Judge Boyd, prosecutors and defense conduct extended jury selection in aggravated-assault case

The court convened voir dire for the State of Texas v. Mariano Rendon in the 187th District Court before Judge Stephanie Boyd. The judge and attorneys for both sides addressed the venire on core criminal-law principles — presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right to remain silent, and the limited circumstances in which self-defense justifies use of force — and questioned prospective jurors about biases, language needs and scheduling constraints.

Judge Stephanie Boyd introduced the courtroom and the jurors to the case and instructed them that the indictment is not evidence, that "the only way you'll hear what [the parties] think the facts of this case are is if you are on the jury," and that jurors must base their decisions on evidence and the law given by the court. Prosecutors Megan Galloway and Jason Garingham and defense attorney Larry Blomquist each explained roles and asked group and individual questions. The state explained elements of aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury and detailed mental states the jury may be asked to consider: intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing serious bodily injury.

The judge explained the two phases of trial — guilt-innocence and punishment — and confirmed that Rendon had elected that a jury assess punishment if he were found guilty. The court repeated that the punishment range for the charged offense could include probation or prison (the judge described the applicable punishment range as 2 to 20 years and a fine up to $10,000 in the voir dire discussion), and asked whether jurors could consider the full statutory range.

The court and counsel also covered practical issues for jurors: language assistance (several jurors identified Spanish as a preferred language), travel and scheduling conflicts, and time warnings for counsel’s openings (each side was allocated 40 minutes and the court offered a five-minute warning). The judge emphasized courtroom procedure for the court reporter and asked jurors to stand when answering certain questions to make the record clearer.

During questioning the state probed potential biases toward law enforcement, personal experiences with the criminal justice system and views on rehabilitation versus punishment. The defense urged jurors to consider their duty to render an impartial verdict and warned against acquiescing to a majority view if a juror believed otherwise. The voir dire period concluded for that session with the judge excusing jurors to wait in the hallway and instructing them on reassembly.