Jury selection stretched into Tuesday during the second day of the federal trial of former Ute Mountain Ute tribal leader Lyndreth Wall. Attorneys and the judge spent a full day probing for who could give a fair determination.
After nearly 10 hours Monday in a Durango court, that process hadn’t concluded. The court resumed jury deliberations Tuesday morning, and picked a jury by the lunch break. Including two alternates, the 12-person jury is composed of 10 men and four women.
Opening statements were to take place at 2:15 p.m.
“My apologies, we can’t get it done tonight,” said U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher, who presides over the case. He apologized for not getting the panel selected by 6 p.m.
“We have been in court for a long period of time. We also have a circumstance where we need to finish jury selection that is every bit important,” he told the court.
More than 70 prospective jurors initially reported to the federal court at 8 a.m., some traveling over 150 miles from places like the San Luis Valley, underscoring the weight and reach of the case in Southwest Colorado.
The government alleges Wall, a once-prominent community fixture, used traditional medical practices for years as a pretense to sexually abuse five females, including one they say was underage at the time. Wall faces 20 felony charges in the federal court, six counts of sexual assault and 14 charges of abusive sexual contact.
The day’s focus was chockful of questioning that aligned with the serious elements in the case. It included matters regarding allegations of sexual allegations, when accusations are reported to officials of law enforcement and whether multiple accusations might alter perceptions of guilt.
After jury check-in during the morning, Gallagher told jurors the selection process would likely take most of the day. He explained the court could accommodate medical or physical needs, including regular breaks. One prospective juror, who said they suffered PTSD in courtrooms generally, was excused.
The judge and attorneys posed wide-ranging questions, aimed at uncovering whether jurors’ personal histories and beliefs shape their ability to remain fair. Some jurors were asked how they viewed the role of cultural or spiritual practices in allegations of sexual assault.
Several jurors who disclosed personal histories or stories involving sexual assault were dismissed. Others were dismissed for personal hardships or scheduling conflicts. After lunchtime, some 50 people were left.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Josh Player led Monday’s questioning for the government, asking jurors to consider how they determine credibility, particularly in cases involving incidents of sexual assault that lack DNA evidence.
“How do you decide if anybody is telling the truth?” Player asked early in the afternoon. Some jurors said they would look for consistency across incident reports or patterns in victim testimony, while others said they need to hear directly from both sides before developing an opinion.
“If you heard from six different witnesses who all described similar experiences,” Player asked one prospective juror, “would that convince you?”
“I think so, yes,” the prospective juror responded. “If their stories were consistent.”
Player told the panel that recollection rarely aligns “perfectly.” “Do you always tell the story of your wedding day the exact same way?” he asked one person, saying the example explained how small differences in stories don’t necessarily mean someone is lying.
Much of the questioning probed how jurors understand or view victim behavior, such as delays in reporting or reactions during alleged assaults. When asked whether a long delay in reporting would make them doubt a victim’s account, one juror said, “I don’t know,” while another responded that such hesitation might reflect “fear or embarrassment.”
Later questioning from Player turned to how social dynamics, such as how a person’s long-standing reputation in a community or close proximity to an alleged victim, might influence reporting.
Defense attorney Summer Woods used her questioning Monday afternoon to focus on jurors’ ability to uphold the presumption of innocence while determining if there is guilty proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Woods started by thanking the panel for their time and candor, saying, “The better you are honest and willing to talk to me, the better you are to serve as a jury.”
Woods asked jurors to consider whether they could be impartial. Particularly, if a witness became emotional while testifying or if they heard that several women had made similar allegations. “Sitting here right now,” she asked one juror, “there are five women. Are you still able to presume innocence?”
Some jurors admitted it would be difficult. “When there are five victims, you kind of automatically assume,” one said. Another added, “If it was five of my friends who approached me and claimed someone did this to them, I would believe them,” but said it would be easier to presume innocence with strangers.
Others responded that they would “need to hear both sides” and “look at all the evidence and see where that goes.”
One prospective juror said each allegation must be proven individually and that “just because you say there are five women, that is just a single data point” and ultimately, “it’s up to the prosecution to prove five different allegations.”
Woods also asked about potential favorable bias toward law enforcement, including whether jurors would automatically believe an FBI agent over another witness. “Would you be able to follow the law that you have to treat his oath the same as every oath?” she asked the panel.
After a jury is seated Tuesday, attorneys are expected to begin opening statements for the trial that is scheduled to last 10 days.
