justification for anonymous jury in circuit court

[Jim Choate]

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/cb976d73b524ca0a882567470077b697?OpenDocument
> 

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone.

                                             James Madison

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------