justification for anonymous jury in circuit court
The key phrase is probably "extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to public intimidation or harassment. " Office of the Circuit Executive Ninth Circuit Jury Procedure Manual 2.9 Anonymous Juries The decision to use an anonymous jury is committed to the sound discretion of the judge. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 789, 800 (2d. Cir. 1994). Although the judge must find that there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection, United States v. Sanchez, 74 F.3d 562, 565 (5th Cir. 1996), the judge need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the subject. United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1994). There is a five-factor test to be employed to determine if the jury needs protection: (1) the defendant's involvement in organized crime; (2) the defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; (3) the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process; (4) the potential that, if convicted, the defendant will suffer lengthy incarceration and substantial monetary penalties; and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to public intimidation or harassment. Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091. See also United States v. Salvatore, 110 F.3d 1131, 1143 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Saya, 980 F. Supp. 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 1997). The court must take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected. To minimize prejudicial effects, the court should provide the jurors with an innocuous explanation for the use of the anonymous jury. See, e.g, Edmond, 52 F.2d at 1093 (approving instruction that use of an anonymous jury was "routine"). To ensure that the defendant's fundamental rights are protected, the court should provide defendant with adequate voir dire, sufficient to fully ascertain any possible bias without requesting information that would identify the jurors. See, e.g., United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 704 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding anonymous jury where "court conducted a searching voir dire and gave jurors an extensive questionnaire"). http://207.41.19.15/web/sdocuments.nsf/47f862bfb567c599882567320065e132/cb97...
Does that mean they have to show that a lot of people want to kill judges? Or that Jim Bell is very likely to act to directly or indirectly cause harm to any of the specific (or probably a general target randomly selected should receive protection also, don't you think?) persons involved? Don't you have to first prove he had ANY intent to harm first? Near as I can tell the way to prove intent is to demonstrate through a chain of acts, or demonstrably intended acts (say a video tape or a diary) to harm somebody in a general sense. On Thu, 12 Apr 2001, Norm D'Plume wrote:
The key phrase is probably "extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to public intimidation or harassment. "
Office of the Circuit Executive
Ninth Circuit Jury Procedure Manual 2.9 Anonymous Juries
The decision to use an anonymous jury is committed to the sound discretion of the judge. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 789, 800 (2d. Cir. 1994). Although the judge must find that there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection, United States v. Sanchez, 74 F.3d 562, 565 (5th Cir. 1996), the judge need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the subject. United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
There is a five-factor test to be employed to determine if the jury needs protection: (1) the defendant's involvement in organized crime; (2) the defendant's participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; (3) the defendant's past attempts to interfere with the judicial process; (4) the potential that, if convicted, the defendant will suffer lengthy incarceration and substantial monetary penalties; and (5) extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors' names would become public and expose them to public intimidation or harassment. Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091. See also United States v. Salvatore, 110 F.3d 1131, 1143 (5th Cir. 1997); United States v. Saya, 980 F. Supp. 1152, 1154 (D. Haw. 1997).
The court must take reasonable precautions to minimize any prejudicial effects on the defendant and to ensure that his fundamental rights are protected. To minimize prejudicial effects, the court should provide the jurors with an innocuous explanation for the use of the anonymous jury. See, e.g, Edmond, 52 F.2d at 1093 (approving instruction that use of an anonymous jury was "routine").
To ensure that the defendant's fundamental rights are protected, the court should provide defendant with adequate voir dire, sufficient to fully ascertain any possible bias without requesting information that would identify the jurors. See, e.g., United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 704 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (upholding anonymous jury where "court conducted a searching voir dire and gave jurors an extensive questionnaire").
http://207.41.19.15/web/sdocuments.nsf/47f862bfb567c599882567320065e132/cb97...
____________________________________________________________________ The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone. James Madison The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Jim Choate -
Norm D'Plume