Opinion
17-cr-00533-EMC-1
04-11-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN JOSEPH NELSON, et al. Defendants.
ORDER RE COURT'S PROPOSAL TO USE ANONYMOUS JURY PROCEDURE
DOCKET NO. 2499
EDWARD M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
As for Group One's Opposition to the Court's proposal to use an anonymous jury procedure (Docket No. 2499), the Court acknowledges Defendants' objections to an anonymous jury selection and management process. Defendants' main contention to the Court's use of juror numbers is that it is unusual and is done presumably because Defendants are dangerous. Importantly, the Court is not proceeding with an anonymous jury - the names and extensive information (via a lengthy questionnaire) of each prospective juror has been shared with the parties and their counsel. The Court has simply required that the jurors be referred to their assigned juror number rather than their names in court. The cases Defendants cite involving empaneling an anonymous jury are thus inapposite. Cf. United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 970 (9th Cir. 2003) (the district court sua sponte empaneled an anonymous jury by ordering that the names, addresses, and places of employment of prospective jurors and their spouses not be disclosed to counsel, either before or after selection of the jury panel); United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1519 (11th Cir. 1994) (district court ordered that the juror's names, addresses, places of employment, and spouses' names and places of employment not be disclosed during voir dire or at any point thereafter). Defendants' concern that the use of in-court identification of jurors by their assigned numbers rather than their names will convey to them reason to fear the defendants is groundless.
There is no indication that this procedure is unusual or remarkable and that prospective jurors will draw any such inference.
This order disposes of Docket No. 2499.
IT IS SO ORDERED