The Prosecutors filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Discharge Jury and Dismiss Penalty Phase and/or New Jury and Change of Venue.  Transcript  The Opposition states that Geragos' Motion incorrectly claimed "some 1,000 people had assembled" outside the courthouse to hear the verdict, and that "car horns were honked as the 'jury was still in the box'."  Opposition reminds the Court that Geragos did not use all of his peremptory challenges during Jury voir dire, and therefore had accepted this jury.  Regarding the first foreman's request to be removed from the Jury, Opposition claims that he retracted his claim and that a vote of the Jury had not yet been taken.  Opposition reminds the Court that the Defendant does not have the right to have the jury sequestered or to have a separate jury for the guilt and penalty phases, and refers the Court to the previous filings on the subject.  Opposition requests denial of a change of venue on the grounds that publicity has been so widespread in this case, that the defendant can't show that anything would be different in any other jurisdiction.