Government moves for an anonymous, sequestered jury

By riddenword

The government has filed a Motion for an Anonymous Sequestered Jury. Anonymous here means no biographical information known to the Scruggs team pretrial.  This is based on the allegations of interference with the justice system (judicial bribery).  Rather than comment on it at length, I’ll just say this is a pretty intensifying move by the government.

h/t to Nancy in comments.

No Responses to “Government moves for an anonymous, sequestered jury”

  1. confounded Says:

    Maybe Wilson should have filed a motion for an anonymous sequestered Judge in Wilson vs. Scruggs.

  2. Hatfield Says:

    I am glad I am not sitting in front of Judge Biggers. I bet he grants the motion for an anonymous jury. Great move by the US Attorneys office. Really turns up the heat on the Scruggs gang. If this motion is granted I would bet they all trip over themselves to cut deals. At this point the Gov may not entertain the offer. Their case seems to be solid like bedrock and with convictions they could really get others that might be involved to talk.

    I have heard rumours that Judge Biggers is very TOUGH on people convicted in his court room. Has anyone here practiced in front of judge Biggers? Just curious as to how the Judge sentences after conviction. Anyone?

  3. NMC Says:

    I will tell you a story: I had a case before him involving an investment adviser who had stolen from several dozen victims. The defendant said at the plea hearing he’d gone to each, and all but two had given Christian forgiveness. Judge Biggers said “This will be a great comfort to you while you serve the time I am about to sentence you.”

  4. Cujo359 Says:

    I didn’t even know such a thing was possible. Non-lawyer here, obviously, but this just seems to be counter to the idea of a jury of one’s peers. How does the system deal with that concern, assuming it even needs to these days?

  5. lotus Says:

    Cujo 4, I tried a preliminary answer but then, realizing I don’t know enough to be very helpful, took it down. Betcha somebody/ies with more experience in the genre will take this one on for us though, and I’m looking forward to that.

  6. lotus Says:

    Cujo, here’s how the government motion, at pages 3-4 of 6, explains the “anonymous jury” concept (I’m omitting most case citations and re-paragraphing for bloggy-readability’s sake):

    Referring to the jury as “anonymous” can be misleading. Anonymity has long been an important element of our jury system. Jurors are randomly summoned from the community at large to decide the single case before them and, once done, to “inconspicuously fade back into the community.” …

    “Anonymous jury” has come to mean something different in recent years, signaling the district court’s decision to withhold certain biographical information about potential jurors from the parties involved.

    In deciding whether to empanel an anonymous jury, the “interest in juror protection must be balanced against the defendant’s interest in effective voir dire and the presumption of innocence.” … The decision to empanel an anonymous jury is within the sound discretion of the district court and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. …

    There are varying degrees of anonymity when considering an anonymous jury, for example, see United States v. Ross, … (withholding names, addresses, places of employment, and spouses names and places of employment) … .

    On the other hand, jurors have been “anonymous” only in the most literal sense. United States v. Branch … (the district court ordered only the jurors’ names and addresses to be withheld from the parties, otherwise the court provided the defendants with a wealth of information about the venire [jury pool] including occupations and names of employers).

    In considering whether or not to order some form of an anonymous jury, the Fifth Circuit has generally set forth factors supporting such a decision which include:

    (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 or witnesses;
    (4) The potential that if convicted the defendants will suffer a lengthy incarceration and substantial monetary penalties; and
    (5) The extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors’ names would become public and expose them to intimidation and harassment. …

    The Fifth Circuit has not suggested, however, that “these or some aggregate must be established on pain of reversal.” …

    Obviously, numbers (1) and (2) above have no application to the instant case; however, the indictment itself deals with attempts to corrupt the judicial process, if convicted defendants will suffer length incarceration and substantial monetary penalties, and there has been extensive publicity pretrial that will undoubtedly continue during the trial as the evidence unfolds.

    Given the nature of the charges, the immense resources of the defendants, and the penalties at stake, further potential compromising of the judicial process cannot be discounted. lt should be noted, however, that in circumstances where the factors did not justify an anonymous jury that an abuse of discretion will be found. …

    And balanced against the interest of the defendants, some degree of anonymity can be justified within the discretion of the trial court. Moreover, additional protections for the defendants may be secured with the use of judicially approved jury questionnaires. …

  7. lotus Says:

    Then they throw in a paragraph saying, basically, “Or you could just sequester ‘em” (put ‘em up at government expense somewhere secret for the duration of trial and deliberations) “or choose ‘em from the whole district.”

    Then they conclude:

    The Court has available various alternatives to secure a fair trial for all parties in the circumstance of a highly publicized and intensely followed trial involving the criminal prosecution of national renowned defendants. Any decision by the Court will be reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard. With appropriate findings set forth by the Court, it is difficult to conclude that the Court’s decision would be disturbed. At the very least, if the Court was not convinced that some form of anonymity was appropriate, that a sequestered district-wide jury would be warranted, and such is requested.

  8. confounded Says:

    if this isn’t organized crime, what is?

  9. lotus Says:

    Not-well-enough-organized crime?

  10. NMC Says:

    Lotus, it’s the division that Judge Lackey’s circuit court district almost covers. There are three other divisions in the district, and a much larger area with the major population centers in the district.

  11. Jane Says:

    Here’s the map for the division.

    http://www.msnd.uscourts.gov/images/western.png

    And the entire district, here:

    http://www.msnd.uscourts.gov/images/mapnms.png

  12. UMATTY Says:

    Judge Biggers is very tough. I have seen him give the maximum punishment and follow up by saying (paraphrasing): I only wish the law wouldn’t constrict me and I could send you away for a much longer period of time. His sentencing hearings don’t last very long. The lawyer and defendant usually stand before him, he says he has read the presentencing report, asks for objections, allows the defendant to “allocute” (make a statement–required by law if defendant desires to do so)—”but make it snappy”—and then the Marshals stand behind the defendant with handcuffs ready. Actually, I have always liked the man. At least he is consistent. (He doesn’t discuss court business out of the courtroom. An avid golfer, he stops by City Grocery Bar several times a week to meet with his golfing buddies and discuss golfing strategy. Never seen him drink to excess — simply social. And he is very nice outside of the courtroom. Inside, he is prone to tell you to “shut up and sit down.”) And he is just as hard on the government lawyers as he is on defense counsel.

    Several years ago, I attended his “retirement ceremony.” It was very elaborate and Grady Tollison was in charge of it (at the request of Judge Davidson, not Judge Biggers). The “retirement” was actually the taking of “senior status,” which means that he is not really retired; his caseload is just not as hectic. He still works on a daily basis—I guess the “retirement” didn’t take.

  13. lotus Says:

    Thanks, NMC and Jane. I just dropped that observation, pending review of the maps to find out WTF I’m talking about.

  14. lotus Says:

    Very nice maps, Jane. Thanks. They prompt a question I’ve had for years: how far east are we on Jane’s second map when “the Delta” stops?

  15. Jane Says:

    Here’s where you can access all the Northern District maps.

    http://www.msnd.uscourts.gov/maps.htm

    but what’s with the map labeled jury divisions?

  16. NMC Says:

    I’m not sure what your question is lotus.

  17. NMC Says:

    Aha- Jane– this answers a mystery. I’ve long had the sense that juries followed the division lines in a somewhat fuzzy way– that I’d get jurors from just outside what I knew the division lines to be. The district has a “Jury Selection Plan” found here under which juries are selected from three divisions (the Clarksdale Division is essentially nonexistent any longer).

  18. scandaljunkie Says:

    My understanding is that from the Oxford perspective, the delta starts just west of Batesville which is in Panola County. Wikipedia says the delta consists of the following counties; Washington, DeSoto, Humphreys, Carroll, Issaquena, Panola, Quitman, Bolivar, Coahoma, Leflore, Sunflower, Sharkey, Tunica, Tallahatchie, Holmes, Yazoo, and Warren.

  19. DeltaNative Says:

    What’s the question about the Delta?

  20. Sailor Says:

    Let this non-lawyer try to understand: in requesting an anonymous jury, the gov’t is essentially asking to treat Dickie like a mob boss. So what will the defense argue? Our client has never hired a hit on anyone?

  21. lotus Says:

    DN and NMC, basically my question was “How far east does ‘the Delta’ run?” And I think scanjun-and-the-map just answered it for me, so thanks.

  22. DeltaNative Says:

    Nevermind, link didn’t work.

  23. lotus Says:

    Shucks, DN, no green outlining on my screen, but thanks for trying.

    ONE of the problems with these things is that you can never know what someone else’s computer is showing them of the page you’re both looking at (a real challenge in blog design, among other things).

  24. Not At All Surprised Says:

    I asked the question about an anonymous jury to NMC sometime back. It was used by Judge Frank Polozola in the case of former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards. The issue was taken up to the 5th Circuit and upheld.

    Like Scruggs, Edwards had the ability to reach out and “influence” people. That was the primary basis for having unidentified jurors.

    The prospective jurors completed a jury quentionnaire, but instead of using their names, a number was assigned to each.

  25. magnolia Says:

    Do we believe Keker will ask for more extentions, and if he does, whats the odds of him getting them. As a pour ole Misssisssipun just watching this group Scruggs/Lott/Langston have so many tenticiles that I’m expecting any day for the Mississippi Media to tell us we have been sapped by something from outterspace and we have just dreamed these boys got caught.

  26. duckweedpond Says:

    now officially out of the “presumed innocent” camp, i had been thinking that his last chance at beating this thing was a serious jury pre-selection/voir dire effort and imagined that they were getting the jury pool lists and cross referencing them with magazine subscriptions and google search caches ;-) but this motion really kills all hope of that, doesn’t it? maybe he’ll dig in though, hoping that the next administration’s justice department will fix this for him. sorry, just can’t see Obama coming through for him.

  27. My Thoughts Says:

    From the “Amen” corner regarding Biggers… that’s the first thing I hear from every lawyer I ask… T-O-U-G-H.

  28. Sailor Says:

    I still want to know how Keker argues against this anonymous jury. Anybody?

  29. Orchid Says:

    One of my favorite Judge Biggers stories involves a well known and well loved local criminal defense attorney. His client was up for sentencing. This was before the guidelines became advisory rather than mandatory. The lawyer began his speech with “Judge, I know this argument needs to be made before the United States Congress. . .” and Judge Biggers dryly (and without looking up) said “Yeah, well, they aren’t here today.” So much for that line of argument.

    In my experience Judge Biggers is a devoted scholar of the law. He is senior status but works quite a bit more than one might expect – certainly more than the requisite 25%. He demands preparation from all litigants. He is a stickler for the rules and the rules apply to everyone in his court. No favortism whatsoever. I have heard other attorneys claim judges (particularly former prosecutors) are partial to the government. Not in this district. Not from any judge and especially not from Judge Biggers!

  30. My Thoughts Says:

    That’s oh so good to know. I’ve been looking for a little redemption among the legal set!

  31. Gardenia Says:

    Folo, the “Delta” is actually an alluvial flood plain. The actual delta of the Mississippi River is many miles south of New Orleans. That said, the Mississippi Delta of musical and literary lore is often said to run “from Front Street in Vicksburg to the lobby of the Peabody Hotel (in Memphis).”

    It is a somewhat misshapen half-moon whose more-or-less “straight” side is the river and whose eastward curve bulges out to a little past Greenwood and goes through Yazoo City before returning to the river near Vicksburg.

  32. Researcher Says:

    Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District map
    http://www.leveeboard.org/
    The levee guys know where the Delta begins and ends.

  33. lotus Says:

    Much thanks for all this info on the Delta, y’all — amazing that I got to be this old without knowing it better, huh? (Of course, all you see from I-55 is pines, and that’s been almost my whole experience of that countryside to date.)

Leave a Reply