[B]URLINGTON — Attorneys are working through a pool of more than 400 people to serve as jurors in the well-publicized case of a man accused of killing five Mad River Valley teenagers in a 2016 wrong-way crash on Interstate 89 in Williston.
A total of 402 people have been sent questionnaires to fill out regarding their knowledge of the case of 38-year-old Steven Bourgoin as well as asking them if they have any connections to witnesses.
Eventually 12 jurors will be seated along with alternates to hear the case.
“I expect the jury selection process to be extremely tedious,” Judge Kevin Griffin said Friday during a hearing that focused mostly on scheduling. “If I thought two days, that would have been wildly optimistic.”
Jury selection in the courtroom in set to begin Monday, April 29.
Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George, speaking after the hearing Friday, said some of the juror questionnaires have already been returned.
“I’ve been surprised at how many people either don’t know a lot about it,” she said, “or have somewhat followed it but say all the right things at least in terms of listening to the evidence and making their decision based on what’s presented in court.”
Robert Katims, Bourgoin’s attorney, declined comment following Friday’s hearing.
Griffin last year rejected a request by Katims to have the trial moved outside of Chittenden County. Katims, in his filing, contended that his client would not receive a fair trial from jurors who lived in the same county where the crash occurred.
Griffin ruled that while he found that media coverage of the case has been extensive statewide, and given Chittenden County’s ability to offer the largest pool of jurors, that “a change in venue is unwarranted.”
In the courtroom Friday, the attorneys told the judge they worked out a scheduling plan that set aside a week for the courtroom jury selection process, starting on April 29.
The trial would then begin Monday, May 6, with the prosecution presenting its case, followed by the defense case to begin the next week, starting Monday, May 13. From there, both sides would then present any rebuttal witnesses.
Bourgoin, of Williston, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of second-degree murder, each with a possible sentence of 20 years to life.
The five victims of the crash were teenagers on their way home from a concert at Higher Ground in South Burlington at about 11:50 p.m. Oct. 8, 2016. Bourgoin, heading northbound on I-89 South, crashed his Toyota Tacoma into their car going an estimated 79 mph, police said.
The car the students were in burst into flames on the median.
Bourgoin then stole a vehicle from Williston police who had arrived at the scene of the crash, according to officials. He drove south toward Richmond and then headed back to the scene, colliding with several other stopped vehicles while going 107 mph, court filings stated.
The students killed in the crash were Mary Harris, 16, and Cyrus Zschau, 16, both of Moretown; Liam Hale, 16, of Fayston; Eli Brookens, 16, of Waterbury; and Janie Chase Cozzi, 15, of Fayston. Four of the five were students at Harwood Union High School and Cozzi was a student at Kimball Union Academy in New Hampshire.
Prosecutors say toxicology testing found that Bourgoin had a high level of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his system eight hours after the crash.
Also at the hearing Friday, Griffin went through several pending motions, and in many of the cases, the attorneys said they have reached agreements or were relying on briefs previously filed.
George did tell the judge Friday that she has no plans at this time to block Katims from calling Dr. Reena Kapoor, a state expert who had come to the same conclusion as a defense expert that Bourgoin was insane at the time of the crash.
The motion drawing the most discussion during Friday’s hearing focused on a filing by prosecutors regarding “prior bad acts” evidence they were seeking to introduce in the trial.
Chittenden County Deputy State’s Attorney Susan Hardin said the prosecution wasn’t intending to introduce that evidence during its “case in chief,” but rather as rebuttal evidence after the defense attorneys raise the insanity defense for their client.
“This case is not a case about who committed the crimes on Oct. 8, 2016, it’s not even a case of whether crimes were actually committed on that date,” Hardin said. “It’s a question of why those crimes were committed because the defendant has raised the defense of insanity.”
Hardin said, in part, to rebut that insanity defense, the prosecution would call Bourgoin’s ex-girlfriend to the stand to testify about an incident that took place on May 12, 2016.
The woman wrote in a statement filed in family court in Burlington seeking a relief from abuse order against Bourgoin that on that date he repeatedly pushed her to the floor and pulled her hair.
As she tried to flee in a vehicle with the couple’s 2-year-old child, Bourgoin got into the driver’s seat, hitting her in the head and pulling on a lanyard around her neck, the statement read.
“He whipped out of the driveway and wouldn’t let us out. While going down the road he grabbed my neck lanyard again and we almost went off the road,” the woman wrote. “He sped out towards Essex and was yelling about how hed (sic) kill us both before hed (sic) let (the child) go with me.”
Hardin said Friday that while the testimony may be “prejudicial,” it was also “probative” and relevant.
“What the state argues and this clearly demonstrates is that the defendant, when he gets angry enough, especially over custody issues or financial issues, he will use a vehicle as a weapon,” Hardin said.
“And he just doesn’t care who he takes out when he does do that,” the prosecutor said. “Whether it’s himself, the mother of his child, or his own child, and unfortunately people who were driving on I-89 on Oct. 8, 2016.”
Katims told the judge he didn’t believe it was necessary to decide now whether that testimony should be allowed in to rebut the defense case.
“I think the court needs to wait until the defense case is done,” he said. “Then you’ll be informed.”
Griffin told the attorneys he would take all the disputed matters under advisement and issue rulings as quickly as he could.
The judge then added, “I’m keenly aware that both sides need rulings from the court so that everyone will know how we’re proceeding.”
