Opinion
CASE NO. 4:01 CR 207
January 15, 2002
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO EMPANEL AN ANONYMOUS JURY
BACKGROUND
Before the Court is the government's Motion to Empanel an Anonymous Jury. (Docket # 108). Defendant Traficant filed a timely response. (Docket # 129).
The government contends that an anonymous jury should be empaneled in this case because of "the combination of an obstruction of justice charge involving grand jury witness tampering and substantial pretrial publicity." (Docket # 108 at 4). Defendant Traficant opposes the motion, arguing that an anonymous jury would threaten his rights to due process and a fair trial.
Where an anonymous jury is empaneled, the names, addresses, and places of employment of venire members and jurors are not disclosed by the Court to the parties, counsel, or the public.
ANALYSIS
In United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989 (6th Cir. 1999), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of anonymous juries. The Sixth Circuit explained,
The anonymity of the jury should be preserved in cases: (1) with very dangerous persons who were participants in large scale organized crime, and who participated in mob-style killings and had previously attempted to interfere with the judicial process; (2) where defendants had a history of attempted jury tampering and serious criminal records; or (3) where there have been allegations of dangerous and unscrupulous conduct by the defendant, coupled with extensive pretrial publicity.Talley, 164 F.3d at 1001. The Sixth Circuit also cited the Second Circuit standard: "a district court should not order the empaneling of an anonymous jury without . . . concluding that there is strong reason to believe the jury needs protection." id. (citing United States v. Paccione, 949 F.2d 1183, 1192 (2d Cir. 1991).
An anonymous jury is not appropriate in this case. The defendant is a United States Congressman. He has not displayed any "dangerous" conduct in these proceedings, nor are there any allegations of "dangerous" conduct on his part. Although the superseding indictment includes an obstruction of justice charge involving allegations of grand jury witness tampering, there are no allegations that the defendant has a serious criminal record. Despite the fact that this case has attracted some pretrial publicity, members of the press have conducted themselves responsibly and with respect for the integrity of the Court proceedings. Moreover, significant interests of the public and the press are implicated.
In Paccione, a case in which the defendants had strong ties to organized crime and a co-defendant "had been murdered in circumstances that strongly suggested a connection to the . . . case and to certain of [the] . . . defendants," there were reasons to believe that the jury needed protection. 949 F.2d at 1192-93. There is no indication of potential physical danger to jurors or venire members in this case.
CONCLUSION
The stringent Sixth Circuit standards represent an effort to permit, under very limited circumstances justified by specific court findings, an anonymous jury in the rare case in which anonymity might be appropriate. For powerful reasons, in all but the most exceptional cases, subjecting a criminal defendant to trial by and the possibility of conviction by anonymous persons offends principles of fundamental fairness that are at the very core of the American system of justice.
The government's motion to empanel an anonymous jury is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.