Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice Jury Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jury selection begins in State v. Edgar Aguilar; judge and lawyers outline charges, burdens and evidence
Summary
Jury selection started in the 187th District Court for the case against Edgar Aguilar, charged in a multi-count indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Judge Stephanie Boyd, prosecutors and defense counsel addressed jurors on burden of proof, elements of the offense and practical trial scheduling.
SAN ANTONIO — Jury selection began on Feb. 20 in the 187th District Court for State of Texas v. Edgar Hernandez Aguilar (cause 20234709), a multi-count indictment alleging three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Judge Stephanie Boyd introduced herself and explained the trial process and jurors’ responsibilities to a panel of potential jurors, stressing the presumption of innocence and the burden the state must meet: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "If you don't have any evidence in this case, you would have to vote not guilty," the judge told the panel while explaining the presumption of innocence.
Prosecutors Megan Galloway and Jason Gerahan appeared for the state. The defense introduced counsel and an interpreter was sworn for the proceeding because the defendant chose to proceed with translation assistance. The court explained the role of the interpreter and instructed jurors that only the interpreter’s English translation is legally operative for trial purposes.
The state summarized the elements it must prove for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon — an asserted threat of imminent bodily injury and the use or exhibition of a weapon whose manner of use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The state told jurors the indictment alleges three separate aggravated-assault counts arising from the same incident; Judge Boyd clarified that a multi-count indictment lists separate victims or acts within the same event rather than being a measure of prior criminal history.
During voir dire, prosecutors and defense questioned jurors on their views of law enforcement, prior experiences with the criminal justice system, scheduling conflicts and potential biases. Several jurors described ties to law enforcement or family experiences with felony convictions; some jurors said those experiences could affect how they assess an officer’s testimony or other evidence. The state and defense repeatedly asked jurors whether they could set aside personal views and follow the law, without "waffling," as the prosecutor put it, explaining the need for clear yes/no responses during selection.
Judge Boyd also reviewed trial mechanics: the panel was told the trial’s first phase (guilt/innocence) turns on proof of elements and that a second phase (punishment) occurs only if a jury returns a guilty verdict. The defendant elected to have the court impose punishment if convicted. The judge set trial scheduling and said the panel would be asked to return at 09:30 a.m. the following day for continued selection or trial testimony.
The court paused voir dire for an interpreter break and instructed prospective jurors to return at 4:15 p.m. that day; jurors were reminded to keep their juror numbers and to remain available for the panel schedule.
No verdict was reached and no witness testimony on the underlying charges was taken during this session; jury selection was ongoing and the trial was set to continue on the next scheduled court day.
