I hear two separate questions. There's the jury selection question: do you have a role, if you think somebody is going to have a mental breakdown because of the nature of the case, to ask to remove that juror? That's one question.
The other question I have a quicker answer to, which is in terms of considerations throughout the trial process. Jurors I spoke with asked that there be a greater sensitivity, on both sides, to what is being presented. With regard to things like timing the gruesome evidence right after lunch, don't do that. Prepare jurors by saying something like, “All right, you're going to hear some really graphic evidence, and I want you to be prepared for it”, although you can never fully be prepared for it, as Ms. De Moura has mentioned. As a lawyer, there's a need to be sensitive to the idea that while you may have seen a piece of evidence a million times and have become desensitized to it, that's not the case for everyone who's going to be seeing it. I think being compassionate when presenting the evidence is important on both sides.
Going back to the jury selection aspect, I don't know if counsel has a responsibility. I would think, as somebody representing a client, that I wouldn't want to risk having a juror who has a potential to have a mental breakdown because of a similar life experience in the past. I would probably recommend challenging that juror. However, I don't think we can put the attorneys in the position of having to ensure the well-being of jurors, because their primary responsibility lies in defending their clients. I think that would be a tough position to put the attorneys in.