to y’all about? What were some of the things that I brought up that was bothering me?”

And they said I don't know because you couldn't talk about anything, you were just freaking out.

And I really was just freaking out. Seeing the pictures of the deceased. Pictures of Billy Jean: he had four entry and exit wounds on him from the shots that he sustained. And then his mother Patricia Smith, her body was found about a month later in a field. And seeing those pictures was very difficult.

We also, right after Mario testified after that he was shot and that A.J. was the one who shot him, we heard testimony from the next door neighbor, who said that he saw a woman leave the house limping and running. And then the next day when he pulled out there was a cone by a shoe that was there, and they pulled out the shoe that Patty had been wearing and her foot came out of, and, having the shoe there, that piece of evidence there, and seeing the picture of her and realizing that was on her foot the last few seconds before her life, and then it's there in the courtroom with you. It's those kinds of things that send a chill up your body and it's really hard to kind of explain what that was but you're there.

And we were thirteen strangers that had nothing to do with this situation. The cops were there, the investigators, the family members, different individuals who testified they were all a part of that. And we were thirteen people who were living our lives, going to work and all of a sudden got a letter in the mail that said, “Hey, you have to come serve as a juror on this case.” And we just got thrown into this crazy world of drug addicts, drug abuse and death. And that's one of the things that made it hard about this case because this is obviously my first murder case that I've taken any part of.

And the judge told us that it was unlike a lot of the murder cases that he's tried before, in the fact that the deceased were drug addicts, were drug abusers. It wasn't a real happy life that was taken away, I guess, in that sense where he said a lot of times they showed pictures of the family before to show what was taken away and what was lost. But in this case it was just some individuals who were living maybe an unhappy lifestyle—not so positive lifestyle—so that wasn't brought up. And that's what made it harder when you're listening to testimony is because everyone that was involved, earlier that day they had been using crack cocaine: smoking crack, shooting crack intravenously.

So their memory, and recollection of the events were not the greatest. And unfortunately everybody's testimony seemed to be different in some way. Nobody's testimony corroborated anybody else's testimony. And you heard different stories from everybody. And so being there as a juror, and you're told that you have to interpret the law, and use everyone's testimony to do that is very difficult because you didn't know who to believe. And even if they were, thought they were telling the truth, they didn't know what they were saying because they couldn't really remember.

And as a jury—you're putting the law and really the outcome of the case, in the hands of twelve people, who don't know all the facts of the case, and don't necessarily understand the law either. And sitting there, and you are given piece by piece, and so you find out that someone was shot here, and then you hear ballistics expert testimony about how the bullet entered the body.

And I forgot where I was going with that one. There's just a lot of different ideas that I wanted to try to bring and incorporate, and I feel like I'm going off on tangents.

RAYMOND: That's fine

McMURREY: And I'm trying to pull back together of what my main idea was.

But luckily there was some of that strong evidence support you know, that the bullets did come from a certain gun. And the pieces did match up slowly and surely but there wasn't, there wasn't just the smoking gun where you could easily point and say that's him. They didn't find a weapon on him, but you know there's typical, cliché “smoking gun,” he was caught red-handed, no questions asked—it was him. And we all felt pretty sure it was him, and the evidence did point that direction but it's hard when you're trying to decide what's going to happen with someone's life.

Someone referred to it at the time, as you're almost playing God for a few moments, because whatever decision we came to, was going to interpret what happens with A.J.'s life for the rest. Is he gonna go to prison for the rest of his life, or be put to death? Because in Texas for the death penalty, if you're convicted of capital murder, the only two punishments available are confinement in prison without the possibility of parole, or the death penalty. And then at the same time if we don't convict him and we let him go, is he going to commit other acts of violence at the same time?

I don't know A.J., all I know is what was presented to me in the courtroom, and they can't present all the evidence to you in the courtroom, for different legal reasons. And that was another frustrating aspect of being a juror: how when you hear the attorneys yelling, “Objection this; objection that,” and it's getting really heated in there. And the judge’s reasons for either going with the objection, or, you know, “Scratch that from the record,” or “Sustained,” you know—the terms that we don't understand really.

There was, you don't know what's happening, as a jury like, “What do I do, what am I supposed to say?” And so, it was hard, it was really hard in that sense. You got any questions?

continue to two