Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jury Selection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jury selection begins in State v. Duran Evans on family-violence choking charge
Summary
Prosecutors and defense conducted extensive voir dire for the trial of Duran Evans on a family-violence charge alleging impeding normal breathing or circulation; the court and attorneys instructed jurors on legal elements, burden of proof and the bifurcated punishment phase.
The court conducted voir dire and jury instruction for the case identified on the courtroom screen as State of Texas v. Duran Evans. Prosecutor Ray Pena addressed the venire, described the charge as assault-family-violence for impeding normal breathing or circulation (a choking allegation), and explained alternative mental states the state must prove (intentionally, knowingly or recklessly).
Pena walked jurors through typical evidence and witnesses in family-violence cases, including eyewitness testimony, police reports and photos, and asked whether jurors would require specific materials (for example, a police report or photos showing neck markings) to decide the case. He stressed jurors should listen to the evidence presented in court rather than assume facts from terminology used in jury education materials.
Defense attorneys pressed themes of fairness and the presumption of innocence. One defense attorney emphasized that the defendant is presumed innocent, that the state bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that jurors must not hold it against a defendant who chooses not to testify. On punishment, defense counsel Jefferson Heinrich explained Texas’s bifurcated process and said the defendant had elected that the jury, rather than the judge, would assess punishment if a guilty verdict is returned.
The court clarified legal concepts raised during questioning, including that there is no statutory definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt," and instructed jurors on behavior expectations (for example, not removing juror numbers and not leaving the premises). After voir dire exchanges about witness credibility, evidence, and reasonable doubt, the panel was excused to the hallway while the court completed juror selection.
No trial testimony or verdict occurred during this session; the hearing focused on voir dire, legal instruction and scheduling related to jury selection.
