These are raw notes transcribed from paper of Tuesday's hearing. No computers were allowed to be used in the courtroom. This is NOT an official transcript but is provided to give readers a flavor of what witnesses were saying.
Testimony of Juror #5 who lives in Ozark, in Dale County. He says he has lived in Ozark "about 30 some odd years."
Judge Fuller asks if "on or about May 1, 2006 you were selected to serve as a juror..." Yes is the reply.
He served on the jury through the verdict on June 29, 2006. The judge has the juror look at the affidavits in front of him and the juror identifies his signature on page 4 of his affidavit.
The judge asks if the affidavit, from August 9, 2006 was notarized in his presence and the juror replies "no."
The judge asks if the juror was present when the affidavits of Stephen C. Hudson and "your wife" were signed to which the juror responds "yes."
The judge again asks if the juror was present when the documents were notarized and this time the juror responds "yes." After which the judge asks the juror, "Juror #5 do you know what a notary is?" Yes.
The judge asks again about the documents being signed in front of a notary and Juror #5 responds, "I'm sure I was not present when any of these were notarized."
The judge starts to inquire about how Juror #5 got involved with the affidavits.
The juror indicated someone was helping him make his affidavit "clearer."
This seemed to refer to the second affidavit so Judge Fuller brings Juror #5 back to the first affidavit.
"It was through my wife. She got up with the preacher (Hudson) and said I was having problems and I was a little off about a couple of times. Next day I know he called and he said he had a couple of people he wanted me to talk to."
"Had you met Rev. Winston before August 8, 2006?"
"Well like I said, the reverend called us saying he wanted us to meet with him. I got to telling him how I was feeling and he was not putting it down in my words. He was wording it but it wasn't right."
The judge asks Juror #5 as he has him look at his affidavit, "Are these your words?"
"My words but the way he put them you can make them mean different things."
"You didn't dictate to him word for word?" "Yes. I don't read that well..."
"Rev. Watson indicated there were some ...cases where you informed him they were not your words."
"He changed something but he didn't change it completely the way I would have said it. He said he was going to get it notarized. I thought he was going to turn it into you for an investigation or something."
Judge Fuller responds, "He certainly did that didn't he?" "Yes," comes the response.
The judge now asks about the second affidavit dated September 1, 2006.
Juror #5 again says his wife was involved. He says his wife "read through thoroughly. (apparent reference to affidavit #1) She got up with Rev. Hudson and informed him that just wasn't me what he had on those pages. I just assumed that in some way another he contacted ? Winston."
"Did you ever talk to them about another affidavit?"
"I didn't want it to look...Anybody that knows me knows that wasn't me that was talking."
"Did you speak with anyone before Rev. Winston and his wife showed up on September 1, 2006?"
"No, not that I know of."
"Did you..another time?"
"No, I didn't another time. I did tell Rev. Hudson this wasn't right and I didn't want it to be out there like that."
Juror #5 says he had not been working much.
Juror #5 says there was a meeting at the church with Rev. Winston, himself, Mrs Winston, Rev. Hudson and Juror #5's wife.
Asked what transpired, Juror #5 says, "I was asking about the first affidavit and she said we were going to do another one in your words and there wasn't going to be any coaching."
Judge Fuller wants to know if Juror #5 knew why Mrs. Watson put the questions to him "the way she did?"
"It was obvious she read the first affidavit. She know 'd everything by then. "(The first affidavit) not my words but it was some of what was in sync with what was going on..."
The judge asks if he was allowed to answer in his own words to which Juror #5 says, "Yes." The judge wants to know if the comments are an "accurate reflection" and Juror #5 says, "Yes."
The judge wants to know if Juror #5 knew Siegelman or Scrushy before the trial started and the juror says "no."
"Since June 29, 2006 have you been contacted by anyone other than Rev. Hudson, Rev. Winston, Mrs. Winston about what took place during the trial?"
"No I haven't."
Juror #5 says he never met either of the Winstons before August 8, 2006 in the case of Rev. Winston and September 1, 2006 in the case of attorney Winston. He told the judge he had not talked to them on the phone or to any other attorney.
The government indicates it may have a question for Juror #5. The Siegelman lawyers have no questions and the Scrushy attorneys have a quick conference.
Counsel is asked to approach.