A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004
Go to Federal Manuals Table of Contents - Go to Procedures Table of Contents

Chapter Two: Jury Selection

2.5     Anonymous Juries

The provisions of 28 USC 1863(b)(7) authorize the district court's plan for random jury selection to "permit the chief judge of the district court, or such other district court judge as the plan may provide, to keep these names (of prospective jurors) confidential in any case where the interests of justice so require." The decision to use an anonymous jury is committed to the sound discretion of the judge. United States v. Thai, 29 F.3d 785, 800-01 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 977 and 513 U.S. 993 (1994). Although the judge must find that there is a strong reason to believe that the jury needs protection to perform its factfinding function, United States v. Sanchez, 74 F.3d 562, 565 (5th Cir. 1996), or to safeguard the integrity of the justice system, United States v. Shyrock, 342 F.3d 948, 971-72 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1729 (2004), and cert. denied 124 S. Ct. 1736 (2004), the judge need not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the subject. United States v. Edmond, 52 F.3d 1080, 1092 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 998 (1995).

There are five non-exclusive factors to be considered 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 intimidation or harassment. Shyrock, 342 F.3d at 971, Edmond, 52 F.3d at 1091. See also 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 explanation for the use of the anonymous jury. Examples of approved explanations include: protection from curiosity seekers, to avoid harassment from the media, and insulation of the jury from communication from either side. Any explanation given should emphasize that it is not a reflection upon the defendant. Shyrock, 342 F.3d at 972-91.

In addition, the court should instruct the jurors that the reasons for having jurors remain anonymous have nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant. See Shyrock, 342 F.3d at 972-73.

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), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1098 (1996) (upholding anonymous jury where "court conducted a searching voir dire and gave jurors an extensive questionnaire").

Juror anonymity may continue after the trial ends. "Ensuring that jurors are entitled to privacy and protection against harassment, even after their jury duty has ended, qualifies as [a strong governmental] interest in this circuit." United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 907, 918 (5th Cir. 2001).