Toyota UA Case Chronology of Events

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

This notice sets forth the reasons for denying a petition (DP14–003) submitted to NHTSA 49 U.S.C. 30162, 49 CFR part 552, requesting that the agency open ‘‘an investigation into low- speed surging in the 2006– 010 Toyota Corolla [vehicles] with ETCS-i, in which the brakes fail to stop the vehicle in time to prevent a crash.’’

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/05/14/2015-11632/denial-of-motor-vehicle-defect-petition 

Bookout v Toyota: Afternoon Trial Proceedings - October 7, 2013

Disclaimer: the following text may not be a 100% clean copy of the trial proceedings given optical character recognition translation from the original PDF that can be found here. The file has 92 pages. The full transcripts of the court case can be found here: https://archive.org/details/ToyotaTrialTranscripts2013Case

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
 
2
3
 
JEAN BOOKOUT; CHARLES SCHWARZ,    )
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL    )
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF    )
BARBARA SCHWARZ, DECEASED;    )
RICHARD FORRESTER BRANDT, AS    )
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE    )
ESTATE OF BARBARA SCHWARZ,    )
DECEASED,    )
)
PLAINTIFFS,    )
)
VS    ) CJ-2008-7969
)
TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA )
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.;    )
TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING AND    )
MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA,    )
INC,; AISAN INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,    )
)
DEFENDANTS.    )
 
14
15
 
* * * * * *
 
16
 
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
 
17
 
HAD ON THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
 
18
 
AFTERNOON SESSION
 
19
 
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICIA G. PARRISH
 
20
 
DISTRICT JUDGE
 
21
22
23
24
25
 
REPORTED BY: KIM LEWIN, CSR
 

 
(RECESS TAKEN. WITH ALL PARTIES PRESENT, THE
 
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD WITHIN THE HEARING OF THE JURY.)
THE COURT: We are back on the record in CJ-2008-7969. The members of the jury are present as well as the counsel and their clients. I think when we left off, Mr. Garcia, we were with you and you were going to tell us what you do for a living?
JUROR GARCIA: I'm retired General Motors employee. My wife works at Tinker as a budget analyst. I have two sons. One is a security officer at Integris and works as a mechanic at Firestone. The other one is tattoo artist in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
Mr. McPherson?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes, I'm Mike McPherson, I'm a licensed professional counselor. I'm a clinical director for an agency, private practice also. My wife is a paralegal. Got two children, my older son is a project manager and also runs a small business, and daughter in journalism at the University of Central Oklahoma.
 
THE COURT: And who does your wife work for. JUROR MCPHERSON: I'm trying remember their
 
THE COURT: Okay, do you remember even one attorney in the firm? Do you know what a type of law they practice?
JUROR MCPHERSON: At this time they are practicing oil and gas.
THE COURT: Oil and gas law. All right. If you happen to think of the name later, you can just let me know. Okay?
Mr. Sperling.
JUROR SPERLING: Yes, Eric Sperling, I am the senior director of health and safety for Access Midstream, which is a oil and gas gathering and processing company here in Oklahoma City. We have business across the US.
THE COURT: Okay.
JUROR SPERLING: Across the rocky mountains. And my wife Kelly is an executive assistant at Devon
 

 
Energy.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mr. Sheppard. JUROR SHEPPARD: Chauncey Sheppard, I'm a custom orders rep for AT&T, no spouse, no children.
THE COURT: Ms. Culbreath.
JUROR CULBREATH: I'm currently retired, in the past I've worked for the law firm of Kirk and Chaney.
The last job was with the Oklahoma City Chamber of
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
Commerce. No children, no spouse.
THE COURT: Ms. Medlin.
JUROR MEDLIN: Erin Medlin, I'm a physical therapy for Integris and my husband is a recruiter
 

 
Express.
THE COURT: Ms. Collett.
JUROR COLLETT: I'm a retired LPN. I have one daughter and three sons, two grandchildren, two granddaughters, and no spouse.
THE COURT: What do your children do for a
living?
JUROR COLLETT: My daughter is a stay at home mom with all those kids, she's the one with all the kids. And the three boys work like temporary agencies.
THE COURT: Ms. Collett, I wanted to ask if there is anything I need to do to accommodate you on knowing that you needed --
JUROR COLLETT: I need to apologize for that. I wasn't prepared for staying so long and I have arthritis real bad. I took my pain pills.
THE COURT: So as long as we take breaks and thinks like that you'll be okay?
JUROR COLLETT: Yes. If I get in distress, I'll holler.
THE COURT: All right. Sounds good. Ms.
 
Potter.
JUROR POTTER: Vickie Potter. My husband is Michael Potter. I work for Automated Gas Systems as a lease person. My husband works in Tulsa, he's a lease person in Dallas. And I have one daughter and she -- THE COURT: She does what?
JUROR POTTER: Loans.
THE COURT: What did you say your husband does? JUROR POTTER: He's makes like gas lease.
THE COURT: So the same sort of thing you do? JUROR POTTER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Andrade?
JUROR ANDRADE: I'm Pamela Andrade, I work at Arvest Bank in the commercial lending area. My husband is Andrew Andrade and he works at Tinker.
THE COURT: Ms. Cook.
JUROR COOK: Divorced, I have one son, he is just turned 19. He is a journeyman plumber, getting ready in a couple months, you heard what I did.
THE COURT: Yeah. Is this next three weeks in trial or possibly three weeks going to affect the wedding planning?
JUROR COOK: Oh, God, no, I've got six months. THE COURT: All right.    And then Ms.
Stiger-Monahan.
 
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: My name is Shannon
 

 
Stiger-Monahan, I am a store manager for Petsmart. I've spent the last 20 years in retail management. My education is human resource management. And I did about four months in as an office manager for an orthopedic surgeon in Lawton. And I'm not married and I have no children.
THE COURT: Is there anyone else on the panel that may have special needs that I need to accommodate? Any type of vision or hearing, anything that I need to know about now before we go any further? All right. Sir, that is -- sir, that is all that I have for this jury, so Mr. Beasley, are you going to do the voir dire?
MR. BEASLEY: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: You may proceed.
MR. BEASLEY: Thank you, Judge.
The Judge has covered a lot that I was going to cover, so I don't get too carried away with this book. First I'm going to ask you this, though, you probably figured out I'm not from here. I'm from Montgomery, Alabama. My law firm is in Montgomery. We practice all over the country, and this cause is brought us to Oklahoma.
Is there any connection with Toyota now that you've
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
had a lunch break that you've thought about that you need to tell us about that you didn't tell the Judge in responses to her Toyota questions? Anybody?
The Judge asked you about lawsuits that you've been involved in personally or a business that you are associated with or even as an individual, where you had either sued or been sued. Now I want to ask you about your family members. Have any of your family members ever filed a lawsuit that you're aware of.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: What kind of lawsuit are you looking for?
MR. BEASLEY: Any type lawsuit. Not divorce, anything other than divorce or child custody, anything like that.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: My mother was in a lawsuit EEOC with a local hospital. She's a
psychologist, Ph.D. psychologist, and that was probably 10 years ago.
MR. BEASLEY: Okay. Anyone else?
Mr. McPherson, is that correct?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes. My father was involved in asbestos lawsuits in the shipping yards back in New Jersey.
THE COURT: As a plaintiff.
JUROR MCPHERSON: As a plaintiff, yes.
 
9
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Are you wanting to talk about defendants? If they are pending, do you want to know about --
MR. BEASLEY: Not necessarily pending, either in the past or one that is pending.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: It is pending.
MR. BEASLEY: Yes, ma'am.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Okay. My father is being -- is under indictment with a federal government, the court case is pending.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am, Ms. Russell.
JUROR RUSSELL: That doesn't count like someone did something to you?
MR. BEASLEY: That would be, yes, that would be
 

 
included.
JUROR RUSSELL: Well, me.
MR. BEASLEY: What was that?
JUROR RUSSELL: A rape.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else?
JUROR MCPHERSON: My father died with asbestos
poisoning.
MR. BEASLEY: The general Motors plant that was here, there was some questions about that and some
 
responses. Anybody -- any of your family members work at that plant when it was here that you haven't told us about?
 

 
JUROR RUSSELL: Which one?
MR. BEASLEY: The General Motors plant.
JUROR RUSSELL: Oh, yeah.
MR. BEASLEY: What about Tinker Air Force Base, the question I believe was have you worked there. Any of your family members ever worked at Tinker? Ms. Russell. JUROR RUSSELL: My husband, my brother-in-law
 

 
MR. BEASLEY: What type work?
JUROR RUSSELL: I'm going to say production
line, I don't know.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else.
JUROR POTTER: My dad was in maintenance a long time ago at Tinker.
MR. BEASLEY: And Ms. Andrade.
JUROR ANDRADE: My husband, he works at Tinker
and my brother-in-law works at the --
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else? Yes, sir.
JUROR GARCIA: My wife works at Tinker.
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Garcia.
JUROR GARCIA: She's an analyst at Tinker.
MR. BEASLEY: Grogg.
 
JUROR GROGG: My grandfather.
MR. BEASLEY: Your grandfather. What type
 
work?
THE COURT: I'm sorry, could you speak up just
 
a little.
JUROR GROGG:    Airplanes.
THE COURT: He works on airplanes?
MR. BEASLEY: Okay. Ms. Powell.
JUROR POWELL: My father worked there in the officer's club as a bartender, and my stepmom worked there as a material worker.
MR. BEASLEY: There was some questions about your involvement and employment and work in the computer industry. I want to carry it just a little bit further. I want to include several categories. First in sales, does anyone, either you or any member of your family ever worked in computer sales where you were selling?
Has anyone had any special computer training. JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: What do you consider special?
MR. BEASLEY: Specializing in the sense, more than just, say, casual, where you had some type intense training, either writing code, anything connected with a computer operation.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Programming.
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Garcia?
JUROR GARCIA:    In college I took a couple of
programming classes.
THE COURT: Could you speak up?
JUROR GARCIA: A could of programming classes in college.
MR. BEASLEY: Ms. Powell?
JUROR POWELL: Classes in the course of my education, experience.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. Anyone else?
If I use the term "writing code," does that have any meaning to you?
JUROR POWELL: I know what it is.
MR. BEASLEY: What does it mean?
JUROR POWELL: That you mean you're writing a program in code, you're coding the insides of the computer, or programming a computer.
MR. BEASLEY: Any of you read or write
 

 
software?
This case is going to involve some rather technical aspects of computer operations. It's also very simple in a lot of ways, too. We're going to be talking about the throttle system of a car, but I'm not going to get into the details, give you any facts on it.
How many of you are aware that there've been
 
significant changes since the about the '70s on in automobiles insofar as computers operating the functions of the automobile. Is there anybody who does know not that? That's probably the best way to put it.
Do all of you realize that cars today are pretty well controlled and operated by computers? Anybody who does not realize that?
Have any of you ever heard the term "bug" or "bugs" relating to computers? If so raise your hand so -- I'm going to start on the end. Ms. Medlin, is that correct? JUROR MEDLIN: As far as like with a car or
 

 
MR. BEASLEY: Just computers generally.
JUROR MEDLIN: Like a virus, or.
MR. BEASLEY: Is that your understanding? JUROR MEDLIN: I guess.
MR. BEASLEY: I'm just asking for information. I'm not trying to embarrass. In fact, you all know more about computers than I do most likely. You'll figure that out before this case is over.
Anyone else? I believe, Ms. Collett?
JUROR COLLETT: Like a mistake in a program and they go in and fix it. A bug is like a mistake in a
 

 
24
 
program.
 

 
MR. BEASLEY: Okay. Ms. Cook.
 
JUROR COOK: A glitch, there's a glitch or something that causes it not to perform adequately. MR. BEASLEY: Okay.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Everything they just said. I mean, it's the same thing -- I deal with testing of programs in retail and there will be a bug because something may not have been written correctly or was not connecting to the different branches of the something that a program is touching and they had to go back and fix those bugs.
MR. BEASLEY: On the second row, anyone in the second. Mr. Garcia?
JUROR GARCIA: Same thing. Just a mistake in the program.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else? There's also a term that you will hear testimony during the trial, the term spaghetti. And I'm not talk about a food spaghetti, I'm talking about connected with computers. Does the term "spaghetti" mean anything to you in the computer world? Have any of you ever made an customer complaint to a corporation concerning a product, including an
automobile, that you had that they manufactured and sold that you bought? Ms. Cook.
JUROR COOK: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: What type?
 
JUROR COOK: It was a new, one of the General Motor new cars, Lumina, I think it was, right after they came out in the market, I had a lemon. It wouldn't run to save its life. It was -- about every other week it was in the shop.
MR. BEASLEY: Did the company General Motors, you said, did they investigate the complaint?
JUROR COOK: They said it was all in my head. MR. BEASLEY: All in your head.
JUROR COOK: All in my head.
MR. BEASLEY: Did they do more than just say it was all in your head?
JUROR COOK: No. They said that it's a new car, there was no mistakes, no errors, so I pulled it up, parked it and gave them their keys back and had somebody else pick me up.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else on the front row? Second row or third?
Does everyone understand when I say a consumer complaint or a custom complaint where you report some defect or some problem?
You heard from the Judge a question about
acceleration. Does the term "sudden unexpected acceleration" have any meaning to anyone on the jury this group? Ms. Russell.
 
JUROR RUSSELL: We owned a car, I'm not sure what you're speaking of, but we all owned a car that the gas pedal when you push the gas pedal down, that it got stuck somehow in there. I mean, we didn't make a big deal out of it, we just traded it back in.
MR. BEASLEY: Approximately what year was that? JUROR RUSSELL: It was probably about -- let's see, this is 2013. It was probably about 2006 or seven. MR. BEASLEY: After the cars had gone over to computers?
JUROR RUSSELL: Right.
MR. BEASLEY: You asked me how to define it. To be very clear, what I'm talking about, acceleration where the driver had no input where the car takes off is what we're talking about.
JUROR RUSSELL: Oh, yeah.
MR. BEASLEY: Is that what you were saying? JUROR RUSSELL: Uh-huh.
MR. BEASLEY: Let's see. Yes, ma'am.
 

 
Ms. Cross.
JUROR CROSS: I'm aware in the past of seeing, say on the Internet, news stories of some events that were being described that way. I don't recall details, make of the car, but incidents like that.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. Anyone else?
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
JUROR MCPHERSON: Just the definition of it. MR. BEASLEY: And where did you get that information, do you recall?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Talking to other man that
knew.
MR. BEASLEY: Did it have that occurrence? JUROR MCPHERSON: Yeah, talked about that occurrence taking place.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. There is a governmental agency called the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration. I'm going to generally refer to it in the trial, I call it NTHSA for short. Has anybody ever heard of NHTSA before today? Mr. Sperling, is that correct?
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: What is your understanding about NHTSA? How do you understand their function to be?
JUROR SPERLING: Well, as far as a health and safety professional, it's something that we get information regarding our fleet management on on occasion.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else?
I'm going to ask you this to sort of get your understanding. There is going to be a lot of discussion during this trial about critical safety systems. How
 
many of you believe that a corporation that manufactures and sells automobiles should make safety as a top priority in their company? Let me reverse it. Anybody who does not believe that they should make safety a top priority? Anybody? If you feel that way, tell us now.
If like Ms. Russell, you had an automobile that had a specific problem such as an acceleration, would you expect the company who manufactured and sold that car to be concerned about your particular problem, if you reported it to them? Everybody.
Does everybody understand that this is a civil case, not a criminal case? I think the Judge has done a good job of explaining that earlier, but sometime I find that people miss the real meaning as to why it's important.
Does everybody understand that the burden of proof in a civil case is much different than that in a criminal. For example, we have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, or reasonably satisfy you in a civil case to be able to receive your verdict.
In a criminal case, the proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not the burden of proof in this case. Does everybody understand that?
Is there anybody who feels that the burden of proof should be higher in a civil case? In other words, where we would have to prove it beyond any doubt? Does anyone
 
feel that way? Even though that's not the law.
Now, do you agree that a consumer has the right to anticipate that an automobile and all of its component parts will be safe for their intended purpose? In other words, if you receive that vehicle that you have the -- you are -- you can anticipate that you've got a safe vehicle and not one like Ms. Russell had. Everybody?
The Judge asked about a lot of different
occupations, I'm going to carry it a little bit further. Have any of you, any member of your family ever worked or presently work for an insurance company of any kind?
Ms. Russell.
JUROR RUSSELL: Myself for Farmers.
MR. BEASLEY: Farmers.
JUROR RUSSELL: Yes. Insurance adjustor.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. That was going to be my next question, so you hit both of them.
JUROR COOK: I work in a health insurance HMO
side.
MR. BEASLEY: Let's see, I can't even read my own writing. You better tell your name, I'm sorry.
JUROR MCCASKILL: McCaskill. My uncle ran a State Farm, I believe, insurance branch in Kansas.
MR. BEASLEY: Okay. Anyone else? The question that Ms. Russell answered is the next question. Any of
 
you ever worked as a claims adjuster, not necessarily for an insurance company, but where you adjusted claims to determine the amounts of money to be paid on a claim?
Anybody?
There will be experts testifying in the case who do accident reconstruction. Each side will have an expert who will reconstruct the automobile accident. Have any of you ever worked in that field or any member of your family ever worked in the field where you would take an accident scene after the fact and reconstruct to find out exactly what happened during an accident sequence?
Does that make sense? Anybody ever done that type
work?
 
JUROR SPERLING: Essentially my role in my
 
career.
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Sperling, okay. And I assume that you believe that that is a valid way of determining accident causation, necessarily, but how one happens?
JUROR SPERLING: Correct.
MR. BEASLEY: And it's recognized, correct? JUROR SPERLING: (Indicating.)
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else? Some of you've answered this. I'm going to ask it a little bit different way. How many of you work in a job where your job is in a supervisory capacity over other employees
 
where they report to you? Yes, ma'am.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: I'm a retail manager. I manage anywhere from 25 to 100 people who report directly
to me.
MR. BEASLEY: And you generally, are they required to report up to you on problems they have, on difficulties they are having.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: Good and bad things.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Correct.
MR. BEASLEY: Is that generally the way it
works that you report up to the supervisors. JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: In most places. JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: Anybody else on the first row?
Ms. Cook. I think we've gotten you.
JUROR COOK: Yeah, I pretty much do everything, but I worked in the alarm industry and I had seven technicians underneath me, and if there was issues with their job or the installation or scheduling, whatever the case was, that was on me.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. And Ms. Collett.
JUROR COLLETT: I'm the boss --
THE COURT: I'm sorry, could you speak up?
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
JUROR COLLETT: I'm the supervisor when my boss
is gone.
JUROR CULBREATH: I'm the director of public pre-school. I have of 19 teachers.
MR. BEASLEY: Under your supervision?
JUROR CULBREATH: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. McPherson.
JUROR MCPHERSON: Clinical director at a staffing agency. I have nine clerical, and all of the workers at the staffing facility.
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. Sperling?
JUROR SPERLING: Senior director of environmental health and safety. I have a staff of managers and supervisors that report to me.
MR. BEASLEY: Do you agree that supervisors receive from the people they are supervising information up from that level to you or to a supervisor?
JUROR SPERLING: Absolutely, it's an
expectation.
MR. BEASLEY: And it's required, am I correct? JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: For example, would you check the president of a large corporation to generally know what's going on in that capacity, people below the president or report up type situation?
 
JUROR SPERLING: It would depend on the circumstances of the information, where you delegate, the
process.
MR. BEASLEY: Suppose it's dealing with safety
issues?
JUROR SPERLING: Significant health and safety issues, yes.
MR. BEASLEY: Will always be reported up. JUROR SPERLING: Our CEO would be expected to
know.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else? Third, yes, ma'am. Ms. Sampson, is that correct?
JUROR SAMPSON: I manage our business and I have four people underneath me so.
MR. BEASLEY: Ms. Cross.
JUROR CROSS: I'm executive director of a nonprofit, I supervise eight.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. Everybody agree with Mr. Sperling that a CEO or a president of a corporation on the critical safety issues, that it's a requirement that folks below report up to that level? Anybody agree with that? Anybody be surprised to find out that some don't do that? Anybody.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: I wouldn't be surprised. MR. BEASLEY: You wouldn't be surprised?
 
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: No.
MR. BEASLEY: I probably wouldn't either. I'm not sure this was asked. I'm going to ask it out of caution. Have any of your family members ever been injured or killed because of some manufactured product that they later learned to be either badly designed or defective if some fashion? Ms. Russell.
JUROR RUSSELL: My daughter, she works at Devon, and it was on a truck, the flatbed flew off the truck and hit her while she was walking on the side of the road. And on that truck, the flatbed, it was
defective.
MR. BEASLEY: Defective.
JUROR RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: All right. Was it a bad design or a manufacturer defect, do you know?
JUROR RUSSELL: No, I don't know that. I think -- I know it was by design, it wasn't by malfunction of -- what the owner of the vehicle did.
MR. BEASLEY: Right. So a defect, designed in defect during the manufacturing process?
JUROR RUSSELL: Right, right.
JUROR MCPHERSON: This is really the lawsuits for asbestos poisoning, my father was a part of that initial suit back at the time.
 
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. McPherson, correct?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: Anyone else? All of you believe that the consuming public, folks who buy products, have a right to receive full and truthful information from the manufacturer and the seller about the safety of the product, in this case, a motor vehicle? Anybody -- all of you. Does anybody disagree with that, is the best way to put it?
So can we agree that a manufacturer has an
obligation to furnish truthful information to the public, to the buyers of products if they know about the problem, am I correct?
Is anybody who believes that it's okay for a corporation that designs and sells motor vehicles to put their profits over the safety of the consumers? Anybody?
I'm going to ask you this in three ways. Do each of you believe that a manufacturer of a product, including a computerized product, knows of a defect in that product, that the manufacturer would, one, notify the governmental agency that deals with, say the automobile industry or any industry, notify the public, and also fix the problem? All of you agree with that or does anybody disagree?
THE COURT: I don't think she understood your
 
question.
JUROR RUSSELL: It was kind of a vague.
MR. BEASLEY: Probably a bad question. Let me do it in three ways. Do you believe that a manufacturer of a product knows of a defect in that product, that the manufacturer should, one, notify the governmental agency that has any type regulatory authority over that company?
JUROR RUSSELL: Okay.
MR. BEASLEY: And the second be if they know, then to fix the problem. Third, would be to notify the
public.
JUROR RUSSELL: If they know.
MR. BEASLEY: If they know.
JUROR RUSSELL: All right.
MR. BEASLEY: Or reasonably should know based on information.
This case could have a two types of damages, both compensatory and what's called punitive damages. Compensatory would be to, for example, medical bills, things of that sort. I'm going to ask you a about punitive damages, because I find that sometimes folks are just against it. Is anybody here, if the law and the facts of the case justified it, can everybody here say that they would award punitive damages in some amount?
Or is anybody who just simply could not regardless of the
 
law or regardless of the facts award a damage that would be considered punitive? Anybody?
JUROR MCCASKILL: What is punitive damage?
MR. BEASLEY: Punitive damage is generally -- the Judge will explain it in much more detail later, is to punish a wrong doer, and also to deter that type conduct in the future, and also have an affect on others who might be inclined to the same thing. That is basically it. And it requires more than just enough to award compensatory damages, the proof has to be to stronger on punitives.
And the question I'm asking you is, if the law and the facts justified it, everybody say that they would award punitive damages, or is anybody who could not? Okay.
I was asked to carry it just a little bit further, and this is probably a good time to do it. Over the years in my law practice I've seen changes in the civil justice system. I've seen a lot of attacks on the system; I've seen sometimes lawsuits get in the system that maybe shouldn't have been there. You even have some people who would file what's called a frivolous lawsuit.
Now, the question I'm asking each of you, does anybody have a fixed opinion about the court system? Do you think it's broken? Do you jury verdicts are too
 
high? Do you think there are too many lawsuits? Or do you think just something wrong with our current system? The civil justice system. Yes, ma'am.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: There's a lot of questions in there.
MR. BEASLEY: A lot of questions, yeah.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: But I'll go with the first one that I think that it is flawed. That there is something wrong with our court system.
MR. BEASLEY: Do would you fix it if you had the opportunity? That is a good question for you to
answer.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: I think that it should simplify. I think that the jury system is effective, but I think that there's -- I think that there's things that should be simplified in it, and I think there should be limitations to what should be brought before the system -- before the court system.
MR. BEASLEY: The types of cases.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Correct.
MR. BEASLEY: In other words, you would want it to be a system that worked where ordinary folks, for example, if you sat on a jury could understand what's going, is that kind of.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Well, that you wouldn't
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
waste a jury's time, and that the type of cases that would come before the jury wouldn't be, well, frivolous. I think that the flawed part of our system is the overworked part of our system.
MR. BEASLEY: Can everybody agree with me that frivolous lawsuit should not filed? Which is a very good
point.
Now, take it a step further. The attacks on the system sometimes have been unwarranted, in my opinion, because I have found over the years that the system generally works, but you can glitches in the system like you can have glitches in other systems. So is there anybody here who just feels really strongly that lawsuits shouldn't be filed and people who have been injured or had a person in a family killed as a result of a defective product, that they shouldn't have access to the court system? Anybody feel that way?
I might as well ask you this. How many of you watch Fox News every night? Anybody?
JUROR HENSON: Not every night but I do watch
 

 
MR. BEASLEY: Have you heard any discussions on Fox News about how bad the jury system is, for example? JUROR HENSON: No.
MR. BEASLEY: Anybody else? Mr. Henson, is
 
that correct?
JUROR HENSON: Yes.
MR. BEASLEY: Have any of you seen -- I'm not picking on Fox News, don't get me wrong, I just used -- just popped in my head. Have any of you seen any TV news reports or any type media reports where attacks were made on the civil justice system, and specifically on the jury system? Have you seen any of this?
JUROR RUSSELL: You're we are secure, though,
right?
MR. BEASLEY: Ma'am.
JUROR RUSSELL: We are secure, right?
MR. BEASLEY: As secure as you can get. I got confidence in the judge and all folks, you're going to be secure.
JUROR RUSSELL: Okay.
MR. BEASLEY: That's all I have, Judge.
THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Jennings, are you going to do voir dire for the defendant?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes, ma'am.
THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.
MR. JENNINGS: May it please the Court. Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by introducing myself again. That happened some time ago but it's been awhile. I'm Jim Jennings, I'm a lawyer here in Oklahoma City. I have
 
an office right down the street here about a block, small law firm called Jennings Cook and Teague. My partner, Derrick Teague, is here with me and my friend Randy Bibb and Ryan Clark are lawyers from Tennessee, they are here to participate in this trial. And we are also joined by this lady here at the table his is Alicia McAndrews. She's with Toyota Motor Sales. I'm repeating this, but maybe it's worth hearing again, just because a lots been said and done by this time. But she's with Toyota Motor Sales which is an American company which imports and distributes Toyota vehicles. That's one of the defendants in this case.
The other defendant in this case is Toyota Motor Corporation, which is the Japanese company which manufactures vehicle. It manufactured the Camry, the 2005 Camry which is the subject of this case.
It's I'm sure becoming -- it will become clear as time passes that I always come second. When I stand up to say something or when Randy Bibb my colleague here stands up to say something, we come second in the order of things. That's because the plaintiff has the burden of proof in this case. And our role is to respond to what they say. So that's how this will play out over time.
You know, this is, as the Judge said, the only
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
chance that we have to speck directly to you and ask questions. We have get to have a conversation right here in the courtroom. We never get to do that in this trial except right now.
And our purpose is to select what we hope will be the best possible jury for this case. You know, cases are different, people are different, the jury that would be best for the case being tried down the hall might not be this one, because we all have our own backgrounds and our own experiences. So we're trying to figure out what the best jury for this case might be.
We're all strangers here. We start out as strangers and we're hoping just to get acquainted as this process plays out so that they can make some wise choices as we go forward.
This is a case about a woman, Jean Bookout, who came off of Highway 69 over in McIntosh County, took the exit ramp, drove down the exit ramp, failed to stop before she got to the bottom, took off across the intersecting street and plowed into the dirt embankment on the far side. That's what this case is about. That's the kind of case that this is.
She and her friend of some 40 years, Barbara Schwarz, who tragically died in the crash, were in the car on together.
 
Is there anything about that kind of case, just from that really meager description that I've given you that would suggest to you that it would be hard for you to be a fair juror in this case?
Anybody hear of an accident like that in the past? Anybody been in an accident of that type in the past at all?
Okay. Here's the method -- the good thing about coming second is, everybody has learned how the process goes and I don't have to recreate the wheel here. Most of my questions will be put to the group as a whole. And I know that we're now in the afternoon, we've been at it a while, and this is a wearying process. I understand that.
But when I ask a question of the group, if it triggers in your mind something that you think ought to be said, shoot up a hand and I'll come to you and ask the question specifically, and we'll just follow that and see where it goes. And I've been trying to listen closely as this process has been going on for the last couple of hours, and I'm going to do my best to not repeat anything. I don't want to waste your time or anybody else's, and so I'll do my best to do that.
But you know, sometimes you have kind of have to come at the same question just from a little different
 
angle. You want to approach it in just a little different way to see if that triggers some kind of response, some kind of a conversation that would be important. So I've never been a big fan of audience participation, but that's what it this. And so if what's said brings something to mind, be sure and let me know
about it.
You know, we do this because, you know, we all come to this courtroom, we all come to this process with our own histories, with our own background, with our own soft spots. My wife's a nurse, I have a soft spot for nurses. And so maybe I wouldn't be a good juror in a case involving a nurse. And so those are the kinds of things that we're trying to bring out here and talk about as we go on.
When I was a young man many years ago I had an old mentor that would say at this stage of a trial that what we're looking for is an even start on a dry track. I used to think it sounded kind of hockey. Maybe it does. But as I get older I find that I haven't found anything that says it any better. That's really what we're trying to accomplish here. And so to the extent that you can help me out in this process, I would very much appreciate
 

 
Let me talk to you a little bit about the parties in
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
this case. Much has been said, and I won't replow old ground if I can avoid it I promise you. The plaintiff -- the one plaintiff who will be testifying from that chair in this case is Jean Bookout, the lady that is sitting on the front row back here. A very nice lady, 82 year old woman who lives in Yukon. I think you've been asked this question, and I know you've searched your minds and you've had time to think about it. Nobody knows her or has run across this lady in the past, have you?
There's the Schwarz family. They are sitting back here on the front row along with Mrs. Bookout. They are plaintiffs in this case. They are from Yukon also. Fine family. I've met them all, taken their depositions.
When they testify in this case, you'll hear what they have to say and we'll talk to them about some of the things that have been said in the past when we met.
Mr. Schwarz has a company called Schwarz Paving, Schwarz Brothers Paving, I think at one time, and a couple of related companies. Anybody ever run across Mr. Schwarz, the family, Schwarz Paving?
Yes, sir, Mr. Henson.
JUROR HENSON: I used to drive a truck hauling rock to their asphalt plants.
MR. JENNINGS: Where was that located?
JUROR HENSON: They had several of them. One
 
of them being on the west side of the city, off of maybe Meridian. I believe they had one up north off Waterloo.
MR. JENNINGS: Which one of the Schwarz companies was that that you were having dealings with?
JUROR HENSON: All of them. We hauled rock to all of them.
MR. JENNINGS: Are there several of them? JUROR HENSON: Yeah, if that is the same
company.
MR. JENNINGS: Probably is. They are headquartered in Yukon. In the course of that, did you ever have occasion to meet Mr. Schwarz himself, Charles Schwarz.
JUROR HENSON: No.
MR. JENNINGS: Anything about that association that you have with the Schwarz family and the Schwarz companies, whichever one it may have been you were dealing with, that would enter into your thinking today?
JUROR HENSON: No.
MR. JENNINGS: Make it hard for you to be a fair juror for them or for us.
JUROR HENSON: No.
MR. JENNINGS: Toyota, you know, we've talked about Toyota some already and we're going to talk about them a lot more. You're going to learn some things about
 
Toyota. You're going to learn about the way they do business. They've been in the business of making cars, you're going to know, for a long time.
And the company that Ms. McAndrews is with is located in Torrance, California. That's where they are headquartered. They've got a lot of people out there that oversee this business of distributing Toyotas all across the country.
Some of you are or have been Toyota owners. Is there anything about the fact that Toyota is the defendant in this case -- and when I say "Toyota" I mean both of these companies that are involved here -- anything about that that will make it hard for you to be the kind of juror that you would want to have if you were the defendant in a case like this? Anything at all?
Mr. McPherson, I know in listening to your comments earlier today that your dad was a plaintiff in a some of asbestos litigation. And was that back in the early days when that was going on some years ago?
JUROR MCPHERSON: That was back in the 70s.
MR. JENNINGS: And did he suffer from mesothelioma, some disease caused by asbestos?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. JENNINGS: Did you participate in that litigation with your father.
 
JUROR MCPHERSON: No, I did not.
MR. JENNINGS: And that litigation, I presume,
if it worked the way that I'm familiar with, your dad and others would have been suing a manufacturer of a product, right?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Correct.
MR. JENNINGS: Toyota is a manufacturer of a product. This is a product liability case that we have here. And your case or your dad's case would have been a product liability case. Anything about that history, that personal background that you bring to the courtroom today that you think would make it hard for you to sit fairly as juror in a case like this?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Tell me about that.
JUROR MCPHERSON: In that case, there was evidence as we learned more about that, Mansfield knew about the unsafety of the product and chose to continue to use the product to make a profit, and therefore many hundreds of men died working in the shipyards during that time in the early 70s into about 1975-76 when the shipyard was closed.
MR. JENNINGS: And was your dad one of those men on who died?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.
 
MR. JENNINGS: Because of his exposure to
 

 
asbestos.
JUROR MCPHERSON: Correct.
MR. JENNINGS: And certainly at the heart of that lawsuit was what was believed to be, and I presume was, I don't know the facts of the case, but was the wrongdoing of the manufacturer that you had sued, right? JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. JENNINGS: And understandably you would shape your thinking about product liability cases which is what we're here to talk about. I understand that. And so you think that would make it tough for you to be fair in this kind of case to a manufacturer given the kind of allegations we have in this case?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Your Honor, I think probably Mr. McPherson should be excused for cause.
THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any questions of Mr. McPherson?
MR. BEASLEY: I would like to ask a few. THE COURT: Okay, yes, you may.
MR. BEASLEY: Mr. McPherson, not generalizing, but in this particular case, can you make a decision based on the facts in this case and the law that the Judge gives to you and be fair to both sides, concluding
 
Toyota? For example, if they were not at fault, would you find a verdict for Toyota?
JUROR MCPHERSON: I'm not sure if I could. And the reason being is that at times I believe companies will withhold information to make a profit.
MR. BEASLEY: So you think on the fact this company that your father sued, knew of the problem over a period of years and didn't do anything to correct?
JUROR MCPHERSON: Correct, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. McPherson, I'm going to excuse you as a juror in this particular case. And you'll please go back over to the jury assembly room, they'll let you know if your services are needed for another case.
MR. JENNINGS: Did you speak to me?
THE COURT: No.
CLERK: Tommy T-O-M-M-Y, Dumbell D-U-M-B-E-L-L. THE COURT: Sir, is it pronounced Dumbell? I heard you say close.
JUROR DUMBELL: Dumbell.
THE COURT: I'm just going to delete the B right now so I don't forget to do that. Mr. Dumbell, did you hear earlier when I introduced the parties and their attorneys in this case?
JUROR DUMBELL: Yes, I did.
 
MR. BEASLEY: Did you know any of the parties or their attorneys?
JUROR DUMBELL: No.
THE COURT: And were you able to hear when I read the list of witnesses or potential witnesses, did you know any of those potential witnesses.
JUROR DUMBELL: I did not.
THE COURT: And when I read the statement of the case, is there anything about the facts or the statement of the case that I read that made you think that you might know something about this case.
JUROR DUMBELL: I did hear about it several years ago when it happened, I think this particular incident. Several complaints about Toyota, that was five, six, seven years ago.
THE COURT: Can you tell me, is there anything specific you remember, or is it just pretty much the general allegations?
JUROR DUMBELL: Something similar to Audi mean years before, the accelerator sticks or something.
THE COURT: Okay. And when you say similar to the Audi, can you explain to me what you mean by that, the accelerator sticking?
JUROR DUMBELL: Back in the '90s, I think maybe, Audi Motor Company had problems with cars
 
accelerating for no reason.
THE COURT: And as a result of what perhaps you've heard either on the news or read in magazines or newspapers about those incidents, do you have any preconceived idea on this case, how you might decide this particular case?
JUROR DUMBELL: I really don't know.
THE COURT: Do you think you can still give both the plaintiff and as well as the defendant a fair trial in this case?
JUROR DUMBELL: I doubt it.
THE COURT: Okay. Why do you say that? JUROR DUMBELL: Well, I have a problem with punitive damages.
THE COURT: Is this a situation where you think regardless of what the evidence says and what I might instruct you the law is regarding the applicability of punitive damages, are you saying that you may not be able to award punitive damages even if they are warranted in
this case?
JUROR DUMBELL: I don't think -- I don't know how to say this, but I personally think that jury awards have gone crazy and I don't believe I could award punitive damages.
THE COURT: Even if the facts in this case
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
should show that they might be warranted, or the facts in this case might establish the need for punitive damages, you don't can you can award punitive damages?
JUROR DUMBELL: I don't believe I could.
THE COURT: Counsel, do plaintiff or defendant, do you like to inquire?
MR. JENNINGS: I would like to inquire.
THE COURT: Did the plaintiff have any
questions?
MR. BEASLEY: No, ma'am.
THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Jennings.
MR. JENNINGS: Yes, ma'am, if you don't mind.
Mr. Dumbell, you were sitting back here as all of this has been taking place, I could hear what was being said and you heard my introduction of myself, I take it?
JUROR DUMBELL: Yes, I did.
MR. JENNINGS: We appreciate your time here today. And I understand what you're saying, your reservation about certain kind of damages. You know, people come to courtroom like this, certainly if you've got a few years behind you, with experience and certain inclinations in certain directions. No one is unbiased, everybody has biases of various kinds. The question ultimately becomes whether as a juror you can follow the law that's given to you by the Judge. And decide the
 
case on the facts and the law.
Let me tell you what I'm talking about. The law in Oklahoma provides for a oath that jurors have to take at the end of this process, once they are selected and it's decided that they are going to serve as jurors in the
case, they have to raise up their hands and take an oath and promise to be able to try the case according to the law and the facts.
The question is, whether you can do that. I understand that you have your inclinations, as others do, but can you set those aside enough to be able to give that oath and decide this case on the basis of the law and the facts, the facts that you decide, and the law that this Judge gives. You can you do that?
JUROR DUMBELL: I don't think so.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. Fair enough. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Dumbell, I'm going to release you as a juror in this case and if you'll back over the jury assembly room, they will let you know if you're needed for another case.
CLERK: Shannon, S-H-A-N-N-O-N. Hibbert, H-I-B-B-E-R-T.
THE COURT: Ms. Hibbert, are you going to be able or do you have any anything that's going to cause you a severe hardship if you were chosen to serve as a
 
juror in this case knowing it's going to be three weeks
long?
JUROR HIBBERT: No, ma'am.
THE COURT: And did you hear earlier when I introduced the parties and the counsel, did you know any
of the parties or their attorneys? JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: When I read the list of witness,
did you know anything about or recognize any of the names of the witnesses?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: When I read the statement of the
case, is there anything about the case that sounded familiar to you?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: And have you read anything at all
in the newspaper, in the magazines, television, anything
at all about Toyota and any type of acceleration issue?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Did you hear anything at all about any type of congressional testimony that may have been given on this issue?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Do you know anyone that is involved in the car industry, either sells cars, or mechanic,
 
worked at GM when it was still open?
JUROR HIBBERT: No -- well, I take that back. My uncle worked at GM, but it was like in the assembly line and I worked a Lucent.
THE COURT: What did you do at Lucent?
JUROR HIBBERT: I was a line operator, just basically setting up -- setting out everything, all the components that went on the board.
THE COURT: All right. And then do you know of anyone -- so obviously you were somehow involved, because Lucent manufacturing, was it computers or telephones or what was it about?
JUROR HIBBERT: We made the boards that
actually went into the big gray boxes on the side of the
 
road.
THE COURT: Okay. So did you actually -- were you involved at all in designing or the programming of those?
 

 
JUROR HIBBERT: No, we already you had our spreadsheet to go off of.
THE COURT: You basically put it together and
 

 
made --
JUROR HIBBERT: I just looked for the numbers, put the parts out.
THE COURT: And do you have any computer
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
experience in coding or writing programs for computers? JUROR HIBBERT: Not writing, but I'm an imaging specialist for an oil and gas company so I -- the coding it's already set, I just follow through what's already set to go off of.
THE COURT: So tell me what exactly do you do as an imaging processor or --
JUROR HIBBERT: Imaging specialist. I oversee, a lot of our documents are oil and gas leases, permits and stuff that come through. I'm basically just -- I guess you could say kind of a paperless way to do it, but I actually put in some of the codes and stuff that have to go in in order for it to go right back out.
THE COURT: But you're not involved in the development of the coding, you just utilize --
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. And what about, are you at all or do you know of anyone that is involved in law enforcement?
JUROR HIBBERT: Not anymore.
THE COURT: Not anymore. Who did you know at
one point?
JUROR HIBBERT: I had an aunt who was an Oklahoma County Sheriff, and she was retired several, several years ago, I mean, she lives in Ohio now.
 
THE COURT: What about the medical field, anybody that's involved in the medical field.
JUROR HIBBERT: Yes, I have a cousin, she is my -- gosh, just went blank. She is an anesthesiologist at
Children's.
THE COURT: And she still works?
JUROR HIBBERT: Yes.
THE COURT: And what type of car do you drive? JUROR HIBBERT: I drive a Chevy Silverado.
THE COURT: Is that the only type of car you
own?
JUROR HIBBERT: No, I have a Chevy Silverado, a Cadillac Deville, and a Ford Explorer Sport.
THE COURT: Have you ever owned a Toyota, or a Lexus, or I think it's pronounced Scion, the S-C-I-O-N cars?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Do you know anybody or does anyone in your family drive one that you're aware of?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Okay. Have you ever.
JUROR HIBBERT: I'm a Chevy and Ford.
THE COURT: Have you ever had any kind of warranty issues with the cars you currently own or cars you've had in the past?
 
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: What about any type of recalls, have you ever had any recalls?
JUROR HIBBERT: I believe there was a recall on the Ford Explorer I had, but by the time I received it, I was already in a different vehicle at the time.
THE COURT: Do you know anyone else on the jury
 
panel?
 
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Have you ever been on a jury
 
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: Have you ever been in a lawsuit
JUROR HIBBERT: Small claims.
THE COURT: And is that pending now?
JUROR HIBBERT: No, several years ago.
THE COURT: Have you ever been a witness in a
 
19
 
lawsuit?
 

 
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
THE COURT: And you said you are an imaging specialist, and do you have a husband or significant
 

 
other?
JUROR HIBBERT: I have a husband and he is a supervisor over drivers for Habitat for Humanity.
 
THE COURT: Thank you very much. I'm going to pass just this particular witness over to you,
Mr. Beasley, if you want to inquiry of the witness -- pardon me, of this juror.
MR. BEASLEY: I have no questions at this time. THE COURT: All right. Mr. Jennings, you may continue, then.
MR. JENNINGS: So Ms. Hibbert, when you say you're an imaging specialist, you're talking about digitizing documents, imaging them, recording --
JUROR HIBBERT: Storing.
Mr. JENNINGS: Storing them on a database of
some kind?
JUROR HIBBERT: Correct.
MR. JENNINGS: Understood. Okay. To carry on, first, no doubt you could hear what was being said back here earlier in the day by everyone who's spoken, right?
JUROR HIBBERT: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: You know, we talked about Toyota a little bit, because that's the defendant in this case, but maybe we should talk about the car industry, broaden it a little bit. Because, you know, in recent years the car industry has been in the news somewhat, and so -- and everybody's got different cars here. We've got Fords and Chevy's and Hyundai and Hondas and all of that.
 
Has anybody had experiences with the car industry or has anybody been affected by the press that you hear about the car industry in such a way that that would make it hard for you to be a good juror in this case, given the fact that a car company is the defendant in this case? Anybody at all?
Okay. You know, some people say -- some people are Ford guys, you know, Chevy guys. I always have a Chevy, or I always buy a Ford. Somebody might say, I'd never buy a Toyota no matter what, I'm just not a Toyota guy. Anybody have that feeling at all?
Mr. Garcia, what can you say.
JUROR GARCIA: I wouldn't drive a Toyota. MR. JENNINGS: All right. I'm not going to
made the mistake of saying why. I'm just going to take? JUROR GARCIA: I'm a GM guy.
MR. JENNINGS: I understand. And you know, you ought to be, you worked for GM.
JUROR GARCIA: Yeah.
MR. JENNINGS: You don't have to buy one, you just have to be a juror in this case maybe.
JUROR GARCIA: As long as I don't have to drive
one.
MR. JENNINGS: I promise you don't. All right. But I understand, that's a good honest answer. Before I
 
zero in on you just a little bit. Anybody else have the same? Mr. Brock?
JUROR BROCK: Purchase a Ford. That's all I buy really.
MR. JENNINGS: Anybody else? I know we've got Hyundai people here. We've got at least part-time Hyundai people, they've had a Hyundai for a while.
So I guess I'm focused on Mr. Brock and Mr. Garcia. You know what you've got to do here, you know what the job is, what the oath is going to be and what your task is going to be. Despite what preference you might have for GM, your former employer, or another company that you favor, can you do the job that we have to have done here as a juror, follow the oath that the Court gives you and apply the law of this state to the facts, and you decide fairly.
JUROR GARCIA: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Can you do that?
JUROR BROCK: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Appreciate it. Another name that you're going to hear maybe at some point in this case is Dub Richardson. Who hasn't heard the name Dub Richardson around here over the last 20, 30, 40 years. A dealership here which sold this vehicle which is the subject of this case. They've been involved in this
 
case. Anything about that? Anybody have a -- any dealings with Dub Richardson that would make it hard for you to deal with a case in which they are involved in any way? Ms. Russell, anything at all about that?
JUROR RUSSELL: It all depends on what's said,
evidence.
MR. JENNINGS: Sure. I appreciate that. That's what this is all about, evidence. But, do I detect in what you've said any history that you might have with Dub Richardson that might be important to talk about at this stage? Anything at all?
JUROR RUSSELL: No, not really.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. Well, when you say, no, not really, I think maybe really. And I need to ask you about it. Is there something about that that probably ought to come out? Because their name is going to come up. And they are a Toyota dealer.
JUROR RUSSELL: No, I mean, to me, car dealer is a car dealer, you know, you deal in cars. And I do believe they ought to be responsible for what they are selling.
MR. JENNINGS: And they are, you'll get the law on that, so you won't be a lone wolf on that, if that's what you think. But whatever you think about it, can you follow the law that this lady in the black robe gives you
 
to the facts that you decide as a juror and come back with a verdict in this case and do it fairly, can you do
that?
JUROR RUSSELL: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Appreciate it. Now, all of these companies that we're talking about are corporations. Toyota is a corporation. It's in the name, Toyota Motor Corporation it's a corporation and it's a big corporation. No question about it.
Now, in this day and time you hear a lot about corporations. You know, back years ago when I was a kid, the bad guy in the media was, you know, the Russians or something like that. It was the Cold War. These days you hear a lot about corporations.
Does anybody have such feelings about corporations that the fact that we've got a corporation that is a defendant here is going to make it tough for you to do the job that you're being asked to do here at all? Ms. Potter, my eyes happened to land on you.
JUROR POTTER: No, I just listen to the
evidence.
MR. JENNINGS: That's all anybody can ask. Ms. Andrade, same with you.
JUROR ANDRADE: No problem.
MR. JENNINGS: Same for everybody I guess,
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
okay? All right.
You know, the reason I bring that up is because we've heard about banks, you know, anybody with a television or a radio or who comes across the newspaper in the last several years has heard about banks and companies like AIG and all of that. And so there's reason to be concerned about that. But does any of that impact your thinking in such a way that it would make it tough for you to be fair? Ms. Powell, anything?
JUROR POWELL: Well, I was thinking, I don't like big corporations.
MR. JENNINGS: Who does?
JUROR POWELL: Because the little guys don't win. That's just my feeling about that.
MR. JENNINGS: I understand. You know, in the law, a corporation is a person in the same way you are. And you're going to get instructions from the Judge about that. And so I guess the ultimate questions becomes, can you say, okay, I've got an individual here, I've got
Mrs. Bookout, a very nice lady who's the plaintiff, and I've got a defendant who's Toyota, a big corporation, can I weigh this out evenly based on the evidence, or am I just I going to kind of come at it with a certain point of view. So that's my question to you. What are you going to do?
 
JUROR POWELL: I'm going to come at it with a point of view.
MR. JENNINGS: And I'll -- let me ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Dumbell a few minutes ago. I guess, to be fair, everybody here is going to come at it with a certain point of view. You've been around for 30, 40, 50, 60 years, you have some background that influences your thinking.
JUROR POWELL: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: I've got a point of view about a lot of things. You do, too. He question is can you set it aside well enough to do the job that we have here, or do you just have to fess up and say, you know, I'm afraid it would make it really hard for me to be a juror in this case. What do you think?
JUROR POWELL: I think I could.
MR. JENNINGS: I think you can do it?
JUROR POWELL: I think I can do it.
MR. JENNINGS: That's the task. And so all we know about it is what you and Ms. McCaskill and everybody else tells us about this. And so, fair enough. We'll go
 
with that.
Anybody else have any feelings of the type that Ms. Powell has been talking about that would be so big and so important that it would be really hard to be a
 
juror in this case? I've been making eye contact with lots of people here. Ms. Sampson, for this one thing, any problem there with you?
JUROR SAMPSON: Me?
MR. JENNINGS: Yes, ma'am. Along the lines of what we just talked about?
JUROR SAMPSON: No.
MR. JENNINGS: All right. Let's move on. You've heard a little bit about the accident, which is the subject of this case, but just a little bit. You're going to hear more about it as you go along. And so let me ask you a few things that relate to the accident itself. The kind of accident, the kind of vehicle, the kind of place, the location, and so forth. And see where that leads us.
We know from what's been said that Mrs. Bookout and her close friend for 40 plus years, Barbara Schwarz were heading to Mrs. Schwarz's lake house at Lake Eufaula when this accident happened back on September 20, 2007. I'm sure all of us have at least a general idea of where Lake Eufaula is, even if you don't go there with any regularity, but let me ask it this way.
Has anybody got a lake house at Lake Eufaula or does anybody go down there with any regularity. Ms. Potter?
JUROR POTTER: My mother-in-law does.
 
MR. JENNINGS: Where in that area -- is it your
 
mother.
JUROR POTTER: My mother-in-law.
MR. JENNINGS: Where does she have her lake
house.
JUROR POTTER: Just right down Texana Road going east.
MR. JENNINGS: So if you go -- if you go south on Highway 69 off of I-40 and you come to Texana Road and go -- and exit just like Ms. Bookout did and go east, then you'll go to your mother-in-law's place.
JUROR POTTER: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: Because before very long you run into the lake right over there, right?
JUROR POTTER: Yeah.
MR. JENNINGS: Have you made that drive before? JUROR POTTER: Many times.
MR. JENNINGS: So when it came up that this is -- that's where this accident happened, that struck a cord with you and an image of the location came to mind, I presume, right?
JUROR POTTER: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Tell me about that, what came to
 

 
JUROR POTTER: Well, getting off the highway,
 
you said you hit a hill, because we go up and under the bridge to go to our place. So I mean, it's basically I know where it happened.
MR. JENNINGS: Do you remember that exit where you come right off there at Texana Road?
JUROR POTTER: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: When you go to your
mother-in-law's place on the lake, do you drive west on
I-40?
JUROR POTTER: We drive east.
MR. JENNINGS: You drive east on I-40 and then you turn south on Highway 69.
JUROR POTTER: I go to Texana Rode, we go around by the lake.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. But you know where Texana
Road is.
JUROR POTTER: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: Is that a little farther south from the road that you take?
JUROR POTTER: We take -- we are on Texana Road -- yeah, right.
MR. JENNINGS: So when you come off of 69, do you take the exit onto Texana Road?
JUROR POTTER: Uh-huh.
MR. JENNINGS: I'm with you. Okay. So when I
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
show pictures in this trial of that location, you're going to know what I'm talking about.
JUROR POTTER: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: That's going to be very familiar to you. What do you remember about that exit?
JUROR POTTER: Just an exit. I've been down there hundreds of times, just an exit.
MR. JENNINGS: Just a long, straight exit down to Texana, right?
JUROR POTTER: (Indicating.)
MR. JENNINGS: Yes.
JUROR POTTER: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: She is taking down what we're saying, so she'll get after us if we don't say it that
way.
Okay. And so then you get to the bottom and you've got to go left or right.
JUROR POTTER: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. I understand. Have you ever seen any accidents there, any vehicles piled up? JUROR POTTER: No.
MR. JENNINGS: Noticed any skid marks on the road or anything like that?
JUROR POTTER: (Indicating.)
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. This is a case in which
 
the accident occurred late in the day, a little towards sundown. Ms. Bookout made a mistake, apparently
confused.
MR. BEASLEY: Judge, are we trying this case? I object to that. There's a lot more to it to be said. MR. JENNINGS: My question is --
THE COURT: Get to the question.
MR. JENNINGS: My question to you is this. Given your knowledge of the location that we have here, have you heard of anything like this happening there on any other occasion?
JUROR POTTER: No, I have not.
MR. JENNINGS: You don't know about any other accidents that have occurred at that location? Okay.
Are you familiar with -- let me broaden it, because we've talked a little bit, and so let me broaden the scope of this.
Does anybody else have a place or have a close relative or friend that has a place at Lake Eufaula? Anybody go to Lake Eufaula on a regular basis at all? I'm getting some nodding heads.
JUROR HIBBERT: Not on a regular basis. I'm usually just a passenger, so if you ask me what road or which way, I could not tell you. I just know we hit the water and I'm there.
 
MR. JENNINGS: Ms. Andrade.
JUROR ANDRADE: I'm the same way, I mean, I don't know what road when we exit. We always exit, we have to turn back east and turn left on the corner. I don't know what the roads are.
MR. JENNINGS: One of the locations that we're going to be talking about in this case is Snug Harbor. It's way south of where your place is, your
mother-in-law's place is, on down to the lake and through Eufaula. Anybody know that area at all?
You know, in cases like this it becomes clear and unavoidable, I guess, that we all have something in common. We know something about the subject because we all drive, we have cars, and we know something about driving, we know something about cars. At least that's almost always true. Is everybody here a licensed driver? Anybody who's not?
You know, we've all had -- we have that in common. And we have in common the fact that we've had some training of the same type, you know, you push on the accelerator to speed up, push on the brake to slow down, and put your hands on the steering wheel to steer. And all of us have made mistakes. Would anybody here say as a driver you just never about made a mistake? I just haven't done something that I wish I hadn't done?
 
Anybody have that feeling at all?
Because it happens, maybe daily. Fortunately most of us get by with it. But do you we all share that experience?
Has anybody had the experience of -- either had the experience or know of someone who has had the experience of making a mistake while driving and put your foot on the wrong pedal? Anybody had that experience at all? Ms. Stiger-Monaham.
JUROR STAGER-MONAHAN: We as a kid that was -- I've done it more than I care to admit, run a red light when it was green, stepping on the accelerator, I had a car that the carpet would get caught underneath the accelerator and you couldn't -- it would accelerate and your foot wouldn't be on it. The carpet got in the wrong spot and I got really fast at moving that carpet. So yes, I've had that happen.
MR. JENNINGS: Appreciate that. Anybody else? Ms. Russell?
JUROR RUSSELL: Yes, my cousin had when she was, well, what I considered young, she was 60, and but she hit the wrong pedal but she had a problem with dementia was hitting her early, and she couldn't
remember.
 
MR. JENNINGS: And so what did they do, what
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
happened to her?
JUROR RUSSELL: Well, they put her on some medicine, you know.
MR. JENNINGS: I mean, in the driving instance that you're talking about.
JUROR RUSSELL: Oh, she ran into a building. MR. JENNINGS: And that was caused by her doing
what?
JUROR RUSSELL: She put her foot on -- she called herself parking and she put her foot on the accelerator instead of the brake and she hadn't put the car in gear.
MR. JENNINGS: Anybody ever had the experience of forgetting to put the car in park when you drive and stop somewhere? Ms. Cross. Anybody? Mr. Henson is shaking his head and Mr. Sperling is as well. It's easier to do all the time, you know, with these automatic ignitions that some of these cars have. But you know what I'm talking about? Just -- you're nodding your head.
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: And the court reporter over here is looking at me with a dirty look, I think. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Hibbert.
JUROR HIBBERT: I don't know if it's like that
 
or anything but I have had a gas pedal that stuck on me. And, I mean, I'm hitting the brake and it's not lifting and I'm using the bottom of my foot to lift that back up to and throw it in neutral. Finally I can get the brake to take hold of it. It was a Ford Explorer.
MR. JENNINGS: When was it?
JUROR HIBBERT: That was back in, I would say 2003, 2004. That was quite an experience.
MR. JENNINGS: I'm sure it was. And that kind of brings up another point. Has anybody ever, other than that, and that's an example of what just what I'm asking about, anybody else had a situation where you were driving and you thought the car was misbehaving, it didn't do the right thing? I mean, it was causing your heart to pound because something squirrelly is happening with this car while you're driving. Has anybody had that happen at all? Okay. But that was, that was --
JUROR HIBBERT: It was a Ford Explorer.
MR. JENNINGS: Understood. And that didn't have to do with the electronic -- did it have an electronic throttle or do you know?
JUROR HIBBERT: I couldn't tell you. I got rid
of it.
MR. JENNINGS: But that had to do with the pedal, though, right?
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
JUROR HIBBERT: Yes, it was the gas pedal.
MR. JENNINGS: There is a distinction there that you'll be hearing more about as this case goes on.
Let me ask you this question. Anybody ever had the experience of applying a parking brake while you're driving? I mean, while the vehicle is in motion.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: What was the question?
MR. JENNINGS: Has anybody had experience of pulling the parking brake, some of them are on the console, you know, and that's what we're going to have in our case, pulling that while you're driving, either pulling it or stepping on it? And I'm getting a wave from Ms. Sampson here. Yes, ma'am.
JUROR SAMPSON: Well, when I was in college my brakes went out while I was driving down the road and so I had to pull my emergency brake. It worked, but.
MR. JENNINGS: Where were you when you did
that?
JUROR SAMPSON: In Bethany, on 23rd Street. MR. JENNINGS: And you're brakes went out just all the sudden?
JUROR SAMPSON: Yeah, I don't know what it is, my dad did something, I mean, I'm sure it wasn't the manufacturer or anything like that. I don't know.
MR. JENNINGS: How fast were you going when you
 
did that?
JUROR SAMPSON: I don't know, probably, 35 is the speed limit, probably what was going. I don't know.
MR. JENNINGS: What happened when you pulled the parking brake?
JUROR SAMPSON: It took a little bit but my car
stopped.
MR. JENNINGS: Anybody ever heard the term bootlegger turn, moonshiner turn, that kind of thing? Where you -- maybe bat turn would be the better term. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Hibbert.
JUROR HIBBERT: Yes, when you spin, or your back tires go kind of in a half circle.
MR. JENNINGS: This is a loaded question and I probably shouldn't ask it. Has anybody ever done that, ever seen that happen or been in a car when that happened? Well, maybe we'll hear some more about that kind of thing as this case goes on.
You know, all of us -- not all of us, but a lot of us, and I know a lot of hands went up earlier when we were talking about whether people had been involved in accidents or not. And most of us have been involved in some kind of accident over the years. That is another thing that we all have in common here, despite the fact we're strangers. We've either been driving when a car
 
had a wreck or a passenger when one has a wreck.
Anybody ever involved in a wreck that you thought was caused by the car not by the driver? Either in the car you're in or some other car, but was caused by the car. Anybody have that experience?
Okay. There is been mention made of NHTSA, you'll hear throughout this trail N-H-T-S-A, that the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, which regulates cars. There are a couple of regulations relating to cars that you'll be hearing about in this case. And I think when you were asked earlier everybody said you had had any dealings with NHTSA. Did anybody say that there was any kind of history with them?
Okay. Well, let me ask the question this way. Is anybody involved, perhaps those of you in the health care business, for example, involved in a business where you have regulations, federal government regulations that you have to deal with in your work? I'm getting a nodding head from Ms. Medlin. Tell me about that.
JUROR MEDLIN: Joint Commission and audits surrounding it, we have certain guidelines.
MR. JENNINGS: Are those government regulations that you have to meet?
JUROR MEDLIN: I think so.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. And are you involved in
 
complying with those government regulations?
JUROR MEDLIN: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: And so, I don't know about those regulations. I know about some others, but I don't know about those. But those are -- those are absolutely -- absolute requirements, I presume, aren't they?
JUROR MEDLIN: Yes, sir.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. You can't do less, you have to do exactly what the regulation requires, right? JUROR MEDLIN: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Anybody else have that kind of work? Mr. Stiger-Monahan.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes, we have regulations with, food regulations, with OSHA, wage and labor things that we are required, regulations that we have to adhere to in retail, or any business.
MR. JENNINGS: And is that -- when it says regulation, I mean, that means, at least in your mind, law, doesn't it, I mean, you have to do this?
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Correct.
MR. JENNINGS: And so it's a -- it's an absolute requirement, correct?
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Nonnegotiable.
MR. JENNINGS: Appreciate it. Mr. Sperling, you shot up a hand, too,
 
JUROR SPERLING: Yes, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Transportation, OSHA, Bureau of Land Management. You name it.
MR. JENNINGS: When people talk about those regulations, do they talk about them as minimum
standards?
JUROR SPERLING: Some corporations do.
Certainly not mine.
MR. JENNINGS: In any event, you've got to meet
it, right?
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Whatever the requirement is you have to do it.
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: And do you try to do more than is required by that?
JUROR SPERLING: Many times, yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Okay. I understand. And I saw another hand go up. Ms. McCaskill.
JUROR MCCASKILL: I'm actually the regulatory side. I work for the -- we regulate radioactive material and x-rays, and so, we follow -- we incorporate most of our regulations from the federal regulations, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
MR. JENNINGS: So you know about complying with
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
regulation as well.
JUROR MCCASKILL: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: I think I saw another hand. Ms. Andrade.
JUROR ANDRADE: Yes --
THE COURT: I'm sorry, could you speak up? JUROR ANDRADE: I work at a bank, like it's all regulations and compliance.
MR. JENNINGS: You know, I'm glad you said that because if you have said earlier today where you worked, I missed it, and so I need to understand that. Where do
you work?
JUROR ANDRADE: I work at Arvest Bank.
MR. JENNINGS: You have said that. I remember it now. And what's your position at Arvest bank.
JUROR ANDRADE: I'm an administrative assistant in our commercial lending area.
MR. JENNINGS: Do you work downtown here?
JUROR ANDRADE: We do have a location just across the street where I went for lunch, but I actually work off 164th and Penn.
MR. JENNINGS: So being in the banking business you really know about regulations then, don't you?
JUROR ANDRADE: I do.
MR. JENNINGS: Did anybody else shoot up a hand
 
when we were having this conversation? Okay.
What else. Oh, here's -- initials are going to be used throughout this trial. You'll learn them before long and it will shorten the discussion, probably. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will become NHTSA. Unintended acceleration, which is what's alleged here will in some conversations maybe become UA. There's another one that you folks probably already know about. NASA. N-A-S-A. Let me see if I can say it. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Everybody -- let me put it this way. Has anybody not heard that? There will be evidence in this case about some work that NASA has done on this UA question that we're dealing with in this case.
Anybody heard about that at all? I know that a couple of you -- let me see if I can remember who -- I know Ms. Stager-Monahan mentioned that she had heard something about this, and maybe Ms. Cross, you had said that you had heard something in the past about what we're now calling UA.
In the course of the reports that you've heard, have you ever heard anything about NASA or any studies that it
 

 
JUROR STAGER-MONAHAN: No.
MR. JENNINGS: Anybody an astronaut or have any
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
astronauts in your family? Okay. We'll talk more about that later.
So I can tell from talking to a number of you, in fact, most of you, that the federal government, if not the federal government, then the state government for sure has some role in the businesses that you're involved in. And so we're going to be talking about that, things that the government does, the way that the government does, and the relationship of the government with the companies that are involved in this case, in particular Toyota.
And you'll probably hear it suggested that there is essentially a conspiracy between the government and outfits like Toyota, they just kind of gloss over things and not do things right. Anybody have any notions about the relationship between the US government and companies like Toyota when it comes to safety issues? About whether they are involved in some kind of conspiracy to not do the right thing? Anybody have any thoughts or feelings about that at all?
Ms. Grogg, you're way over there in the corner and I haven't even made eye contact with you and I should have. Do you have any thoughts or feelings or inclinations about what I just mentioned at all? Anybody at all? All right. Thanks.
 
I bring that up because one of the things you're going to have to do as jurors in this case is take a really hard close look, I mean, really hard close look at some evidence, and separate facts from fiction, decide what the truth is. Anybody as you sit here at this moment have any reason to think that you can't do that? That you're not up to that? Good. Thank you. Because that will come up.
Let me go back to something that was mentioned earlier. That's burden of proof. I've mentioned it, Mr. Beasley mentioned it, it's about what a plaintiff in a lawsuit like this has to prove to go from point A to
point B.
In the process of doing that, it turns out that there are going to be conflicts between what people have to say. There will be a lot of witnesses testify in this case and there's going to be a lot of conflict between what they say. There will be not only experts, and we'll talk about those in a minute, but there will be individuals, just lay witnesses, who are going to talk about this, about what they saw, what they heard, what they smelled, what they felt when they were at the location where this crash occurred on that exit ramp over at Texana Road.
And so your job will be to decide what the truth is.
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
And certainly to decide whether the burden of proof has been met. So can everybody do this? Knowing that this is coming and that this is the task at hand, can everybody look at this evidence, I mean, hard, and with a critical eye towards deciding what the actual truth is? Can everybody do that?
Who -- let me ask you this. I'll just ask it this way. My eyes land on Ms. McCaskill, so I'll ask you just to begin the discussion. You know, situations where somebody says something -- just pick an example -- this doesn't apply to this case. The man ran the red light. You say, what happened? Well, the man ran the red light. Well, did you see the car? Well, no. Did you see the red light? Well, no. So you really don't know that the man ran the red light. Do you know what I'm saying?
It's that kind of thought process. Can you engage in that kind of critical analysis of what people have to say in this case for the purpose of trying to ferret out the
real truth.
JUROR MCCASKILL: Well, I'm an inspector, so that's kind of what I do on a daily basis. So, yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Well, it's fortuitous I guess that I ask you. Tell me how that works in your business.
JUROR MCCASKILL: People that have sources of radioactive material, which in the state ranges from
 
industrial to medical nuclear tests, they have to have a license, and get through our agency and, so we issue them licenses based on them telling us that they are going to follow the regulations that we have in place. And then we go to their facility and inspect what they are doing based upon their license and regulations. Make sure that they are following the regulations as they should be.
MR. JENNINGS: That's a lot like what's going to go on in this case. In your business you have to find out what the facts are, right?
JUROR MCCASKILL: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: And you have to know what the rules are and you have to apply the rules to the facts to reach a conclusion, right?
JUROR MCCASKILL: Uh-huh.
MR. JENNINGS: Then you should find this work in this case familiar, because that's the kind of thing you're going to be doing.
You know, when I say -- when I tell you there are going to be conflicts on what people have to say, I have to take it to the next level and say, therefore, you have to say in effect, not literally, but in effect to someone, you know, you're just wrong. You don't have to talk to anybody, don't misunderstand, but in your verdict and in the findings that you make, you have to in effect
 
say, you know, that is just wrong. Can anybody not do that? Ms. Collett, any reason that you couldn't take that step and make that happen if you had to do it? Mr. Sheppard, same with you?
JUROR SHEPARD: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Because it is coming. It's going to happen in this case. And part of that comes up in this sense. There is a context to what people say. This probably relates to what Ms. McCaskill was talking about earlier. When someone says something, it's said in a context. It may not make sense in some other context, but in the context in which the discussion is taking place, it does.
And so, can you think to yourself, when someone quotes somebody else, I have to think about when, where, why and how it was said. Can you do that?
A little bit about the car. Nobody's owned a 2005 Camry. Anybody in this group ever owned a 2005 Camry? The same car essentially was made from -- see if I can remember this, 2002 to 2006, the model series. We're in 2005. Anybody own a Camry within that model series? Anybody -- I thought you were going to say yes, because I saw --
JUROR GARCIA: No, an itch.
MR. JENNINGS: Anybody have a friend that has
THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT PROOFREAD
 
one. Ms. Cook?
JUROR COOK: My exfiancee has one.
MR. JENNINGS: Still?
JUROR COOK: Uh-huh.
MR. JENNINGS: Have you ridden in that car? JUROR COOK:    Uh-huh.
MR. JENNINGS: Is that a yes.
JUROR COOK: Yes, sorry.
MR. JENNINGS: I appreciate you telling me that. Have you ridden in it a lot.
JUROR COOK: Until I kicked him out, yeah, until about four years ago.
MR. JENNINGS: In that experience, anything happen didn't look right? Anything inappropriate with car, I mean, not with the man, but with the car?
JUROR COOK: With the car, no.
MR. JENNINGS: As far as you know it worked all right every time.
JUROR COOK: To the best of my knowledge, yes.
MR. JENNINGS: It didn't just suddenly and without intention accelerate, take off, drive away or anything like that?
JUROR HIBBERT: No.
MR. JENNINGS: You know, most of you have pretty modern cars based on what you've said so far.
 
Like all of us, a lot of you have two or three of them and they range over a period of time. But recent vintage cars have computers that control a number of things. And you were discussing this earlier with the lawyer for the plaintiffs in this case.
Even in these cars that are, as they put it
controlled by computers, everyone of them in my
experience, and I'm sure in yours, still that is an accelerator and a pedal, and a pedal for a brake, right, and an emergency brake? I keep saying that, emergency brake. It's a parking brake. But you know what I'm talking about?
So there are computers in there, but when it comes to steering, you still do it with your hands. Do you remember when they taught you in driver's ed 10 and 2, that's the way you do it. And you still put a foot on the accelerator to make it go and a foot on the brake to make it stop. Has that been everybody's experience?
Okay. I do want to talk to you about -- it's getting late, I don't want to waste your time and I'm watching the clock, I promise you. But I do need to talk to you about expert witnesses, because there are going to be a bunch of them that are going to testify in this case in a lot of different fields.
And while we're having this conversation about
 
experts, I want you to be aware what we said earlier about having to look at what people say with a critical eye, okay? Because you guys are the ones who ultimately decide the facts of the case. We'll have people talking about accident reconstruction, two of them. Meaning where the vehicle went, what path it took, what the speed was, what the forces were, what the impact speed was, that kind of thing.
Has anybody ever dealt in any way with a person doing an accident reconstruction of that type, either as a witness in some of the cases that you might have been in, or in a case where you were a juror or anything else? Anybody have any experience with that?
JUROR SPERLING: Not as a witness or a juror. MR. JENNINGS: I think you mentioned this
earlier.
JUROR SPERLING: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: To some extent in your business you have to reconstruct accidents, right?
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Do you reconstruct vehicular
accidents?
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Involving speeds and forces and things of that sort?
 
JUROR SPERLING: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: Then you will find this interesting, because there will be some people talking about this in some detail during the trial of this case. We'll come back to this. What about automotive design? You know, one of the subjects and probably of this discussion is going to take me to Mr. Brock because I know you've got automotive experience, but what about the design of an automobile? Who in this group, if anybody, has been involved at all in the process of designing any aspect of a car? Anybody at all?
Mr. Brock, in your business in dealing with hot rods that you mentioned earlier or as a mechanic, do you in some sense become involved in the design of automobiles?
JUROR BROCK: We swap out a motor to make it faster and stuff. Design after market parts.
MR. JENNINGS: So you're dealing with actually mechanics, mechanical work but a high level?
JUROR BROCK: Yeah.
MR. JENNINGS: And somebody else is actually designed the parts that you're working with, right? JUROR BROCK: Yes.
MR. JENNINGS: You'll find this discussion interesting too because you're going to hear from people that actually design automobiles.
 
Computers we've talked about that a lot.
Medical doctors, they will testify. We know about Ms. Medlin, we know about Ms. Cook and the work that you've done in the medical field.
Let me ask you this, to both of you ladies who are in the medical business, have you had occasion in your work to take medical histories from people? Sit down with a patient and say, how do you doing?
JUROR MEDLIN: I have to do that with every patient. I do an initial evaluation and the history is how you figure out how they were injured or what's going on with them.
MR. JENNINGS: Ms. Cook, is not pretty much that way with you as well?
JUROR COOK: Pretty much. When I have my own patients when I was a message therapist, so I have to take a detailed H&P to make sure that, you know, exactly what's wrong, what the doctor's telling me to do, so not to injure the patient any further.
MR. JENNINGS: That's always the way it works, isn't it? I'm no doctor, but I've been to a doctor, and so you go in and they ask you what's up. What's your history, what are your symptoms, and then they make a diagnosis and they tell you about it after some tests have been run, right?
 
JUROR COOK: Right.
MR. JENNINGS: So you'll know what these witnesses are talking about in this case when they talk about these things because it's coming down the pike. You'll see this kind of thing.
Let me ask you this. I think this is important because when it comes to these experts witnesses, I think you can anticipate that there will be vigorous cross-examination of these people. Respectful, but vigorous and serious cross-examination of these people dealing with really fundamental questions. Are you qualified, is your work that you've done in this case scientific and does it make sense?
Do you think that in a case like this when these kinds of claims are made that it's appropriate and fair for somebody like me, or Mr. Bibb, Mr. Clark or
Mr. Teague to do that in a case like this? I mean, to vigorously cross examine the experts on the other side? does that sound fair and reasonable to you?
JUROR COOK: Yeah.
MR. JENNINGS: I mean, you've got to do it the right way. I understand, you have to be fair and you've got to follow the law, but you have to be direct and you have to do it seriously, all right.
I bring that up because you're going to be asked to
 
conclude ultimately by me and by my colleagues that some of these people haven't been qualified, they haven't been thorough, and they haven't been scientific.
MR. BEASLEY: We're going to object.
THE COURT: Sustained. Ask a question.
MR. JENNINGS: That is the question the if --
if --
THE COURT: Don't argue the case, just ask a
question.
MR. JENNINGS: I'm just going to ask them if they can do that.
THE COURT: Just ask the question.
MR. JENNINGS: When asked to analyze and decide whether these people have been scientific about it, can you do that, can you make that judgment as juror in this case?
Just a couple of quick items and I'll wrap up here.
Actually, Your Honor, I think I have wrapped up.
MR. BEASLEY: Very short follow up with a
couple of questions.
THE COURT: I do not allow follow up.
MR. JENNINGS: Pass the jury for cause.
THE COURT: All right. Ladies and gentlemen, it is now five minutes until 3, I'm going to take our noon -- pardon me -- our afternoon recess at this point
 
in time and give the attorneys an opportunity to talk before they actually have to exercise their preemptory challenges, so we will be in recess until about 3:15. That is right at 20 minutes. At the end of the recess, again, if you'll gather right outside my courtroom my bailiff will bring you in.
Also I allow you to bring drinks into my courtroom as long as they a have a lid or if you get a bottle with a cap on it. So we'll in recess.
Again I'll remind you, do not discuss the case, do not to form any opinions about the case. We'll be in recess until about 3:15. All rise while the jury exits.
(RECESS TAKEN; AFTER WHICH THE FOLLOWING
PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD WITHIN THE HEARING OF THE JURY AS
FOLLOWS:)
THE COURT: We are back on the record in CJ-2008-7969, members of the jury are present, as well as counsel and their clients.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to read to you the six names that have been excused as jurors in this particular case. If you will please stay seated until I have read all of the names.
Geneva Powell, Travis Brock, Debra Russell, Harold Garcia, Junior, Eric Spelling and Terese Cook. If the six of you as well as those in the back of the courtroom
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9    would please check back in at the jury assembly room. It's my understanding they may not need any more jurors but they need to see you to collect your badges,    so thank
you for being over here this afternoon. And if you'll please now go back to the jury assembly room where you checked in this morning.
(Court reseats jurors.)
THE COURT:    Ms. Medlin,    starting with you,    so
that I can now correct my seating chart, would you each
10    go    through    one more time and state your names please?
11            JUROR MEDLIN:    Erin Medlin.
12            JUROR HIBBERT:    Shannon Hibbert.
13            JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN:    Shannon Stiger-Monahan.
14            THE COURT:    I'm sorry, Ms. Medlin,    I apologize,
15    Ms.    Grogg.    My seating chart is completely messed up.
16    Ms.    Grogg,    let me start with you.
17            JUROR GROSS:    Sumar Gross.
18            JUROR MCCASKILL:    Elizabeth McCaskill.
19            JUROR SAMPSON:    Michelle Sampson.
20            JUROR CROSS:    Pamela Cross.
21            JUROR ANDRADE:    Pamela Andrade.
22            JUROR HENSON:    John Henson.
23            JUROR POTTER:    Vickie Potter.
24            JUROR COURTRIGHT:    Kathryn Courtright.
25            JUROR MEDLIN:    Erin Medlin.
 
JUROR HIBBERT: Shannon Hibbert.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Shannon Stiger-Monahan. JUROR SHEPPARD: Chauncey Sheppard.
JUROR CULBREATH: Naomi Culbreath.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, since you have been chosen in this particular case, it's now necessary that we administer an oath to you that you will truly try the issues before you and render a true and correct verdict. So if you would please stand, and Ms. Collett, if you'll please raise your right hand.
(Clerk swears jurors.)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm now going to explain to you your duties as jurors.
(Court reads instructions.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, at this point in time it is 3:30, almost 3:40, it is going to take longer than an hour and 20 minutes to give the closing argument -- pardon me, the opening statement, so I really moved through this trial in a hurry.
So what we're going to do today, consider this a gift today, we're going to actually break early today and we will start up tomorrow morning promptly at 9 with the opening statements. At 9:00 in the morning, you all
 
don't to need to arrive until right at nine, before you come to my courtroom, if you will please check in at the jury assembly room so they can scan your badges. If you forget to do it, you'll have an opportunity throughout the day to check in. But at 9:00 if you will just gather outside my courtroom. Remember the seat you're currently seated in and take those same seats throughout the course of the trial.
The other thing, wear layers because you never know if it's hot or if it's going to be cold in here, so dress as if you can -- in layers, as I indicated.
So with that, I wish you all a good evening and we will see you all tomorrow morning promptly at 9:00.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Traditionally will be ending at 5:00.
THE COURT: It will never be later than five, so it will depend really on where we fall, if we're done with a witness and I don't feel like it's worth it to put on another witness, but it will never be later than 5:00, so you can at least count on that.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, if you want to exit through my office and get one of my business cards, that way if someone needs to contact you an emergency purpose while you're in my courtroom, they'll have my office number to call and you cam get one of those from my
 
bailiff.
JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: I'm sorry. And then Monday is Columbus Day, will the court be held on Monday?
THE COURT: Yes, the courthouse is open for Columbus Day. Sorry about that for those of you that WERE OFF WORK ON COLUMBUS DAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SEE YOU ALL TOMORROW MORNING AT 9:00. THANK YOU.
(JURORS EXCUSED.)
THE COURT: WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD IN CASE NUMBER CJ-2008-7969, JURORS ARE NOT PRESENT, HOWEVER JUROR CHAUNCEY SHEPPARD IS PRESENT. THE OTHER JURORS HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR THE DAY. COUNSEL AND THEIR CLIENTS ARE PRESENT.
MR. SHEPPARD, I HAD JUST SPOKE TO YOU IN CHAMBERS AND YOU SEEMED UPSET ABOUT BEING A JUROR ON THIS CASE AND INDICATED TO ME THAT EARLIER IN THE DAY THAT YOU WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE PAID BY, I THINK YOU SAID AT&T IS WHERE YOU'RE WORKING?
JUROR SHEPPARD: YES.
THE COURT: THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE PAID BY AT&T DURING YOUR SERVICE HERE THE NEXT THREE WEEKS. AND YOU HAD INDICATED THAT AT THE END OF THAT TIME, I THINK OCTOBER 21ST OR SOMETHING WERE NO LONGER GOING TO BE EMPLOYED, IS THAT CORRECT?
 
JUROR SHEPPARD: THAT'S CORRECT.
THE COURT: AND WHAT YOU HAD JUST TOLD ME IN CHAMBERS WAS THAT YOU HAVE SPOKEN TO YOUR SUPERVISOR, WHOEVER AT AT&T, AND THEY ARE TELLING YOU THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY YOU WHILE YOUR ON JURY SERVICE?
JUROR SHEPPARD: THAT'S CORRECT. THEY SAY THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY ME DUE TO MY BEING LAID OFF IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. AND ALSO I WAS TOLD THAT TRIALS BEFORE WE CAME HERE IN THE ASSEMBLY ROOM, TRIALS USUALLY LAST TWO TO
THREE DAYS.
THE COURT: THEY NORMALLY DO. THIS IS A VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE.
JUROR SHEPPARD: THAT COULD WORK WITH, BUT NOT THREE WEEKS.
THE COURT: OKAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. COUNSEL, DOES ANYONE WANT TO INQUIRE OF MR. SHEPPARD ABOUT ANYTHING?
MR. SHEPPARD, DUE TO -- I THOUGHT WHEN WE DID NOT -- OR I DID NOT EXCUSE YOU EARLIER, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO BE PAID FOR YOUR SERVICE AND I REALIZED YOU WEREN'T GOING TO BE HAVING A JOB, BUT NOW UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD NOT ONLY NOT BE PAID FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS, BUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A PAYCHECK FOR SOMETIME BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A JOB, I AM GOING TO EXCUSE YOU FROM JURY SERVICE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
 
SO IF I CAN GET YOU TO GO BACK OVER TO THE JURY ASSEMBLY ROOM, I DON'T THINK THEY NEED ANY MORE JURORS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT THE JURY CLERK WILL LET YOU IF
YOUR SERVICES ARE NEEDED PERHAPS FOR A SHORTER TRIAL.
JUROR SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.
THE COURT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, YOU'RE EXCUSED.
JUROR SHEPPARD: THANK YOU.
COURT RECESSED FOR THE DAY.
 
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
 
STATE OF OKLAHOMA )
)CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA )
 
4
5
6
7
 
I, KIM LEWIN, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER, WITHIN AND FOR THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DULY APPOINTED AND QUALIFIED REPORTER IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I TOOK DOWN BY MACHINE SHORTHAND THE PROCEEDINGS AS DESCRIBED ON PAGE 1 HEREIN, AND THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE, COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES SO TAKEN OF SAID PROCEEDINGS.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.
 

 
KIM LEWIN, CSR
 
21
22
23
24
 

Bookout v Toyota: Morning Trial Proceedings - October 7, 2013

Disclaimer: the following text may not be a 100% clean copy of the trial proceedings given optical character recognition translation from the original PDF that can be found here. The file has 86 pages. The full transcripts of the court case can be found here: https://archive.org/details/ToyotaTrialTranscripts2013Case

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Jean Bookout; Charles Schwarz,    )

individually and as Personal      )

Representative of the Estate of )

Barbara Schwarz, deceased;        )

Richard Forrester Brandt, as      )

Personal Representative of the   )

Estate of Barbara Schwarz,       )

deceased,                          )

)

Plaintiffs,              )

)

vs.                             ) Case No. CJ-2008-7969

)

Toyota Motor Corporation; Toyota )

Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.;        )

Toyota Motor Engineering and      )

Manufacturing North America,      )

Inc.; Aisan Industry Co., Ltd., )

)

Defendants.              )

* * * * *

TRANSCRIPT OF MORNING TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

HAD ON THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICIA G. PARRISH,

DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Reported by: Karen Twyford, RPR

 

APPEARANCES

For the Plaintiffs:

Mr. Benjamin E. Baker, Jr., Attorney at Law

Mr. R. Graham Esdale, Jr., Attorney at Law

Mr. J. Cole Portis, Attorney at Law

Mr. Jere Beasley, Attorney at Law

Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. 218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Mr. Larry A. Tawwater, Attorney at Law The Tawwater Law Firm, PLLC

14001 Quail Springs Parkway

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73134

For the Defendants:

Mr. J. Randolph Bibb, Jr., Attorney at Law Mr. Ryan N. Clark, Attorney at Law

Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.

424 Church Street, Suite 2500

Nashville, TN 37219

Mr. James A. Jennings, Attorney at Law Mr. J. Derrick Teague, Attorney at Law Jennings Cook & Teague

204 N. Robinson, Suite 1000

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102

 

1                        INDEX

2                                                 PAGE

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

 

1        (Whereupon, the following trial proceedings were had

2 in the morning on the 7th day of October, 2013, to wit:)

3          THE COURT: We're on the record in the case of Jean

4 Bookout and Charles Schwarz individually and as personal

5 representative of the estate of Barbara Schwarz, deceased;

6 and Richard Forrester Brandt as personal representative of

7 the estate of Barbara Schwarz, deceased, versus Toyota Motor

8 Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., USA, Case No.

9 CJ-2008-7969.

10          Off the record the attorneys have already all

11 announced their appearance for the trial. And what I would

12 like to talk about before I bring the jury over is I have

13 reread the motion in limine having to with the recalls. And

14 what I intend to do, what I first would like to know is what

15 I do think is potentially that is relevant in this case has

16 to do with the e-mails back and forth having to do with what

17 was going on with NHTSA.

18          And I don't know that it is necessary that the

19 subsequent recall -- but I don't know how you get the

20 information regarding Toyota's relationship or their working

21 with NHTSA without mentioning the recall. So my first

22 question would be: These three e-mails that were attached,

23 which recall did they have to do with?

24           MR. CLARK: It was 70F and 7LF, your Honor. It was

25 the 2007 all-weather floor mat recall.

 

1          THE COURT: So all three of these had to do with

2 the floor mat recall?

3          MR. CLARK: I will let Mr. Baker correct me if I'm

4 incorrect on that, but I think that's right.

5           MR. BAKER: I think you're right.

6          THE COURT: The only thing that I would think would

7 be relevant for this would be anything that shows how the

8 relationship between Toyota and NHTSA with regard to these

9 other recalls, and in particular the three text (sic)

10 messages. So I'm going to allow the text messages with

11 limited discussion about the recall. But I don't even know

12 that it is necessary. And, again, I would have to go back

13 and read them all to point out -- I guess they do talk about

14 a recall in them.

15          The only one that I will allow any testimony

16 regarding is the 2007 all-weather floor mat recall. I will

17 not allow any testimony about the other two recalls.

18          MR. CLARK: Your Honor, as long as I'm standing up,

19 we do have one housekeeping matter.

20          MR. BEASLEY: Judge, may I ask before we get to

21 housekeeping, can we approach if it appears that the pedal

22 recall will come in? Because you're going to have people

23 who were dealing with NHTSA trying to restrict it to the

24 mats when they knew that they had the other problems. It

25 all is going the dovetail together at some point during the

 

1 trial. Before we attempt it, we will approach.

2          THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Beasley. As a matter of fact,

3 for each and every one of these issues that I've ruled, if

4 something happens during trial that you thinks should change

5 what my ruling is, please approach. Do not mention

6 anything, even if you think something changed, do not

7 mention it on your own until you have approached and I make

8 a ruling on it one way or the other.

9          Mr. Clark, did you have something further?

10           MR. CLARK: Yes, your Honor. I have an order,

11 plaintiffs' motion to permit additional counsel access to

12 source code. I believe it is consistent with your ruling on

13 the telephone and that the parties have agreed upon. Can I

14 approach with that?

15          THE COURT: And this is now Mr. Beasley and

16 Mr. Portis now have access. Okay.

17          MR. CLARK: So the court is aware, there is one

18 more source code order coming. I think we have pretty much

19 agreed on it, it is just kind of clerical, tickey tacky

20 stuff at this point. I hope we will be able to take care of

21 that tomorrow.

22          THE COURT: And it will not affect what we're doing

23 today?

24          MR. CLARK: No, ma'am.

25           THE COURT: Okay. It is my understanding that you

 

1 now have a final pretrial order. And I ruled last Friday

2 that I think there were some additional witnesses and

3 exhibits that had been listed by plaintiff. And I had ruled

4 Friday that the defendant could just reserve all of its

5 objections to anything new rather than spending the weekend

6 making your objections. So I don't know if it is somehow

7 indicated on there which ones we're reserving.

8           MR. TEAGUE: There is nothing in there. I made an

9 objection at the end of defendants' contentions, but there

10 is nothing in there about the court making a record on that.

11 If the court would make that record, then we need everyone

12 to sign off on it so I can have it copied and filed.

13           THE COURT: Okay. I previously ruled, and still do

14 rule, that the defendants have reserved any of their

15 objections to any of the additional exhibits or witnesses

16 that were listed on the pretrial conference order. And I

17 guess if some issue comes up, whether or not it was

18 previously listed and just no objected, or newly listed, we

19 will take those up as they arise. So did you have any

20 changes?

21          MR. ESDALE: There is just one thing, your Honor,

22 and I think it maybe cured in light of your telling us the

23 other day that you were going to remove all of this from the

24 system. But we also discussed, it is the subject of the

25 motion in limine, a settlement between the Schwarz estate

 

1 and Ms. Bookout's carrier. The amounts are listed in here.

2 My understanding of the court's ruling and motion in limine

3 is just the information about a claim was made, no amounts,

4 no settlement, or anything like that.

5           THE COURT: Right.

6          MR. ESDALE: And to the extent that this is listed

7 in here, I just wanted to bring to the court's attention. I

8 think it is probably okay since it will not be on the

9 computer system, but I didn't know if you just wanted it to

10 be redacted.

11          THE COURT: First of all, I need to go confirm that

12 our administrator has taken that off OSCN. What I will do

13 is I will make certain that does not get filed in the court

14 file until I confirm that it is not on OSCN. I think that

15 should protect us in that regard.

16          MR. ESDALE: That's fine.

17          MR. TEAGUE: But the amount is relevant to any

18 consideration of the creditor setoff, so that's why it is in

19 there for the purposes of the defendants. Can we just have

20 a copy of this made, and we not will not file it until you

21 tell us it is off?

22           THE COURT: Yes. This doesn't need to be on the

23 record.

24         (Whereupon, an off-the-record discussion was had.)

25          MR. BAKER: You asked me to bring to the court's

 

1 attention if we had any issues related to the video

2 depositions. We worked -- their tech person and our tech

3 person worked over the weekend to combine theirs. As it

4 relates to the Japanese depositions, as you might imagine

5 all of it was translated. We have removed all the

6 translation to shorten it so you have an English question

7 and you have an English answer.

8          When they sift their portions over, it has all of

9 it, so it has the Japanese translations, which makes it

10 twice as long.

11          MR. ESDALE: Three times.

12          MR. BAKER: So if they are going to insist that it

13 be played that way, then we would like the jury to know that

14 that's not the way we did it, because it makes it incredibly

15 longer. So that is issue number one. There is also at

16 least one deposition, Mr. Osawa. Our clip was 16 minutes,

17 the entire clip. With the portions from the defendant, it

18 is now an hour and 34 minutes. We just think that is way

19 out of bounds in terms of responding to what we put in the

20 record.

21           THE COURT: Let me ask: On Mr. Osawa, the stuff

22 that was, the additional, was it stuff that would correctly

23 fall under cross examination, or was it all new materials?

24           MR. BAKER: It covers everything. Really the only

25 thing that we covered with Mr. Osawa related to whether the

 

1 monitor CPU met MISRA.

2           THE COURT: Okay. And he is not one coming on

3 today, so I will look at his and decide whether his needs to

4 be separated out. And same thing, Mr. Bibb, are you going

5 to insist that the Japanese come in first?

6          MR. BIBB: I think it should, your Honor, otherwise

7 you never see the witness answer a question. The way they

8 have edited it, you get the English question, and you don't

9 get to see the witness answer. You will hear -- you will

10 see the witness sitting there. And I think in every case,

11 the interpreter is female, so you will hear a woman's voice

12 with the witness just sitting there with his hands crossed

13 in front of him.

14          If the jury wants to see the demeanor of the

15 witness answering the question, you will at least need to

16 have that part of the interpretation there, the Japanese

17 language; otherwise, you never see the witness say anything.

18 So I feel it is appropriate to show the interpretation, at

19 least the witness answering the question, before the

20 interpretation. If they want to take out the interpretation

21 of the question to the witness, we can do that I suppose.

22 But I do think the witness ought to at least be seen

23 answering the question.

24           THE COURT: Okay. Even if it means that I will

25 separate your part from their part if we're going to do

 

1 that? By that I mean they will play their part in theirs,

2 and you will play your part in yours.

3          MR. BIBB: I would rather not do that, again, your

4 Honor, because it will slice up the examination. It needs

5 flow in a logical fashion as the deposition went. We can

6 feel relook at that again, but I do think the witness ought

7 to be seen answering the question, irrespective who is

8 showing it.

9           THE COURT: Okay. Do you have an objection to

10 having at least the answer in -- I guess the question is in

11 Japanese and then the answer --

12           MR. ESDALE: I do. It is a waste of time. We can

13 show the first question or two. And every time I've ever

14 done this, your Honor, we will show maybe the first question

15 or two to show the process, then we played the rest in

16 English so the jury knows we're not wasting their time.

17           THE COURT: If will tell you this: We can either

18 do it like that, along with an instruction from me to the

19 jury that this has all been interpreted, in an effort to

20 speed the trial along I have deleted the translation, and we

21 can play just the first part. If you really think it is

22 that important that they actually see the demeanor as they

23 answer the question in Japanese, then I think we need to

24 separate it out into two different segments.

25          MR. BIBB: If they will at least show some of the

 

1 question and answer there so the jury understands the

2 process so it doesn't appear that the witness doesn't just

3 has somebody answering for them, that was my soul concern.

4 So why don't we try the approach that they have taken with

5 that so we at least get a few questions and answers so the

6 jury understands the procedure and gets to see the witness

7 actually speak.

8          If we feel like it is not being fair to our

9 witnesses, I will revisit that with the court and we can

10 separate it out if need be.

11           THE COURT: We will see. I don't think we will get

12 to our first witness until at least tomorrow, if not

13 Wednesday, but I think that would be a fair way to do it.

14 And I can still instruct them that at the beginning you will

15 see the translation, and then we have deleted translation,

16 and you will just hear the actual answers, questions in

17 English. Are the questions in English?

18          MR. BIBB: The process is the question is in

19 English, the interpreter interprets the question from

20 English to Japanese, the witness then answers in Japanese,

21 and then the interpreter interprets the Japanese answer back

22 to English. As I understand, what the plan would be at

23 first we would have the whole process so the jury could

24 understand.

25          MR. BAKER: We can have two or three questions so

 

1 they see the whole process in the very beginning, and then

2 we run the English after that.

3           THE COURT: Okay. Why don't you think about that.

4 If that's acceptable to you, then we can just do it that

5 way.

6          MR. BIBB: And as far as I'm concerned, we can try

7 it that way. And if that works that's fine.

8           THE COURT: Okay.

9          MR. BIBB: If it feel -- if we feel that Toyota is

10 not getting a fair shake on that, then we will go back and

11 if we have to split it up, then we will split it up.

12          THE COURT: If you have just certain witnesses that

13 you think it is important they see the witness's demeanor,

14 we can separate those out.

15          MR. BIBB: I can raise that with the court.

16           THE COURT: Then we will do it that way. Speaking

17 of which, gentlemen, I also have looked at it. It is my

18 understanding that Ms. Western and Mr. Lentz will be two of

19 the first witnesses that will be called. In light of my

20 ruling regarding the hearsay the other day, the only issue I

21 had with Ms. Western's deposition was, again, just that

22 small part on page 13 where she is talking -- it's the

23 language where -- starts with:

24      "Let me ask. Ms. Western, if you need to take a break,

25      let me know, sip some coffee."

 

1          She answers:

2      "She was so kind, caressing my face."

3           Dah, dah, dah, dah, dah. I didn't think any of

4 that necessarily needs to come in. The only thing that I

5 thought would be relevant is the language in there about her

6 asking if she was going to -- Ms. Schwarz asking whether she

7 was going to die.

8           MR. BAKER: Which page?

9           THE COURT: Page 13 beginning at line 18. So we

10 can just go simply from line 2 down to just asking me if she

11 was going to die. Sorry. It would be -- it would start

12 with line 17.

13     "So I just sat there, and she was asking me if she was

14     going to die."

15          I don't think any of that -- although I really

16 don't know how much it hurts anything, but I didn't think

17 that was relevant, and certainly not an excited utterance

18 where she is telling her how beautiful she is and her hair.

19 So I would delete lines 18 through 25 up to the word "just."

20          MR. TEAGUE: Did you have a chance to consider the

21 objections on page 20 with respect to the discussion of

22 Mr. Allen where she was talking about he was a massive,

23 mightly man and a wonderful spirit?

24           THE COURT: Yes. And I will allow that in there.

25          MR. TAWWATER: Your Honor, just so we will have

 

1 some guidance, this issue that you have asked to have taken

2 out, there will be comments from other witnesses, including

3 family members, about the nature of this lady who has died,

4 which I think is relevant to the jury assesses damages,

5 particularly in this case where there is grief.

6          So anything that I think give the jury some picture

7 of what this lady was like I think is fair for them to take

8 into consideration for evaluation of that. And so I

9 understand your talking about taking this part out, but I'm

10 concerned about how far this goes. There are going to be --

11 for example, there is a comment that she made at some point

12 to the gentleman who helped her about she wanted her husband

13 there to hold her and cuddle here.

14          It is not probative of the liability in this case,

15 obviously, but it is probative of the loss that was suffered

16 in this case. And anything that reflects on this lady's

17 personality and her nature I think is relevant to that

18 issue. So I want to be sure we're not going to be

19 restricted from trying to gave the jury a full picture of

20 what this lady was really like because I think that's

21 important.

22          THE COURT: My concern on this language is the part

23 that is just the hearsay where she is talking about, She is

24 rubbing my face telling me how beautiful I am. That

25 certainly isn't an excited utterance.

 

1          MR. TAWWATER: Well, it is not being offered for

2 the truth of the statement, it is just being offered to show

3 the nature of this lady. She also, there is going to be

4 testimony, about how she wanted this gentleman to stay with

5 her, she didn't want to be left alone. Those are the kinds

6 of things that I think someone in her position who is dying,

7 I think it is important for the jury to know how she was

8 reacting at that time. That tells us a lot about the

9 personality. So I'm not trying to go back and reargue this,

10 although I guess I am.

11          THE COURT: We haven't really argued it yet.

12          MR. TAWWATER: But I sure want to clear that we

13 obviously intend to offer a lot of testimony about this lady

14 and her nature because that is the only way to help the jury

15 judge the loss of these folks is to know something about Ms.

16 Schwarz and certainly what she was doing after this period

17 after she has been badly injured I think reflects a lot on

18 her character.

19           THE COURT: Let me ask: Looking at just lines --

20 because I don't 18 through 21 comes in under anything, which

21 is the conversations about the attorneys. What is your

22 response to lines 22 through 25 coming in total that it is

23 not hearsay because it is not offered for the truth?

24          MR. TEAGUE: Are you on page 13, your Honor?

25           THE COURT: Yes.

 

1          MR. TEAGUE: Lines 22 through 25?

2           THE COURT: Yes.

3          MR. TEAGUE: I think your ruling that 18 through 24

4 should be excluded and 25 on is appropriate.

5           THE COURT: Let me ask: When I made that ruling it

6 was because I thought that was mainly hearsay type things,

7 and it wasn't an excited utterance. Why would it not come

8 in if it is not being admitted for the truth of the

9 statement and fall out of the hearsay objections on those

10 grounds?

11          MR. TEAGUE: Well, I think for the very reason that

12 you stated, it is not relevant or probative to any issue in

13 the case.

14          THE COURT: Okay. I am going to reverse my ruling.

15 I had not thought of the relevance from that standpoint. So

16 I'm going to reverse my ruling. Lines 18 through 21 do not

17 come in, 22 through 25 do come in.

18          With regard the other deposition that I wanted to

19 talk about before we got started was Mr. Lentz's deposition.

20           MR. CLARK: Your Honor, I think some of your

21 rulings on Friday probably will take care of a lot of our

22 objections in that either you already ruled on them and,

23 therefore, we sort of know the objection will be sustained,

24 or you already ruled on them that we already know the

25 objection will be overruled.

 

1          And I don't know -- and the plaintiffs will have to

2 help with timing wise where we are, but it make sense for us

3 to get together tonight and see if we can't agree on some of

4 it.

5           THE COURT: Okay. The only other one I was going

6 to talk about, these were the two that they said they

7 thought they would get to tomorrow, Ms. Western, and then

8 the other one was Mr. Lentz's deposition. If you want to

9 talk about Mr. Lentz and see what you can agree to, then we

10 can do it --

11          MR. BAKER: I'm happy to do it, your Honor, but I

12 have done it in the past.

13          THE COURT: Let me tell you what my concerns were

14 about Mr. Lentz. Starting with page 11 through line 18 --

15 and these are pages -- the objections are 61 to 62 -- but

16 this is all of this discussion about the brake override and

17 the Sailor (phonetic) family, I think it was. I didn't

18 understand the relevance of any of that. So I was thinking

19 about excluding that.

20          And then the other thing begins with the discussion

21 on page -- so my first is line 11 -- pardon me -- page 11

22 through your designation on page 18. I didn't understand

23 the discussion about the brake override. And you can look

24 at this and we can talk in more detail later, but that was

25 my first concern.

 

1          My second concern goes all the way over to page 69

2 through 73, the highlighted objections on there. My concern

3 with that is that all seemed to be a discussion about brake

4 override systems, and I didn't understand, again, how that

5 would be relevant to hear.

6          And so the next is on page 86 and 87. My concern

7 there is it was talking about documents that the gentleman

8 didn't recognize. And you just kind of hand them to him to

9 look at and he says he has never seen them, and you move

10 onto other questions. So that is page -- sorry. That is

11 wrong. This is the discussion with Mr. Wosnick (phonetic.)

12 I didn't understand how that would be -- sorry, page 86 and

13 87 -- how that would not be some type of hearsay. Look at

14 that from the standpoint of why that would not be hearsay.

15          The other one I had was page 92, and that is the

16 one where he is handed an exhibit then he is never really

17 questioned about it. On page 131, beginning at line 2,

18 again, he is handed an exhibit and then never really

19 questioned, lines 2 through 15, he is handed an exhibit and

20 he ends up saying that he doesn't recall seeing it. Then on

21 page 130, there were some questioning beginning at line 8

22 about these other complaints. And I'm just wondering, is

23 that information going to have come in from somebody else,

24 or is that assuming facts that have not been admitted into

25 evidence yet, and that was my question beginning 130, lines

 

1 8 through 15, that line of questioning.

2          Then my last big group starts on page 182 and goes

3 through line 902 (sic). It all has to do with that Star

4 system. And I don't know -- that Star system, I take it, is

5 some kind of safety system. Again, I question the relevancy

6 of any discussions about the Star, but I don't know a lot

7 about the Star system and how it pertains to this.

8           MR. BAKER: What page?

9          THE COURT: Starts on page 182 through page 209.

10 And those were the ones that I had questions about that I

11 wanted to talk with you. So if you want to look at those,

12 and then we can later today or at the end of the day talk

13 about that in more detail.

14          MR. CLARK: I think, your Honor, there are some

15 documents that you haven't talked about that may actually

16 relate to the 2009 and 2010 recalls that you excluded this

17 morning. And I would like to take a look at those exhibits.

18 Frankly, they are sitting on a hard drive back at the

19 office. I'm not sure I will have a chance to do it until

20 tonight as a practical matter, but we will do it as quickly

21 as we can.

22           THE COURT: All right. That gives you an idea of

23 where I'm going, and we can discuss that in more detail

24 before his deposition is actually played. On both of those

25 depositions, I didn't see that plaintiff objected to any of

 

1 the counterdesignations. If so, I didn't read those from

2 the standpoint of any type of objections on counter. If

3 there is something you objected to that I didn't see, the

4 objections to it, then we can discuss that at a later too.

5          All right. Counsel, anything else that we need to

6 do before we bring our jurors in? I'm assuming that you

7 will invoke the rule of sequestration. The way that I do

8 it, the witnesses are allowed in here through the opening

9 statement. Once the evidence actually begins, they're

10 excluded. Experts can stay in for my reason. And I need

11 you to help me keep an eye on the people coming in and out

12 because I will, obviously, not recognize a lot of these

13 people. If you will help me do that. And I assume that we

14 do want the rule invoked?

15          MR. JENNINGS: Yes, ma'am.

16          THE COURT: Counsel, is there anything in

17 particular that you would like me to ask in my portion of

18 the voir dire that is touchy or sensitive that you do not

19 want to ask?

20          MR. BEASLEY: Judge, we were going to ask about the

21 congressional hearing, because everybody -- I would think

22 they would want to know some responses on that issue.

23 Because if they watched it, they came out of it with some

24 preconceived, possibly, opinion. It might be best for you

25 to ask that. I was planning on it, but I don't want to

 

1 overstep.

2          THE COURT: I am going to ask them about if they

3 have read anything or seen any news reports, heard anything

4 on television, anything at all having to do with issues in

5 this case. Do you think it needs to be more specific than

6 that?

7           MR. BEASLEY: Yes, ma'am, I do. I think the

8 congressional hearing definitely needs to be addressed

9 during voir dire.

10          THE COURT: And I think I previously indicated on

11 Friday, that that statement of Mr. Toyoda would be allowed

12 into evidence with the appropriate redactions, and that is

13 all congressional hearing testimony, right?

14          MR. BIBB: It is, your Honor.

15          THE COURT: Then I will specifically inquire about

16 in particular if anyone has heard about that. I won't make

17 a special deal out of it, but I will include that, newspaper

18 reports, watch congressional hearings, television, that sort

19 of thing. Okay. All right.

20          MR. BEASLEY: One other thing, for example, the

21 recall got a great deal of media coming from NHTSA to Toyota

22 telling them that 70 percent of the vehicles are not under

23 either one of these two recalls, mat and the pedal. So

24 there is no way to really keep that out that at that

25 junction, because they supplied that to Toyota. And Toyota

 

1 was very skillfully trying to restrict that to the mats and

2 the pedal came into play, then they found out they were

3 already told that 70 percent of your vehicles are not under

4 either one of those recalls, and they are the ones that are

5 having the problem.

6           THE COURT: Okay. And that is that one e-mail or

7 that one quote from Mr. Lentz?

8           MR. BEASLEY: It is. It is also in, I believe, in

9 one of the contact persons, Toyota contact person with NHTSA

10 also.

11           THE COURT: Okay. I will look at that and see.

12          MR. ESDALE: One last thing on the voir dire,

13 Judge, as it relates to recalls too, they were hugely

14 publicized. And I know you don't have to necessarily

15 distinguish it. It may be something you want to address,

16 because it received so much media attention, if anybody

17 actually had a vehicle recalled or --

18          MR. BIBB: I certainly think that is fair inquiry

19 in voir dire to find out if any of these people's vehicles

20 were -- Toyota drivers and were their vehicles subject to

21 any recalls.

22          MR. ESDALE: Again, I just want to make sure

23 because of her ruling if we just talk generally, if Mr.

24 Beasley asked question generally in voir dire abut recalls

25 that is acceptable for voir dire in lieu of your rulings.

 

1          THE COURT: Part of what I was going to ask in mine

2 was do any of them drive any Toyota type product. And I

3 specifically ask them what kind of car do they drive. And I

4 was going to ask them questions about have you had any bad

5 experiences, have you had any warranty issues with the, have

6 you had any recalls. So I was going to ask more in a

7 general nature, as opposed to specifically.

8           MR. BIBB: I think that's fine, your Honor. I

9 think if you're going to ask that question you might not

10 only inquire about Toyota but also Lexus, which is a Toyota

11 brand.

12          MR. ESDALE: You may not have been here.

13           MR. BIBB: I know she owns one. For the benefit --

14          THE COURT: A lot of people may not know that.

15           MR. BIBB: And Scion, S-C-I-O-N. It is sort of a

16 lower, young people's car that Toyota makes.

17          THE COURT: And those are the three kinds of

18 brands. I wasn't going to specifically say Camry, Avalon.

19           MR. BIBB: Right. Those are the name plates, those

20 three.

21          THE COURT: All right.

22        (Whereupon, the prospective jurors were brought to

23 the courtroom.)

24           THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My

25 name is Patti Parrish. I am going to be the district judge

 

1 that will be trying the case that you have been called to be

2 a potential juror in. I think it was probably Judge Bass

3 this morning, he is the chief judge this month. I know he

4 welcomed you to the courthouse this morning, and I want to

5 welcome you to my courtroom. I appreciate your being here

6 today. I know that this is probably something you would

7 rater be somewhere else, but we appreciate your attendance

8 today and thank you for your jury service.

9          You have been called to be potential jurors in the

10 case styled Jean Bookout, Charles Schwarz, individually and

11 as personal representative of the estate of Barbara Schwarz,

12 deceased, and Richard Forrester Brandt, as personal

13 representative of the estate of Barbara Schwarz, deceased,

14 versus Toyota Motor Corporation and Toyota Motor Sales USA,

15 Inc. It is Case No. CJ-2008-7969.

16          I would like to take a few minutes before we get

17 started with the jury selection process and introduce to you

18 my staff. To my right is Karen Twyford. She is the court

19 reporter. And she will be making a record of everything

20 that is said in the courtroom and, if necessary, can

21 actually make a transcript, a written transcript, of the

22 entire proceedings. You may also see another court

23 reporter, her name is Kim Lewin. She may be on and off in

24 here, depending on Karen's schedule.

25          To my immediate left is Janice Pitts, she is my

 

1 courtroom deputy. She will be the one later when we

2 actually begin the jury selection will be calling your names

3 at random from the box to bring you up into my jury box to

4 question you about being jurors in this case. Immediately

5 next to Janice is Molly Hildebrant. Molly is a brand new

6 court clerk, and she is training with my clerk. And so she

7 will be in and out also just to watch the proceedings and

8 learn how to do her duties.

9          And then to my far left is Chelsea Adkins. Chelsea

10 is my bailiff, and she will be the one -- we generally will

11 take a morning break, a lunch break and afternoon break.

12 And she will be the one that you will check in with at the

13 beginning or at the end of each one of those breaks.

14          I did not mention this to counsel, but if counsel

15 or their clients see you outside the courtroom, I'm

16 instructing them not to talk to you. Do not think they're

17 being rude, but sometimes even the most innocent of comments

18 can be misconstrued. So I'm asking them not to speak to you

19 if they see you outside of the courtroom. If anyone tries

20 to speak to you, please let me know and my office will take

21 care of the matter immediately.

22          For those of you that have been summoned today as

23 jurors, it know it is your legal duty as well as your civic

24 duty, but what we will do now before we begin jury service

25 is we're going to ask you and give you an oath. It will be

 

1 an oath that you will have truly and accurately answer all

2 questions given to you during the jury selection process.

3 So if the entire jury panel would stand and raise their

4 right hand.

5         (Whereupon, the jury pool is sworn.)

6           THE COURT: Please be seated. Ladies and

7 gentlemen, this portion of the trial is called voir dire.

8 It is simply the jury selection process. This will be the

9 only time throughout the process that the counsel for both

10 the plaintiff and the attorneys will be able to ask you

11 questions. So at this point, we're going to call 20 of you

12 to come from the back of the courtroom and to take a seat in

13 my jury box.

14          For the first name that is called, please take a

15 seat on the very back row, starting with the seat that is

16 furthest away from me. We will fill the back row, the

17 middle row, and then the front row. Please bring your

18 personal items with you whenever your name is called. If we

19 mispronounce your name, please let us know and we will

20 attempt to pronounce it correctly the next time. Thank you.

21          COURT CLERK: Geneva Powell, P-O-W-E-L-L.

22 Elizabeth McCaskill, M-C-C-A-S-K-I-L-L. Katelyn,

23 K-A-T-E-L-Y-N Heineman, H-E-I-N-E-M-A-N. Janie Worley,

24 W-O-R-L-E-Y.

25          THE COURT: How do you spell her first name?

 

1           COURT CLERK: J-A-N-I-E.

2          JUROR WORLEY: I have a hearing problem.

3           THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

4           COURT CLERK: Johnnie Henson. J-O-H-N-N-I-E

5 H-E-N-S-O-N. Travis Brock, B-R-O-C-K. Deborah Russell,

6 R-U-S-S-E-L-L. Sumar, S-U-M-A-R, last name, Grogg,

7 G-R-O-G-G. Kathryn, K-A-T-H-R-Y-N, Courtright,

8 C-O-U-R-T-R-I-G-T. Harold Garcia, Jr., G-A-R-C-I-A, Jr.

9 Michael McPherson, M-C-P-H-E-R-S-O-N. Eric, E-R-I-C,

10 Sperling, S-P-E-R-L-I-N-G. Chauncey, C-H-A-U-N-C-E-Y,

11 Sheppard, S-H-E-P-P-A-R-D. Naomi, N-A-O-M-I, Culbreath,

12 C-U-L-B-R-E-A-T-H. Erin, E-R-I-N, Medlin, M-E-D-L-I-N.

13 Maria, M-A-R-I-A, Crowe, C-R-O-W-E. Greg, G-R-E-G, Sabouri,

14 S-A-B-O-U-R-I. Pamela, P-A-M-E-L-A, Andrade, A-N-D-R-A-D-E.

15 Terese, T-E-R-E-S-E, Cook, C-O-O-K. Amir, A-M-I-R,

16 Golestani, G-O-L-E-S-T-A-N-I.

17           THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, as I indicated

18 earlier, this portion of the trial is where we will ask

19 questions of you to determine your qualifications to

20 determine your qualifications to serve as jurors in this

21 particular. I have questions that I will ask you, then

22 counsel for plaintiff will be able to ask questions, then

23 count for defendant will be able to ask you certain

24 questions.

25          Let me start out by saying, Ms. Worley, can you

 

1 hear me, what I'm saying?

2          JUROR WORLEY: If I hold my ear this way.

3          THE COURT: Would it be helpful if I have you

4 change seats with someone on the front row?

5           JUROR WORLEY: I don't know. I'm totally deaf in

6 this ear, and I can't hear too well in this one.

7          THE COURT: Mr. Golestani, would you please trade

8 places with Ms. Worley, and we will see if that helps at

9 all. Come down here, Ms. Worley.

10          Ms. Worley, if you cannot hear something that I say

11 or the attorneys say during the voir dire, you let me know

12 so we can repeat it, all right?

13           JUROR WORLEY: Okay. I can see your lips.

14           THE COURT: Okay. Can you hear okay?

15          JUROR WORLEY: Well, I have to hold my ear like

16 this. I'm sorry.

17           THE COURT: That is fine. Let me start out asking

18 you, Ms. Worley, and telling the rest of you on the bench

19 (sic), this trial is going to last three weeks, two to three

20 weeks. It will definitely go into the third week. So my

21 first question to you, Ms. Worley, because of your hearing

22 issues, is the length of that (sic) trial going to affect

23 your ability to hear and see everything that is going on in

24 this courtroom?

25           JUROR WORLEY: I don't know. I don't think I'm

 

1 able to hear unless I'm right up on you, like from here to

2 there, and I still have to hold my ear like this. I haven't

3 been able to get a hearing aid yet.

4           THE COURT: Okay. Tell you what, Ms. Worley, we

5 will keep you on the panel for a while and see how voir dire

6 goes. If you cannot hear, then we will determine whether

7 you should continue to serve on this jury, okay?

8          JUROR WORLEY: Come and do what?

9          THE COURT: Counsel, please approach for just a

10 moment.

11        (An off-the-record bench conference was had outside

12 the hearing of the jury:)

13          THE COURT: Ms. Worley, we're going to go ahead and

14 strike you. This trial is going to be so long, I think it

15 is going to be difficult for you to try to hear all the

16 different witnesses. So I'm going to go ahead and excuse

17 you from jury duty in this case. I cannot excuse you

18 completely because I am not the chief judge. But if you

19 will go back over to the jury assembly room, they will let

20 you know whether your services are needed for another case.

21           JUROR WORLEY: Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

22          THE COURT: Take your name back with you and give

23 it back to the jury clerk, to the gentleman in the jury

24 assembly room where you were this morning.

25           JUROR WORLEY: Okay. Thank you.

 

1          COURT CLERK: Shannon, S-H-A-N-N-O-N,

2 Stiger-Monahan, S-T-I-G-E-R-M-O-N-A-H-A-N.

3          THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you

4 that have not been called to the jury box, I need you to

5 stay in the courtroom. You're not excused unless I excuse

6 the entire jury. And I need you to listen carefully to the

7 questions. If one of these jurors is excused for some

8 reason from being a juror in this particular case, you may

9 be the next juror who is called. In the event that happens,

10 we must go back to the very first question and ask the same

11 questions of you that we're currently going to be asking of

12 the panel, and that will just help speed the process along.

13          For those of you in the jury room box, the whole

14 purpose of voir dire is to see if you do court today with

15 any preconceived ideas that may cause you to favor or

16 disfavor either the plaintiff or the defendant in this case.

17 We each obviously have our own life experiences. As a

18 result of those life experiences, they may tend to color how

19 we view certain things. So the entire purpose of voir dire

20 is to see if there is anything in your life experiences that

21 may cause you to either favor or disfavor either one of the

22 parties in this case.

23          As you will notice, there is currently 20 of you

24 sitting in the jury box. In Oklahoma, the law provides that

25 at the end of the voir dire questioning both counsel for

 

1 plaintiff, as well as counsel for defendant can strike three

2 of you as jurors in this case for any reason whatsoever as

3 long as it is not a reason that is prohibited by law. So at

4 the end of the voir dire process, there will be 14 of you

5 left in the jury box. The reason for that is that since

6 this is going to be a lengthy trial, I'm seating two

7 alternates. You will not know who the alternates are until

8 the case is submitted to you for your deliberation. As an

9 alternate, you will be treated in every respect as a juror

10 until the case is submitted for deliberation.

11          What I would like to do at this point in time is

12 introduce to you the parties to the lawsuit. I indicated

13 earlier the plaintiff in this case is Jean Bookout. Ms.

14 Bookout, please stand. And then Charles Schwarz, both

15 individually and as personal representative of the estate of

16 Barbara Schwarz, deceased, and then Richard Forrester

17 Brandt, who is also personal representative of the estate.

18 Is Mr. Brandt not present?

19          MR. ESDALE: No, ma'am.

20          THE COURT: So Mr. Schwarz will be representing the

21 estate?

22          MR. ESDALE: Yes, ma'am.

23           THE COURT: Thank you very much. Do any of you

24 know either Ms. Bookout, Mr. Schwarz, or Mr. Brandt? Is so,

25 please just raise your hand.

 

1         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

2          THE COURT: The plaintiffs in this case are going

3 to be represented by the following lawyer. Please stand

4 when I call your name. Larry Tawwater. He maybe assisted

5 by Darren Tawwater. It is my understanding he is not in the

6 courtroom right; is that correct?

7          MR. TAWWATER: That's correct.

8          THE COURT: They're with the law firm Tawwater Law

9 Firm. Then Jere Beasley, J. Cole Portis, Benjamin Baker,

10 and R. Graham Esdale. They we with the Law firm Beasley,

11 Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles. Do any of you

12 recognize any of these attorneys or recognize either of the

13 names of their law firms? If so, please raise your hand

14         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

15           THE COURT: Thank you. The defendants in this

16 case, as I indicated early, are Toyota Motor Corporation and

17 Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc. The corporate representative

18 for the defendants Ms. Alicia McAndrews. Ms. McAndrews,

19 please stand. And the defendants are represented by James

20 A. Jennings, J. Derrick Teague. They are with the law firm

21 Jennings, Cook & Teague. J. Randall Bibb, Jr., and Ryan

22 Clark. And they're with the law firm Lewis, King, Krieg &

23 Waldrop. Do any of you know either the Ms. McAndrews or the

24 attorneys for the defendants? Again, please raise your

25 hand.

 

1         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

2           THE COURT: Thank you. You may be seated. I'm

3 going to read to you a statement of the case. And this

4 statement of the case simply defines the issues in this

5 case, and the allegations or claims in this statement of the

6 case do not constitute evidence, nor do the statements or

7 arguments of counsel, but you will only consider as evidence

8 in this case the testimony heard from the witnesses from the

9 witness stand by the witnesses who are under oath. And many

10 of those witnesses -- I say "many" -- some of those

11 witnesses may be by video deposition, but that will still be

12 considered a witness.

13          You will also consider any exhibits which have been

14 introduced, any stipulations that the counsel make. And you

15 will consider that evidence under the instructions I'm

16 currently giving you and any instructions that I may give

17 you throughout the course of the trial, and then the final

18 instruction that I will give you at the very end of the

19 case.

20          The plaintiffs in this case, Jean Bookout and

21 Barbara Schwarz were traveling in a 2005 Camry on US Highway

22 69 in McIntosh County on September 20, 2007. Ms. Bookout

23 was the driver, Ms. Schwarz was the front seat passenger.

24 The vehicle exited the highway at Texana Road but did not

25 stop at the bottom of the exit ramp. It crossed Texana Road

 

1 and collided with a dirt embankment. Ms. Bookout and Ms.

2 Schwarz were injured in the crash. Ms. Schwarz died of her

3 injuries.

4          Ms. Bookout and the family of Ms. Schwarz allege

5 the vehicle was defective and unreasonably dangerous in its

6 design. They allege that defects in the brakes and the

7 throttle control caused the crash and the resulting injuries

8 and death.

9          Toyota, the manufacturer of the Camry, denies the

10 vehicle is defective and unreasonably dangerous. It alleges

11 the 2005 Camry was well designed and well manufactured. It

12 alleges that the soul cause of the crash and the resulting

13 injuries was the failure of the driver, Jean Bookout, to

14 operate the vehicle properly and safely. These will be the

15 issues that will be tried to you throughout this trial.

16          Before I go any further and read the list of

17 witnesses, I want to ask you-all: As I indicated earlier,

18 this trial is going to last two and probably three, into the

19 third week. So I would like to ask each of you: I know

20 that is very big inconvenience and it is going to cause

21 problems with you, perhaps, at work or home or wherever

22 else. But I want to know from each of you on the jury: Is

23 there anyone on the jury that this is going to work a severe

24 hardship? I know it's going to be a hardship on each and

25 every one of you, but is there anyone that it is going to

 

1 work a severe hardship on? If so, please raise your hand.

2         (Some jurors indicate.)

3          THE COURT: So, Mr. McPherson --

4          JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.

5          THE COURT: Mr. McPherson, what is going to be the

6 hardship on you if you serve on this jury? I need you to

7 speak really loud because we don't have a microphone to pass

8 around and Ms. Twyford is trying to take everything down.

9          JUROR MCPHERSON: I'm a licensed therapist, and

10 that would cause me not to see clients for three weeks, so I

11 have to get all those people shifted to different

12 clinicians.

13          THE COURT: Do you have a partner or someone that

14 works with you that can take over your patients during these

15 three weeks?

16           JUROR MCPHERSON: For some. Yes.

17          THE COURT: Then the others you would have to

18 reschedule them to another day?

19          JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.

20          THE COURT: Do you think, Mr. McPherson, if you

21 were here for three weeks that you would be able to

22 successfully get all of your patients rescheduled?

23           JUROR MCPHERSON: Possibly so.

24           THE COURT: Okay. Do you think that if you were

25 serving the three weeks, or -- and, again, it could go two,

 

1 but I'm thinking it will go into the third week, do you

2 think you would be able to focus on the issues in this case

3 and not be concerned about your patients during this

4 three-week time period?

5          JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.

6          THE COURT: You would be able to?

7          JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.

8           THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Then, Mr.

9 Sheppard, what is your reason?

10           JUROR SHEPPARD: Well, I'm being laid off on my

11 job, next couple of weeks, so the 21st. And I'm still

12 needing to find another job.

13          THE COURT: You're working until the 21st, then

14 they're going to be laid off at that point in time?

15           JUROR SHEPPARD: Yes.

16          THE COURT: Do you get paid, sir, while you're

17 actually working?

18           JUROR SHEPPARD: Yes.

19          THE COURT: So you would get paid while you're

20 here, you just wouldn't have the ability to go out and look

21 for another job?

22          JUROR SHEPPARD: Correct.

23          THE COURT: It has been a while since I have looked

24 for a job, but is a lot of that online that you can you do

25 during the lunch hour? We normally will take about an hour

 

1 and 15 minute lunch break.

2          JUROR SHEPPARD: I do some looking online, but the

3 majority is by phone.

4          THE COURT: Is it the type of thing you think you

5 can do -- we will take a morning break usually about 15

6 minutes, an afternoon break of about that long of time, then

7 an hour and 15 minute, usually, lunch break. Is that the

8 time that you will need to do the looking on the phone?

9           JUROR SHEPPARD: It's possible. Yes.

10           THE COURT: All right. I will leave you on for

11 right now then. Mr. Sabouri.

12           JUROR SABOURI: Yes. I am the owner of a software

13 business. We're on a tight production schedule. If I'm out

14 for three weeks, we will miss deadlines that we're

15 contracted to meet. And my role is irreplaceable. There

16 are 10 or 15 different people who are working for me that

17 will -- all of their activities will cease during the entire

18 three-week period.

19          THE COURT: So you're, as the owner, you're more

20 than just doing the books and keeping the doors open, you

21 have hands on on the software?

22           JUROR SABOURI: That's correct.

23          THE COURT: And you are telling the court that

24 there are deadlines right now that you will miss?

25           JUROR SABOURI: That's right.

 

1          THE COURT: And that there is no one else in the

2 business that can do your portion of the job?

3           JUROR SABOURI: No.

4          THE COURT: Counsel for plaintiff or defendant, do

5 either of you have any questions of this juror?

6          MR. BEASLEY: I have no questions.

7          THE COURT: Mr. Jennings, Mr. Bibb, do you have any

8 questions?

9          MR. JENNINGS: No, ma'am, I do not.

10          THE COURT: Then Mr. Sabouri, I will excuse you

11 from jury service in this particular case. Thank you.

12          COURT CLERK: Vickie, V-I-C-K-I-E, Potter,

13 P-O-T-T-E-R.

14          THE COURT: Ms. Potter, let me start with my

15 question about the three weeks. Is it going to work a

16 severe hardship on you?

17           JUROR POTTER: No.

18          THE COURT: When I introduced the parties and their

19 attorneys, did you recognize any of them?

20          JUROR POTTER: No, ma'am.

21          THE COURT: When I read the statement of the case,

22 was there anything about that case that you were familiar

23 with the facts of?

24           JUROR POTTER: No.

25          THE COURT: Let me start by asking that question

 

1 now of the entire panel. Based on the statement of the

2 case, is there anything about the case that sounds familiar

3 to you? Anything about the facts of the case? Again please

4 just raise your hand if anything sounded familiar.

5           Ms. Stiger-Monahan.

6           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes, ma'am. I've heard

7 information about -- I don't know this specific case -- but

8 the scenario you gave, on the radio about Toyota's cars.

9           THE COURT: Okay. And what did you hear?

10           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Pretty much the same

11 scenario that you just gave without the names.

12           THE COURT: Without the names. Okay. Has that

13 been something you heard recently?

14           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Possibly.

15           THE COURT: Okay. Let me ask: Based on what you

16 heard on the radio, do you think that's going to cause you,

17 or have you already formed an opinion about the issues in

18 this case?

19           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: No, ma'am.

20          THE COURT: Do you think you can still be fair and

21 impartial to both sides in this case?

22           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes.

23           THE COURT: Okay. Then, Ms. Crowe, did you raise

24 your hand?

25          JUROR CROWE: Yes. You were asking about hardship.

 

1 I'm a student and I work full time, so I'm having trouble

2 just keeping up with my school right now.

3          THE COURT: Ms. Crow, where do you go to school?

4          JUROR CROWE: I go to school at UCO, and studying

5 photography, so I have to have the light of day and certain

6 hours to do my work. So I'm trying to work that around my

7 full-time schedule.

8          THE COURT: How many hours are you currently taking

9 at UCO?

10          JUROR CROWE: Six hours.

11          THE COURT: Are they during the day?

12          JUROR CROWE: They're during the day.

13          THE COURT: Have you spoke to your professors about

14 the possibility of being on jury service?

15          JUROR CROWE: Not yet, because I'm not in school

16 today, so I wasn't sure if it was going go into tomorrow.

17          THE COURT: In addition to that -- let me ask this,

18 back to your six hours: Are those hours that you have to be

19 in a classroom, or is it an Internet class that you're?

20           JUROR CROWE: It's in the classroom, plus I'm

21 taking darkroom so I have to be at the school sometimes to

22 work late into the evening, early in the morning to get my

23 work done.

24          THE COURT: Then you also said that you're working

25 full time on top of that?

 

1           JUROR CROWE: Yes.

2          THE COURT: So if I did not excuse you from jury

3 duty, would that affect your ability to get credit for those

4 hours that you're currently taking?

5          JUROR CROWE: Probably.

6          THE COURT: Would you have to drop the cases, do

7 you think?

8          JUROR CROWE: I don't know if I can at this point.

9 I don't know if I would lose my money.

10          THE COURT: It is too late to drop without losing

11 your tuition?

12           JUROR CROWE: Yes.

13          THE COURT: Counsel, plaintiffs, do you have any

14 questions for this witness?

15          MR. BEASLEY: No, ma'am.

16          MR. JENNINGS: No, ma'am.

17          THE COURT: Ms. Crowe, I will excuse you from jury

18 duty. I need you to go back over to the jury assembly room

19 and there may be a shorter trial that you can be used on.

20 Ms. Heineman.

21           JUROR HEINEMAN: I have the same issue with her. I

22 go to school, four times a week from Monday to Thursdays,

23 usually in the morning time. And I work a full-time job,

24 too.

25          THE COURT: Where are you going to school?

 

1          JUROR HEINEMAN: OCCC.

2          THE COURT: And how many hours are you currently

3 enrolled in?

4           JUROR HEINEMAN: I take nine.

5          THE COURT: And are those classes that you actually

6 go to class, or are they Internet classes?

7           JUROR HEINEMAN: I go to class.

8          THE COURT: And the same thing, if you did not

9 continue to take those classes or attend class, would you

10 have to be forced to drop the class?

11           JUROR HEINEMAN: Yes. They take attendance.

12          THE COURT: Any questions, plaintiff, of Ms.

13 Heineman?

14          MR. BEASLEY: No questions.

15          MR. JENNINGS: No, ma'am.

16          THE COURT: Ms. Heineman, I will excuse you from

17 jury duty also. Before I get to you, sir, let me replace

18 two. We will call a juror to replace Ms. Crowe first.

19          COURT CLERK: Helen, H-E-L-E-N, Collett,

20 C-O-L-L-E-T-T.

21          THE COURT: Also call a replacement for Ms.

22 Heineman.

23          COURT CLERK: Michelle, M-I-C-H-E-L-L-E, Sampson,

24 S-A-M-P-S-O-N.

25          THE COURT: Mr. Golestani, you raised your hand.

 

1 What would be the severe hardship to you?

2          JUROR GOLESTANI: I have a time -- I don't have a

3 problem for the time, but my English is not perfect, and I

4 don't understand exactly what you say or anything it is. It

5 is a problem for the years. I have a time, but my English

6 is not perfect, as a little bit that I understand English.

7          THE COURT: Have you been able to follow what has

8 been said this morning so far?

9          JUROR GOLESTANI: I tell you, I don't understand

10 perfectly, but sometimes I -- there is -- my English is not

11 perfect. It is basically. You say after a long time -- it

12 is right now I understand is what you're asking. Because

13 that lady says I have this problem, I think you're asking

14 about the problem for them.

15           THE COURT: Okay. Do you think based on your

16 limited English, are you going to believe able to follow and

17 understand what is going on in this courtroom?

18          JUROR GOLESTANI: Sorry.

19          THE COURT: Are you going to be -- do you

20 understand what I'm saying now? I don't quite -- when you

21 say "basic English," do you work outside of your home.

22          JUROR GOLESTANI: Yeah.

23          THE COURT: What type of job do you have?

24           JUROR GOLESTANI: Construction.

25           THE COURT: Construction. And are you able to

 

1 communicate your clients?

2           JUROR GOLESTANI: No. I work for myself.

3           THE COURT: Okay. So are you able to talk to

4 people to get the work?

5           JUROR GOLESTANI: No.

6           THE COURT: Okay. Plaintiff, do you have any

7 questions for this gentleman?

8          MR. BEASLEY: No, ma'am.

9           THE COURT: Mr. Jennings?

10           MR. JENNINGS: No.

11          THE COURT: Mr. Golestani, I will excuse you for

12 jury duty on this case. I need you to go back to the jury

13 assembly room, and they will let you know if you're needed

14 for another jury.

15          Ms. Collett, do you have any problems that would be

16 a severe hardship if you were chosen to serve on a jury that

17 may last three weeks?

18           JUROR COLLETT: Not at the moment.

19           THE COURT: Thank you. Then I think we need one

20 more replacement.

21          COURT CLERK: Hannah, H-A-N-N-A-H, Vick, V-I-C-K.

22          THE COURT: Ms. Vick, is there anything, or is it

23 going to work a severe hardship on you if you were asked to

24 serve on a jury that may last three weeks?

25           JUROR VICK: Yes.

 

1

 

THE COURT:

What is the reason for that?

2

 

JUROR VICK:

I'm a full-time student from Shawnee,

3

but my resident address is in Oklahoma City.

4

 

THE COURT:

Are you going to OBU?

5

 

JUROR VICK:

Yes.

6

 

THE COURT:

How many hours are you currently

7

taking?

 

 

8

 

JUROR VICK:

Sixteen.

9

 

THE COURT:

Are they in class or online classes?

10

 

JUROR VICK:

They're all  in class.

11

 

THE COURT:

Online,   you said?

12

 

JUROR VICK:

In class.

13

 

THE COURT:

I'm assuming same thing,  if you don't

14

go to class you will

not get your grade, and you will have

15

to retake the class?

 

16

 

JUROR VICK:

Yes.

17

 

THE COURT:

Any questions from plaintiff?

18

 

MR.   BEASLEY:   No,   ma'am.

19

 

MR.   JENNINGS:   No,   ma'am.

20

 

THE COURT:

Ms. Vick,  I will   excuse you from jury

21

duty also.

 

22

 

COURT CLERK:

Pamela,    P-A-M-E-L-A,  Cross,

23

C-R-O-S-S.

 

24

 

THE COURT:

Ms. Cross,   do you have anything during

25

next three weeks that is going t work a severe hardship for

 

1 you if you were chosen for jury duty in this case?

2          JUROR VICK: I believe I can make accommodations.

3           THE COURT: Thank you very much. Ladies and

4 gentlemen, I'm going to excuse myself for one minute because

5 I left a sheet of paper on my desk that I need to go locate.

6 Excuse me for just one moment.

7         (Brief pause in proceedings.)

8           THE COURT: For those of you new jurors that I have

9 called up here to the bench, did you hear when I read the

10 list, or when I introduced the parties as well as their

11 counsel? Did any of you know either the parties or their

12 counsel or heard of the law firms? If so, please raise your

13 hand.

14         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

15          THE COURT: When I read the statement of the case,

16 was there anything in the statement of case that made you

17 think that you might know something about this particular

18 case?

19         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

20           THE COURT: All right. Again, no one raised their

21 hand. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to read

22 to you a list of potential witnesses in this case. And it

23 is a rather lengthy list, so I'm going to read a few names

24 and then I will stop and ask if you know any of those names.

25          Other than the parties, Ms. Bookout, Charles

 

1 Schwarz, and Richard Brandt, these are additional witnesses

2 who may be called. After I've read a few of the names, I

3 will ask if you know or recognize any of those names.

4 Michael Bookout, Sherry Brandt, Margie Meibergen,

5 M-E-I-B-E-R-G-E-N, Julie Mayfield, Katherine Western, Milton

6 Allen, Trooper J. W. Duerson, Trooper Berkley Cash, Star

7 Caudle, C-A-U-D-L-E, Dr. Justin Atherton, Dr. David Min,

8 M-I-N, Dr. Robert Wienecke, W-I-E-N-E-C-K-E.

9          Do any of those names range a bell or sound

10 familiar to anyone on the panel? Yes, Ms. Medlin.

11           JUROR MEDLIN: Dr. Wienecke. I'm a physical

12 therapist, and I have seen some of his patients in the past.

13           THE COURT: You have worked with his patients in

14 the past?

15           JUROR MEDLIN: Yes.

16          THE COURT: Other than a professional relationship,

17 do you have an outside -- are you friends outside the

18 office?

19           JUROR MEDLIN: Not friends.

20           THE COURT: Is there anything about your working

21 for Dr. Wienecke that if he does, in fact, testify that you

22 would tend to put more weight or more credit on his

23 testimony as opposed to someone else?

24           JUROR MEDLIN: No.

25           THE COURT: Thank you very much. Anyone else know

 

1 any of those first names that I read? Yes, Ms. Cross.

2           JUROR CROSS: I had spinal surgery in June, and I

3 believe that the physician is one of the partners in that

4 medical practice, but I've never met him.

5           THE COURT: Are you talking about Dr. Wienecke?

6 which physician are you talking about?

7           JUROR CROSS: Mr. Nasr I believe --

8           THE COURT: Okay.

9           JUROR CROSS: -- is a partner in the medical

10 practice.

11           THE COURT: Okay. Who did you have your surgery

12 with?

13           JUROR CROSS: Dr. Fadi Nasr, N A S R.

14           THE COURT: Okay. And you think Dr. Wienecke might

15 be a partner in his?

16           JUROR CROSS: I think so.

17           THE COURT: But you have never met Dr. Wienecke?

18           JUROR CROSS: No.

19           THE COURT: Would you tend to put more weight on

20 Dr. Wienecke's testimony if he is, in fact, a partner with

21 Dr. Nasr?

22           JUROR CROSS: No.

23           THE COURT: Anyone else who knew any of those first

24 names?

25         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

 

1           THE COURT: Then I also have Jim Lentz, L-E-N-T-Z;

2 Keiichi Fukushima, K-E-I-I-C-H-I F-U-K-U-S-H-I-M-A; Satoshi

3 Ishii, S-A-T-O-S-H-I I-S-H-I-I; Shigeyuki Kawana

4 S-I-G-E-Y-U-K-I (sic),last name K-A-W-A-N-A; Keiichi Osawa,

5 K-E-I-I-C-H-I O-S-A-W-A; Akio Toyoda, A-K-I-O T-O-Y-O-D-A;

6 Masatami Takimoto, M-A-S-A-T-A-M-I, last name

7 T-A-K-I-M-O-T-O; Chris Santucci, S-A-N-T-U-C-C-I; Chris

8 Tinto, T-I-N-T-O; Hiroshi Hagiwara, H-I-R-O-S-H-I, last

9 name, H-A-G-I-W-A-R-A.

10          Do any of those names sound familiar to anyone?

11         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

12           THE COURT: No one raised their hands. Mike

13 McCort, M-C-C-O-R-T; Rick Gill, G-I-L-L; Philip Koopman,

14 K-O-O-P-M-A-N; Michael Barr; Neil Hannemann,

15 H-A-N-N-E-M-A-N-N; Allen Kam, K-A-M; Dr. Lee-Jen Wei, W-E-I;

16 Dr. Steve Loudon, L-O-U-D-O-N; Dr. Marthinus Van Schoor,

17 V-A-N-S-C-H-O-O-R; Dr. Todd Hubing, H-U-B-I-N-G.

18          Do any of you recognize any of those names?

19         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

20          THE COURT: Grady Bonds; Robert Gonzales; Anita

21 Jorge, J-O-R-G-E; Colleen Lambert; Joseph McClelland; Mary

22 Pries-Morrison; Sandra Reech, R-E-E-C-H; Ida St. John;

23 Shirlene Van Alfen, V-A-N A-L-F-E-N; Geraldine Waters;

24 Manfred Heinrich, H-E-I-N-R-I-C-H; Christell Johnson;

25 Charles Shepard; Margaret Sportsman; Deron Walker.

 

1          Do any of those names sound familiar?

2         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

3          THE COURT: Brad Smith; Dr. Dustin Buckley; Dr.

4 Catrina Bourne, B-O-U-R-N-E; Dr. Stephen Cagill; Dr. David

5 Fisher; Ashish Arora, first name, A-S-H-I-S-H, Arora,

6 A-R-O-R-A; Catherine Ford Corrigan, PhD; Robert Landis,

7 L-A-N-D-I-S; Robert Lange; Thomas Livernois,

8 L-I-V-E-R-N-O-I-S, PhD; Jeya Padmanaban, J-E-Y-A

9 P-A-D-M-A-N-A-B-A-N, PhD; Karl Stopschinski,

10 S-T-O-P-S-C-H-I-N-S-K-I; James Walker; Douglas Young, PhD;

11 Tsutomu Miyazaki, T-S-U-T-O-M-U M-I-Y-A-Z-A-K-I; and

12 Michihito, M-I-C-H-I-H-I-T-O, last name, Shimada,

13 S-H-I-M-A-D-A.

14          Does anyone recognize any of those last names?

15 Again, please raise your hand.

16           JUROR MEDLIN: Dr. Fisher, same thing. I mean,

17 I've seen some of his patients.

18           THE COURT: But you still could be fair to both

19 sides in this case, you would not give his testimony more

20 weight?

21           JUROR MEDLIN: No.

22           THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, if you would look

23 around the panel, do you know one another?

24         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

25           THE COURT: Anyone know anyone else on the panel?

 

1         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

2           THE COURT: Okay. Have any of you-all read -- I

3 know a couple of you, at least one, said that you perhaps

4 knew something about this case from reading something or

5 hearing something on the radio. Have you read anything in

6 the newspaper at all about the issues in this case involving

7 Toyota vehicles?

8         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

9           THE COURT: Have you read anything in or watched

10 anything on television that may -- that involved the issues

11 in this case?

12         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

13           THE COURT: Have you read anything in magazines

14 that is may involve the issues in this case?

15         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

16          THE COURT: Have you heard anything on television

17 or watched any of the congressional hearings that may have

18 been involved with the matters in this case?

19         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

20          THE COURT: So there is no one on the jury, or is

21 there anyone on the jury that knows anything at all about

22 the facts and issues from what little you know about the

23 issues in this case at this point in time?

24         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

25           THE COURT: Do any of you drive either a Toyota, a

 

1 Lexus product, or a Scion, S-C-I-O-N? Do any of you drive

2 one of those types of vehicles, makes or models of those

3 types of vehicles.

4           JUROR SPERLING: I do.

5           THE COURT: Mr. Sperling, what type of Toyota do

6 you drive?

7           JUROR SPERLING: It's a Rav 4.

8           THE COURT: Okay. How old is that vehicle?

9           JUROR SPERLING: It is five years old.

10           THE COURT: And have you had any -- would you say

11 your experience has been good or bad with that vehicle?

12           JUROR SPERLING: Generally good.

13           THE COURT: Okay. All right. Anyone else that

14 drives any one of those types of products?

15         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

16           THE COURT: Let me start with Ms. Powell, and I

17 want to go through the back row, middle row, and front row,

18 and just tell me what type of car you drive, and if there is

19 someone else in your house what type of car they drive.

20          Ms. Powell.

21           JUROR POWELL: I drive a Honda Sonata. And I live

22 alone.

23           THE COURT: Ms. McCaskill, what type of car do you

24 drive?

25           JUROR MCCASKILL: Mazda 3. And there is Honda in

 

1 my house, another Mazda.

2          THE COURT: What type of Honda is it?

3           JUROR MCCASKILL: CX or no, the SUV. CRV.

4           THE COURT: And you said you have another Mazda?

5           JUROR MCCASKILL: Uh-huh.

6          THE COURT: What kind of model is it?

7          JUROR MCCASKILL: I think it's an RX8, and mine is

8 a Mazda 3.

9           THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Sampson.

10

11

JUROR SAMPSON:   Chevy Impala,   Pontiac Grand Prix,

and a Ford Focus and Ford Escort.

12

 

THE COURT:

Ms.   Cross.

13

 

JUROR CROSS:

Jeep Compass, and there is a Toyota

14

Yaris

in my house.

 

15

 

THE COURT:

How do you spell that?

16

 

JUROR CROSS:

Y-A-R-I-S.

17

 

THE COURT:

I'm not familiar with that type of car.

18

Is it a SUV?

 

19

 

JUROR CROSS:

No.  It's a small  --

20

 

THE COURT:

How long have you had that vehicle?

21

 

JUROR CROSS:

I think my housemate has it two

22

years.

 

23

THE COURT:

Do you know if her experiences have

24

they been good,  bad,

just indifferent?

25

 

JUROR CROSS:

I think it's been good as far as I

 

1 know.

2           THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Henson.

3          JUROR HENSON: GMC Sierra pickup, Mercury Sable.

4          THE COURT: Mr. Brock.

5          JUROR BROCK: Ford mustang, Ford Focus, and there

6 is a Dodge Ram in my household.

7          THE COURT: Ms. Russell.

8          JUROR RUSSELL: Chrysler 300 Hemi, and I think it

9 is a Ford Explorer.

10          THE COURT: So you said a Chrysler and a Ford

11 Explorer?

12          JUROR RUSSELL: Right.

13           THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Grogg.

14          JUROR GROGG: Ford Mustang and a Honda Civic.

15          THE COURT: Mr. Courtright.

16           JUROR COURTRIGHT: I drive a Honda Odyssey, my

17 husband has an Accord. I do have a son that has a Toyota

18 vehicle. He has owned it for several years.

19          THE COURT: What kind of Toyota does he drive?

20           JUROR COURTRIGHT: It is a two-door sedan. I can't

21 remember the name of it.

22          THE COURT: Has his experience been good, bad or

23 otherwise?

24          JUROR COURTRIGHT: It has been good.

25          THE COURT: Mr. Garcia.

 

1          JUROR GARCIA: GMC pickup, GMC Envoy, Pontiac

2 Solstice.

3          THE COURT: Mr. McPherson.

4           JUROR MCPHERSON: Three Hyundais.

5          THE COURT: Are they Sonatas?

6          JUROR MCPHERSON: Sonata, XG-350, and Elantra.

7           THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Sperling.

8          JUROR SPERLING: Other than the Rav 4 we have a

9 Volvo S60.

10          THE COURT: And then Mr. Sheppard.

11          JUROR SHEPPARD: Cadillac DeVille.

12          THE COURT: Ms. Culbreath.

13           JUROR CULBREATH: Honda Civic.

14          THE COURT: Ms. Medlin.

15          JUROR MEDLIN: Nissan Pathfinder and Nissan Altima.

16          THE COURT: Ms. Collett, I will stick over to you.

17           JUROR COLLETT: I have a 20-year-old Mercury

18 Cougar.

19          THE COURT: Does it still run good?

20          JUROR COLLETT: It does.

21          THE COURT: Ms. Potter.

22          JUROR POTTER: Jeep Wrangler and Chevy Silverado

23 and a Monte Carlo, a Chevy.

24          THE COURT: Ms. Andrade.

25          JUROR ANDRADE: A Dodge Nitro and a Jeep Wrangler.

 

1          THE COURT: And Ms. Cook.

2           JUROR COOK: Hyundai Elantra.

3          THE COURT: And Ms. Stiger-Monahan.

4           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Mazda 3.

5          THE COURT: For all of you that have just told me

6 about the type of vehicle that you own, have any of you ever

7 had any really good or really bad experiences with your

8 vehicles, as far as just the performance of your vehicles,

9 really good or really bad experiences?

10         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

11           THE COURT: Okay. What about have any of you ever

12 had to make any warranty claims under -- with your vehicles

13 for something that didn't work properly and you had to make

14 a warranty claim? Ms. Courtright, yes, what type of claim

15 did you have to make?

16          JUROR COURTRIGHT: It was a warranty on something

17 that had to do with one of the van doors getting recalled.

18          THE COURT: So it was subject to some sort of

19 recall notice?

20          JUROR COURTRIGHT: Yes.

21          THE COURT: Did you just take it in and get it

22 fixed?

23          JUROR COURTRIGHT: Yes.

24          THE COURT: In addition to warranty, if any of you

25 have been subject to a recall like Ms. Courtright just

 

1 mentioned, I would be interested in knowing that too. Mr.

2 Garcia, did you raise your hand?

3          JUROR GARCIA: Recall on the Envoy.

4          THE COURT: What was the issue involved in that?

5          JUROR GARCIA: It was some kind of software that

6 they needed to reprogram it.

7          THE COURT: And you took it in and had it fixed?

8           JUROR GARCIA: Yes.

9           THE COURT: Anyone else? Ms. Cross.

10           JUROR CROSS: Very similar. Recall something to do

11 with the programs on an air bag.

12           THE COURT: Okay. Which one of your cars was that?

13           JUROR CROSS: That was the jeep.

14          THE COURT: And you took it in and had it fixed?

15           JUROR CROSS: Yes.

16          THE COURT: Did you have any problems after that?

17          JUROR CROSS: No, ma'am.

18          THE COURT: Anyone else have warranty issues or

19 owned a vehicle subject to a recall? Ms. Cook.

20          JUROR COOK: I've had multiple recalls on past

21 vehicles. I had a GMC Savana, it was a van. I can't

22 remember. It was a van, electrical problems with the remote

23 mirrors. And then I had an S-10 pickup that I had a recall,

24 that was a short causing issues. And then I had another

25 S-10 pickup with the same issue.

 

1          THE COURT: On each one of those, did you just take

2 it in and have it taken care of?

3           JUROR COOK: On two of them I did, but on the van I

4 did not because I ended up selling it, so they took care of

5 it.

6           THE COURT: Anymore else that I missed? Ms.

7 Culbreath.

8           JUROR CULBREATH: I think I had a recall on a

9 previous Honda. I don't remember what it was about.

10          THE COURT: So it has been some time ago?

11          JUROR CULBREATH: Yes.

12          THE COURT: Are any of you, and by you I mean you

13 or your spouse close family member or friends, in any way

14 involved with the auto industry, mechanics, did you work

15 with a production company, like when GM was opened, involved

16 with car sales, anything having to do with the automobile

17 industry. Mr. Garcia, I see that you're raising your hand.

18 Who do you know, and what did they do?

19          JUROR GARCIA: Retired GM employee.

20           THE COURT: You are?

21           JUROR GARCIA: Yes, ma'am.

22          THE COURT: Mr. Brock, did you raise your hand?

23           JUROR BROCK: I'm an aircraft mechanic. On the

24 side I do racing and cars and stuff.

25           THE COURT: Dirt track?

 

1           JUROR BROCK: Drag racing.

2           THE COURT: All right. Yes. Ms. Cook.

3          JUROR COOK: My father worked for General Motors,

4 and my uncle works for Ford.

5           THE COURT: What does your uncle do for Ford?

6           JUROR COOK: He is retired now. I wasn't exactly

7 sure it was the assembly line.

8           THE COURT: Anyone else know anyone? Yes, Ms.

9 Andrade.

10          JUROR ANDRADE: My brother-in-law is a mechanic at

11 David Stanley Dodge.

12          THE COURT: And Ms. Potter.

13          JUROR POTTER: I made gaskets for automotive.

14          THE COURT: And do you still do that?

15          JUROR POTTER: I don't make those anymore.

16           THE COURT: Anyone else? Ms. Russell.

17          JUROR RUSSELL: My brother-in-law worked for GM,

18 but he is not any longer.

19           THE COURT: All right. Anyone else that I missed

20 have any involvement with automotive industry?

21         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

22          THE COURT: What about with computers and,

23 particularly, the design of software or hardware or just

24 something as simple as selling computers at Best Buy?

25 Anybody personally involved or know anyone that is involved

 

1 in the computer industry? Ms. McCaskill.

2           JUROR MCCASKILL: Yes. My dad writes software, but

3 he is in Florida.

4          THE COURT: He lives in Florida?

5          JUROR MCCASKILL: Yes.

6          THE COURT: What type of software programs, if you

7 know, does he write?

8          JUROR MCCASKILL: He tells me about it, but I don't

9 understand what he is saying. He does, I think, it is web

10 based.

11           THE COURT: Okay.

12           JUROR MCCASKILL: For a website.

13          THE COURT: And he lives in Florida?

14           JUROR MCCASKILL: Yes, ma'am.

15          THE COURT: And you didn't follow in his footsteps

16 and do software?

17           JUROR MCCASKILL: No.

18           THE COURT: Anyone else?

19           JUROR SAMPSON: Yes.

20          THE COURT: Ms. Sampson.

21          JUROR SAMPSON: My husband used to work for Seagate

22 when they were here just building the computer boards and

23 things like that.

24          THE COURT: Was his more the manufacturing of

25 putting the boards together or developing how the boards --

 

1          JUROR SAMPSON: It was the manufacturing.

2           THE COURT: Anyone else? Ms. Cook.

3          JUROR COOK: My brother-in-law, who lives in

4 Florida, he designs web pages as well as AutoCAD.

5           THE COURT: AutoCAD? What is that?

6          JUROR COOK: It has something to be doing with,

7 like, drawing design, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I don't

8 really talk to him about that kind of stuff, it's over my

9 head.

10           THE COURT: All right. Anyone else knows anyone in

11 the computer industry? Yes, Ms. Russell.

12          JUROR RUSSELL: My son, he does the -- I don't know

13 who now, it's top secret, but he does Oracle and -- what is

14 the other one? Java.

15           THE COURT: Okay. And that is your son?

16          JUROR RUSSELL: Yes.

17          THE COURT: And down just kind of generally what he

18 is without revealing the top secret information?

19           JUROR RUSSELL: Top secret.

20          THE COURT: He just tells you that he works at

21 Oracle and Java?

22           JUROR RUSSELL: Right. He does training and

23 everything. I don't ask, and I don't get into it.

24          THE COURT: It's not here in Oklahoma City, is it?

25           JUROR RUSSELL: No. It's in DC.

 

1           THE COURT: DC. All right. Anyone else?

2         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

3          THE COURT: Are any of you involved in the medical

4 field, doctors, nurses EMSA? Ms. Cook, there is always one

5 particular juror that answers everything. You are the lucky

6 one this time. Ms. Cook, who do you know, or are you

7 involved in the field?

8           JUROR COOK: Well, currently I'm working at

9 Concentra Urgent Care. I do front and back office work. I

10 worked in surgery for a while with spine specialists doing

11 pain management. I also worked at Oklahoma City Clinic,

12 Grady Memorial Hospital, The Heart Hospital.

13           THE COURT: Are you an RN?

14           JUROR COOK: No. But I can do all of that and do

15 AMA work because I've been cross trained to do everything.

16 I can do x-rays, I can do paperwork, pretty much anything.

17           THE COURT: So what do you normally do? Are you a

18 scrub tech?

19          JUROR COOK: I have done that too.

20           THE COURT: So --

21          JUROR COOK: Right now, my actual job description

22 is, like, a checkout technician. And I'm cross training to

23 do check in at this moment right now.

24          THE COURT: Where do you currently work?

25          JUROR COOK: Concentra Urgent Care, west side of

 

1 Crossroads Mall.

2          THE COURT: I was going to say your job description

3 is probably jack of all trades in the medical field.

4          JUROR COOK: Pretty much.

5          THE COURT: Who did you when -- you worked with the

6 surgery, what doctors did you work for?

7           JUROR COOK: I work with J.G. Melton who is a

8 cardiologist. He now works at the Heart Hospital. I did

9 angiographies with him and scrubbed with him. When I was in

10 surgery with the spine doctors, I had four different

11 physicians that I worked with, and then fellows that came

12 in, and that was at Oklahoma City Clinic. And I ran an

13 x-ray machine when I was working with them.

14          THE COURT: Do you recall the names of any of those

15 four physicians?

16           JUROR COOK: Yeah. I worked Mark Strayhan, who has

17 moved. Then Dr. -- I worked with Dr. Lee, not that Dr. Lee.

18 And then I worked with a female Dr. Wienecke at OU Med. I

19 don't know if she is related to that one. And then Dr.

20 McCombs, McSomething. I can't remember. And I don't

21 remember the other one.

22           THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anyone else

23 have any involvement in the medical field?

24           JUROR COLLETT: Retired LPN.

25          THE COURT: Did you have specifically that you did

 

1 when you were working?

2          JUROR COLLETT: In my younger days it was the heart

3 surgeries like at St. Anthony. Then as I got progressively

4 older, it was nursing homes.

5           THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Medlin.

6          JUROR MEDLIN: I'm a physical therapist.

7           THE COURT: That's right. Ms. Courtright.

8          JUROR COURTRIGHT: I work for an optometrist.

9           THE COURT: Anyone else? Yes, Ms. Cross.

10          JUROR CROSS: I direct a nonprofit organization

11 that coordinates healthcare for low-income uninsured people.

12          THE COURT: What is the nonprofit that you work

13 for?

14          JUROR CROSS: It is called the Health Alliance for

15 the Uninsured.

16           THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anyone else

17 that I missed? Yes, Ms. Cook.

18          JUROR COOK: Dr. Wienecke's first name is Gretchen.

19          THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much. What

20 about law enforcement? Any of you ever been in the police,

21 have you ever worked for any type of law enforcement,

22 deputy's office, anything at all with law enforcement? Yes,

23 Ms. Andrade.

24          JUROR ANDRADE: My husband is a former police

25 officer.

 

1           THE COURT: Did he work here in Oklahoma City?

2           JUROR ANDRADE: Edmond.

3           THE COURT: And he is not retired from that?

4           JUROR ANDRADE: No. He just switched jobs.

5           THE COURT: Ms. Collett.

6           JUROR COLLETT: I worked at the county jail for a

7 while.

8           THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anyone else,

9 any type of law enforcement? Yes, Ms. Cook.

10           JUROR COOK: Well, I did janitorial when we owned

11 our own business when I lived at home. But then the police

12 officers would also use me to go and buy underage alcohol

13 and things like that. I don't know if that is considered

14 working with them.

15           THE COURT: Close enough. What about just

16 governmental agencies outside law enforcement? Anyone know

17 anyone that is part of the governmental agency? Ms.

18 McCaskill.

19          JUROR MCCASKILL: I work for the state of Oklahoma.

20           THE COURT: What do you do?

21           JUROR MCCASKILL: I work for the Department of

22 Environmental Quality for the radiation management section,

23 so I do licensing and inspections in the state.

24           THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else work for the

25 state or federal government? Mr. Brock.

 

1          JUROR BROCK: I work for the DOD at Tinker.

2          THE COURT: Anyone else work at Tinker, have any

3 military background?

4         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

5          THE COURT: Anyone else with government, state, or

6 federal government?

7         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

8           THE COURT: All right. Have any of you ever been

9 in a car accident before?

10         (Some jurors respond.)

11           THE COURT: All right. Ms. Sampson, yes.

12           JUROR SAMPSON: Yes. Well, I have been rear-ended

13 a couple of times. Last one was in March when we were

14 rear-ended in the Impala.

15          THE COURT: Were you injured in either one of

16 those?

17           JUROR SAMPSON: No.

18          THE COURT: Was there any type of lawsuit filed in

19 either one of those cases?

20           JUROR SAMPSON: No.

21          THE COURT: Was anyone at all injured in the

22 accidents?

23           JUROR SAMPSON: No. Just minor injuries. Just a

24 few medical bills, but the insurance took care of that.

25          THE COURT: Anyone else on the back row been

 

1 involved in a car accident? Ms. Powell, I missed you.

2           JUROR POWELL: Yes.

3          THE COURT: What type of accident did you have?

4          JUROR POWELL: I was hit broadside, but it has been

5 years ago.

6          THE COURT: Were you injured?

7          JUROR POWELL: No, but my child was.

8          THE COURT: What type of injuries did your child

9 have?

10           JUROR POWELL: A broken leg.

11          THE COURT: Did your child recover?

12           JUROR POWELL: Yes.

13          THE COURT: Was there any type of lawsuit filed in

14 that case?

15           JUROR POWELL: No.

16           THE COURT: Thank you very much. Anyone else on

17 the back row ever been involved in a car accident? Ms.

18 Russell.

19           JUROR RUSSELL: I was rear-ended.

20          THE COURT: Any injuries.

21           JUROR RUSSELL: No.

22          THE COURT: No one at all was injured?

23           JUROR RUSSELL: No.

24          THE COURT: Any type of lawsuit filed?

25          JUROR RUSSELL: Insurance company took care of it.

 

1           THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.

2 Anyone in the middle row ever been involved in a car

3 accident? Mr. Garcia.

4           JUROR GARCIA: Rear-ended in 2009.

5           THE COURT: Any injuries?

6           JUROR GARCIA: Yes.

7          THE COURT: What type of injuries did you have?

8           JUROR GARCIA: Back injury.

9           THE COURT: Did it require surgery? Did it resolve

10 itself?

11          JUROR GARCIA: No, it was mostly therapy.

12           THE COURT: Therapy? Okay. Has it now resolved

13 itself?

14           JUROR GARCIA: Yes.

15          THE COURT: Was there any type of lawsuit filed?

16           JUROR GARCIA: Yes, we did.

17          THE COURT: Did you actually have to go to court,

18 or did it settle outside of court?

19          JUROR GARCIA: It was settled out of court.

20          THE COURT: Did you have to give a deposition in

21 the case?

22           JUROR GARCIA: Yes, ma'am.

23          THE COURT: For those that don't know, prior to

24 coming into the courtroom today, both the plaintiff and the

25 defendant have been allowed to do what we call discovery.

 

1 That means they get to find out the basis and the facts of

2 each others case, each other's basically side of their case.

3 One of those discovery tools is a deposition. And as I

4 indicated earlier, some of the witnesses may not be

5 testifying live, they maybe testifying through a deposition.

6 And so it is just like testifying at trial, you're sworn,

7 put under oath, and then both sides, both attorneys for both

8 sides are allowed to ask you questions.

9          Anyone else on the second row that has ever been

10 involved in a car accident? Mr. McPherson.

11           JUROR MCPHERSON: Hit and run.

12          THE COURT: Were you injured?

13           JUROR MCPHERSON: No.

14           THE COURT: All right. Anyone else on the middle

15 row? What about the front row? I'm sorry, Mr. Sperling.

16          JUROR SPERLING: Rear-ended a long time ago.

17          THE COURT: Ms. Courtright.

18          JUROR COURTRIGHT: I've been rear-ended, but no

19 injuries, no lawsuit.

20           THE COURT: Thank you. What about the front row.

21 Anyone else? Ms. Andrade.

22           JUROR ANDRADE: I was in an accident in '06. I had

23 run -- it was a green light when it should have been -- it

24 is where it switches from an arrow to a green light. I had

25 hit a car, and there was no lawsuit filed. It was

 

1 insurance.

2          THE COURT: Neither one of you were hurt?

3          JUROR ANDRADE: Just minor injuries.

4          THE COURT: Anyone else on the front seat row?

5 Yes, Ms. Cook.

6           JUROR COOK: I got broadsided. I was a passenger

7 in a small Chevy, and I got whiplash. And then --

8          THE COURT: What type of treatment did you have to

9 have for that?

10          JUROR COOK: To be honest I couldn't even tell you.

11 It's been 25 years ago. And then I got hit in my front

12 corner panel of my car, a valet service was speeding through

13 a parking garage and came off a ramp and hit the front end,

14 front corner panel. And I ended up -- I didn't have any

15 injuries, but I ended up having to take them to court to fix

16 the car. And I believe we ended up settling out of court.

17           THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Ms.

18 Stiger-Monahan.

19           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Yes, ma'am. I've been

20 rear-ended, but no injuries and no lawsuit.

21           THE COURT: Okay.

22          JUROR POTTER: Same here, just rear-ended.

23           THE COURT: No injuries?

24           JUROR POTTER: No.

25          THE COURT: Have any of you ever served on a jury

 

1 before? Yes, Ms. Sampson, what type of jury was it?

2           JUROR SAMPSON: Murder trial.

3          THE COURT: Here in Oklahoma County?

4          JUROR SAMPSON: Uh-huh.

5          THE COURT: And I don't want to know what the

6 verdict was, but did the jury reach a verdict?

7           JUROR SAMPSON: Yes. I actually have been on two,

8 and both reached a verdict.

9          THE COURT: One was a murder and -- both were

10 murders. And in both cases did the jury reach a verdict?

11           JUROR SAMPSON: Yes.

12          THE COURT: In either case were you the jury

13 foreman?

14           JUROR SAMPSON: No.

15          THE COURT: Anyone else ever served on a jury

16 before? Yes, Ms. Courtright.

17           JUROR COURTRIGHT: It was a drunk-driving

18 situation.

19          THE COURT: Do you remember, was it a criminal case

20 or civil case?

21          JUROR COURTRIGHT: I think it was a criminal case.

22          THE COURT: Was it here in Oklahoma County?

23          JUROR COURTRIGHT: Yes.

24          THE COURT: Without telling me the verdict, did the

25 jury reach a verdict?

 

1

 

JUROR COURTRIGHT:  Yes.

 

2

 

THE COURT:   Were you the jury foreman?

 

3

 

JUROR COURTRIGHT:   No, ma'am.

 

4

 

THE COURT:   Mr. Garcia?

 

5

 

JUROR GARCIA:   Civil  case.

 

6

 

THE COURT:   Do you remember what it was about?

 

7

 

JUROR GARCIA:   It was -- if I remember right,

it

8

was

an accident.

 

9

 

THE COURT:   Car accident?

 

 

10           JUROR GARCIA: Yes.

11          THE COURT: Did the jury reach a verdict?

12           JUROR GARCIA: Yes.

13          THE COURT: Were you the foreman?

14           JUROR GARCIA: No.

15           THE COURT: Was it very long ago? Do you recall

16 how long?

17           JUROR GARCIA: About five days.

18           THE COURT: How long ago was the trial? Was it

19 last year?

20          JUROR GARCIA: That was probably five years ago.

21           THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Anyone else on

22 the middle row? Mr. McPherson.

23          JUROR MCPHERSON: It was a civil case.

24           THE COURT: Do you recall what it was about?

25          JUROR MCPHERSON: Medical malpractice.

 

1          THE COURT: Did the jury reach a verdict?

2          JUROR MCPHERSON: Yes.

3          THE COURT: Were you the jury foreman?

4           JUROR MCPHERSON: No.

5           THE COURT: Anyone else? Ms. Culbreath?

6           JUROR CULBREATH: Yes. It was a criminal case, or

7 yeah, criminal case.

8          THE COURT: Do you remember what the charge was?

9           JUROR CULBREATH: No.

10          THE COURT: Did the jury reach a verdict?

11          JUROR CULBREATH: Yes.

12          THE COURT: Were you the jury foreman?

13           JUROR CULBREATH: No.

14          THE COURT: Was it here in Oklahoma County?

15          JUROR CULBREATH: Yes.

16          THE COURT: Anyone on the front row ever served on

17 a jury?

18         (All jurors respond in the negative.)

19          THE COURT: Has anyone ever been a party to a

20 lawsuit? I don't care whether it was a divorce, an FED,

21 eviction type of case, small claims, worker's comp, have you

22 ever been a party to a lawsuit? On the back row, yes, Mr.

23 Henson, what type of lawsuit was it?

24           JUROR HENSON: Workers' comp.

25           THE COURT: Workers' comp. Is the case, is it over

 

1 now?

2           JUROR HENSON: It's over now.

3           THE COURT: Anything about your experience in that

4 case that would cause you to favor one side or the other in

5 this case?

6           JUROR HENSON: No, ma'am.

7           THE COURT: Thank you. Middle row? Yes, Mr.

8 Garcia.

9           JUROR GARCIA: Small claims.

10          THE COURT: Okay, here in Oklahoma County?

11           JUROR GARCIA: Yes.

12          THE COURT: Is it over, or is it pending?

13           JUROR GARCIA: It is gone.

14           THE COURT: It is much different procedure than

15 this. You would have already been in and out. Mr.

16 McPherson?

17           JUROR MCPHERSON: Small claim.

18           THE COURT: Are there any currently pending?

19           JUROR MCPHERSON: No.

20           THE COURT: Anyone else on the front row? Yes, Mr.

21 Sperling.

22           JUROR SPERLING: Yes. I was actually deposed

23 involving a fatality incident for a previous employer.

24           THE COURT: Okay. Was it like a work related?

25           JUROR SPERLING: Work related.

 

1          THE COURT: How long ago was that?

2          JUROR SPERLING: I want to say about 13 years ago.

3          THE COURT: Can you tell me a little bit about what

4 this event was that caused the death?

5          JUROR SPERLING: This individual did not work for

6 the company that I worked for. He was a person working for

7 a different entity. And I worked with the gas business, and

8 he was working for a company that tested rock saws,

9 excavating tools, and they hit our pipeline, and he was

10 fatally injured as a result of that. And there was a

11 lawsuit by his estate and his family against the

12 manufacturer of the seat belt and equipment that he was

13 operating.

14          THE COURT: And you had the actually testify for

15 the deceased or for the --

16           JUROR SPERLING: I testified. I was deposed by

17 both sides of the case because our company owned the

18 pipeline that he hit.

19           THE COURT: Okay. But your company wasn't sued,

20 correct?

21          JUROR SPERLING: Correct.

22          THE COURT: It was the manufacturer of the

23 equipment, correct?

24          JUROR SPERLING: Correct.

25           THE COURT: All right. Did you say you also had to

 

1 testify at trial or did it settle before trial?

2           JUROR SPERLING: I don't know how it was

3 adjudicated finally. I was just deposed, and that was it

4 for me.

5           THE COURT: Ms. Culbreath?

6          JUROR CULBREATH: Just a divorce.

7           THE COURT: Is it over now?

8           JUROR CULBREATH: Oh, yeah.

9           THE COURT: Front row. Anybody ever been a party

10 to a lawsuit? Ms. Cook is secretly raising her hand.

11           JUROR COOK: Yes. Divorce ten years ago or so, and

12 then workers' comp I still have open medical.

13          THE COURT: But the case has been adjudicated other

14 than your current treatment or your ongoing treatment?

15          JUROR COOK: Correct.

16          THE COURT: Ms. Stiger-Monahan?

17           JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: Divorce.

18           THE COURT: All right. Ms. Collett, did you raise

19 your hand?

20           JUROR COLLETT: No. I was scratching my nose.

21           THE COURT: Have you ever had to testify? I know

22 that you indicated, Mr. Sperling, you had to testify. Has

23 anyone had to testify for someone in a lawsuit? Yes, Ms.

24 Stiger-Monahan.

25          JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: I've testified for a company

 

1 that I worked for for worker's comp.

2           THE COURT: Okay. All right. Has that been very

3 long in the recent past?

4          JUROR STIGER-MONAHAN: It has been over ten years

5 ago.

6           THE COURT: All right. Let me see. What I would

7 like to do now, and this is the final thing that I will ask

8 of you before I turn you over to the attorneys, starting

9 with Ms. Powell, I need you each to state your name again

10 for the record. If you have a spouse or significant other,

11 I want you to give us your spouse or significant other.

12          And then I would like to know -- some of you have

13 told me -- but what you do for a living, what your spouse or

14 significant other does for a living. And if you have grown

15 children that are working, which I pray some day all of my

16 grown children will be working, but if you have grown

17 children that are working, I would like to know what they do

18 for a living. If you have done one thing, like you were a

19 teacher and then you retired from that and did something

20 else, I'm trying to get a general idea of your work history.

21          Starting with you, Ms. Powell.

22           JUROR POWELL: Geneva Powell. I am a retired

23 teacher, 38 year. I have grown children. Yes.

24          THE COURT: What do they do?

25          JUROR POWELL: My daughter works for a medical

 

1 center.

2           THE COURT: Is she an RN?

3           JUROR POWELL: No. She works in bookkeeping. And

4 my son is a machinist.

5          THE COURT: Do you have a spouse or significant

6 other?

7          JUROR POWELL: Oh, no.

8          THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Powell, where did you teach,

9 and what did you teach?

10          JUROR POWELL: I retired from Douglas High School,

11 and I taught 8th grade English. And I taught grades 1

12 through 8 during the course of my experience.

13           THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Ms. McCaskill.

14           JUROR MCCASKILL: Elizabeth McCaskill. I work for

15 the state.

16          THE COURT: You don't look old enough to have grown

17 children. Spouse or significant other?

18          JUROR MCCASKILL: My significant other is an RN in

19 obstetrics.

20           THE COURT: Thank you very much. Ms. Sampson.

21           JUROR SAMPSON: My name is Michelle Sampson. My

22 husband is Roger Sampson. He works in pavement payment

23 maintenance industry making sealers and things like that for

24 roads. I have an education degree. I taught for one year,

25 but my family owns a business, and so I'm manager of that.

 

1 It's a small business.

2          THE COURT: What type of business is it?

3           JUROR SAMPSON: It's a gift shop.

4           THE COURT: Thank you. Ms. Cross.

5           JUROR CROSS: Pamela Cross. I direct a nonprofit

6 organization, Health Alliance for the Uninsured. I've work

7 in the nonprofit sector for about 20 years. Before that I

8 was a neurodiagnostic technologist for neurologists here in

9 Oklahoma City. My significant other is Jim Cubit. He is a

10 buyer for Hager restaurant sales and service. And I have

11 one grown child who is in asset protection for Home Depot.

12          THE COURT: When you said that you did something

13 for neurologists, tell me again, I didn't catch that.

14           JUROR CROSS: Well, I did different types of

15 testing, electroencephalograms, nerve conduction studies,

16 assisted with electromyography. And previously, way back, I

17 worked at Baptist Hospital doing first electrocardiograms

18 and then electroencephalograms.

19           THE COURT: And your son at Home Depot, loss

20 protections, is that a way to keep track of inventory?

21          JUROR CROSS: It is more the end of shoplifting,

22 employee fraud, embezzling.

23           THE COURT: Thank you very much. Mr. Henson.

24           JUROR HENSON: Yes. Johnnie Henson, and I live on

25 disability.

 

1           THE COURT: Do you have a spouse or significant

2 other?

3           JUROR HENSON: No.

4           THE COURT: Any grown children?

5           JUROR HENSON: Yes. None of them is working

6 though.

7           THE COURT: All right. Let me go back. Ms.

8 Sampson, did you raise your hand?

9           JUROR SAMPSON: I have a daughter in college in

10 nursing school, and she does work at the hospital. So I

11 didn't know. She is at Integris.

12          THE COURT: Is she at OU Medical Center?

13          JUROR SAMPSON: She is at -- she goes school at

14 OCU. She does clinicals at different locations, but she is

15 actually employed at Integris Baptist.

16           THE COURT: Thank you. Mr. Brock.

17           JUROR BROCK: Travis Brock. I'm a licensed

18 aircraft mechanic. I work at Tinker on oxygen systems.

19 Before that, my family has owned automotive shops. I have

20 worked in automotive vehicle shops all my life.

21          THE COURT: Like mechanic work.

22           JUROR BROCK: Yes. I do some side mechanic stuff.

23          THE COURT: Do you have a spouse or significant

24 other?

25           JUROR BROCK: No.

 

1          THE COURT: Then Ms. Russell.

2          JUROR RUSSELL: Yes. My name is Deborah Russell.

3 I currently -- I'm working with -- I do work at home

4 Convergys Direct TV on the Internet. And I work worked at

5 Seagate. I was -- started out as secretary. Before then I

6 worked for CPAs, and I did bookkeeping, light bookwork. My

7 husband is retired military, and he works on computers also.

8          THE COURT: Which branch of the military did he

9 serve in?

10           JUROR RUSSELL: Air Force. And I have, my youngest

11 son is retired, well, disability Navy. And my oldest

12 stepson, he is retired Navy. And my son is a -- my oldest

13 son, he is a -- he works on airplanes. I don't know what he

14 does. And my daughter works for oil companies. She works

15 here downtown.

16          THE COURT: And what does she do for the oil

17 company? Do you know?

18          JUROR RUSSELL: She works for the lawyer.

19          THE COURT: Is she, like, a paralegal?

20           JUROR RUSSELL: No. Assistant or secretary, one of

21 them. I try not to be bothered.

22           THE COURT: Let me ask: You said your husband does

23 something with computers. Is that more for pleasure, or

24 does he repair people's computers.

25          JUROR RUSSELL: It is for pleasure. We both do it.

 

1          THE COURT: Do you take apart computers and try to

2 fix them?

3           JUROR RUSSELL: Yes.

4          THE COURT: And your husband does the same thing.

5           JUROR RUSSELL: Yes.

6          THE COURT: What about any programing, do you

7 design programs for the computer?

8           JUROR RUSSELL: No. I didn't like that very much.

9 I did a little bit when I was secretary. We did it, like,

10 for raw data and we built programs out of, like, Access for

11 Microsoft Office. We built programs to enter the data.

12          THE COURT: Did your husband, does he do the same

13 sort of things?

14           JUROR RUSSELL: Similar. But, you know, he did --

15 part of his job was like the security monitors and things at

16 Tinker.

17           THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much. Ms. Grogg.

18          JUROR GROGG: Sumar Grogg, and I work at a cleaning

19 company. And my significant other is Steven McKenzie, and

20 he works at Coca-Cola.

21          THE COURT: Ms. Courtright.

22          JUROR COURTRIGHT: I don't know if it matters, when

23 she spelled my name, she left out a letter.

24           THE COURT: What is it?

25          JUROR COURTRIGHT: It is C-O-U-R-T-R-I-G-H-T.

 

1          THE COURT: Thank you.

2           JUROR COURTRIGHT: I'm a certified teacher. I work

3 two part-time jobs right now. I direct a mother's day out

4 preschool two days a week, and I work for an optometrist

5 three days a week.

6          THE COURT: And do you have someone that will fill

7 in for you at those jobs for the next --

8           JUROR COURTRIGHT: Yes. They will have to work

9 around it.

10           THE COURT: Okay.

11           JUROR COLLETT: Excuse me. Can I go outside for a

12 second? Can I be excused for a minute?

13          THE COURT: Why don't we -- tell you what, why

14 don't we go ahead -- I will take an early lunch break today

15 and we will come back and finish up voir dire. Ms. Collett,

16 let me remind you as you're backing up, do not discuss this

17 case during the lunch break. We're in recess until 1:00.

18 That will give you an hour and 25 minutes.

19          We're in recess until 1:00. For the rest of you,

20 during the lunch break do not discuss this case with anyone.

21 Do not get on the Internet and look at anything about this

22 case, about the parties. And I will give you a much more

23 detailed instruction on that later. At 1:00, if you will

24 just all gather outside my courtroom, we will have bring you

25  in.

 

1          For those of you in the jury box, I need you to

2 take the same seats that you're currently seated in. For

3 those in the back, just go back to the back of the courtroom

4 again. Some we're in recess until 1. Off the record.

5         (Conclusion of morning proceedings.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1 STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

)

2 COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA )

3

4                    C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E

5

6           I, Karen Twyford, Certified Shorthand Reporter, in

7 and for the County of Oklahoma, State of Oklahoma, do hereby

8 certify that the foregoing transcript is a true, correct,

9 and complete transcript of my stenographic notes.

10           I further certify that I am not related to any of

11 the parties herein, nor am I interested in any way in the

12 outcome of these proceedings.

13            WITNESS my Hand this _____  day of           ,

14 2013.

15

16

17

18

KAREN TWYFORD

19                  CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER

CERTIFICATE NO. 01780

20

21

22

23

24

NASA Engineering and Safety Center - Technical Assessment Report

Technical Support to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on the Reported Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) Unintended Acceleration (UA)

Executive Summary [6 pp]

Report [177 pp]

Appendix A Software [134 pp]

Appendix B Software Fishbone Diagrams [47 pp]

Appendix C Hardware [87 pp]

Appendix D Summary of Test Scenarios [7 pp]

Please note: a partially unredacted NASA 2011 technical assessment report can also be found here. The document was made public for some time.

This report should be read together with the NHTSA Report on Toyota that can be found here.

NHTSA Technical Assessment of Toyota Electronic Throttle Control Systems

MISRA Development Guidelines for Vehicle Based Software

These PDFs are the development guidelines for Vehicle Based Software. Note they were established by the Motor Industry Software Reliability Association and first published in 1994, with a v1.1 revision in January 2001. Below in PDF are the MISRA guidelines in full:

Development Guidelines [88 pp]

Report 1 Diagnostics and Integrated Vehicle Systems [88 pp]

Report 2 Integrity [94 pp]

Report 3 Noise, EMC and Real-time [55 pp]

Report 4 Software in Control Systems [107 pp]

Report 5 Software Metrics [67 pp]

Report 6 Verification and Validation [156 pp]

Report 7 Subcontracting of Automotive Software [49 pp]

Report 8 Human Factors in Software Development [19 pp]

Phase 1 Report Sources of Information [10 pp]