justification for anonymous jury in circuit court

[Norm D'Plume]

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/cb976d73b524ca0a882567470077b697?OpenDocument