THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION
COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 3 - CHAPTER 17
Go to Volume
3
Table of Contents - Go
to Chapter
17 Table of Contents
17.5 Sequestering Jury: Cautionary Instruction
17.5.1 Propriety Of Sequestering Jury
17.5.2 Sequestering Jury: Cautionary Instruction
THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION
COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 3 - CHAPTER 17
17.5.1 Propriety Of Sequestering Jury
RESEARCH NOTES:
Annotation, Propriety And Prejudicial Effect Of Court-Appointed Separation Of Jury In Federal Criminal Case, 4 ALR Fed 310.
Separation Of Jury In Criminal Case Before Introduction Of Evidence--Modern Cases, 72 ALR3d 100.
Separation Of Jury In Criminal Case During Trial--Modern Cases, 72 ALR3d 131.
Separation Of Jury In Criminal Case After Submission Of Cause--Modern Cases, 72 ALR3d 248.
Propriety And Prejudicial Effect, In Criminal Case, Of Placing Jury In Charge Of Officer Who Is A Witness In The Case, 38 ALR3d 1012.
See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Separation Of Jury].
See also generally, NCJIC 305.16.5 [Physical Restraints, Courtroom Security, Disruption, Etc.].
THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION
COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information
VOLUME 3 - CHAPTER 17
17.5.2 Sequestering Jury: Cautionary Instruction
RATIONALE: If the jury is to be sequestered a cautionary instruction may be appropriate to prevent the jury from prejudicial speculation that the sequestering reflects the judge's opinion that the defendant is dangerous and/or guilty.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Many of the issues relating to courtroom security measures may also be present when the jury is sequestered because the jury may speculate as to why this special procedure was necessary. (See generally NCJIC 17.1.2 [Courtroom Security: Sources Of Prejudice To The Defendant].)
Hence, such a procedure should not be used without a showing of good cause (see NCJIC 17.1.1 [Propriety Of Security]), and if it is used, a cautionary instruction emphasizing that the procedure was used because of normal procedure, rather than the conduct of this defendant, should be considered. (See NCJIC 17.1.4 [Instruction Should Inform Jury That Security Measures Are Normal Procedures].)
See NCJIC 12.3.12 [Preliminary Instructions: Reference To The Possibility Of Sequestration].
FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.2; 7.5; 10.1].
USE NOTE: Although it is preferable to inform the jury that a security measure is a normal procedure so as to reduce the prejudicial implication to the defendant who is on trial, it is unlikely that such an explanation would be effective in the case of sequestering the jury unless there is a plausible basis for informing the jury that the sequestering was a normal procedure.
RESEARCH NOTES:
See also Manual On Recurring Problems In Criminal Trials [3. Separation Of Jury].
See also generally, NCJIC 305.16.5 [Physical Restraints, Courtroom Security, Disruption, Etc.].
SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:
Now, there are certain additional comments concerning the manner in which you have been selected and the manner in which you are going to be treated throughout this trial. You understand that you will be sequestered. This is not at all unusual. In any case involving a high degree of publicity or a case which is expected to attract a high degree of publicity, we like to keep jurors to themselves and to see to it they do not hear anything on the radio or television about the case. We want, and both sides want, to make sure when the time comes your verdict is based upon what you hear in the courtroom and not on what somebody may have said in the newspapers.
[Given in U.S. v. Scarfo (3rd Cir. 1988) 850 F2d 1015, 1027.]