A prior post linked the defense motion in U.S. v. Scruggs to reconsider the order granting an anonymous jury.
The first argument in the motion to reconsider notes that in the Fifth Circuit cases on anonymous juries, there were in both instances affidavits of jury tampering and witness intimidation in prior cases, and that the government in this case is basing its motion on the allegations in its indictment in this case, not affidavits.
I have two reactions to that. The first is that the defense has a compelling argument –the motion for an anonymous jury is just as they say, an argument based not on a record of affidavits about jury tampering in a prior case, but rather on the assertion that in this case, the judicial bribery allegations are true and present a danger of jury tampering.
This is a really compelling argument at the analytical level and no argument at all at the emotional level. The danger here is that the prosecutors are pushing the envelope –they are risking raising an appellate issue that may be a real one.
The prosecution fears of jury tampering are absolutely real. I’m not convinced they’ve created the record they should create for an anonymous jury. But if I had to bet, I’d bet against the defense on this one. Suffice it to say that on this one the prosecution perhaps should be glad I am not the judge. What I would probably do is say to the prosecution: You haven’t made the showing I would want to see for an anonymous jury. Here’s what I’d expect to see, and I share your concerns. This is an interlocutory ruling (that is, you can try again).
It’s interesting that the prior response from the defense on this (and Backstrom’s motion today) did not give me this reaction. This is the strongest defense argument against an anonymous jury. It is interesting that the Scruggs brief has some good citations about the right to a "known " jury that were missing from the Backstrom brief filed today.
The defense wants a more detailed jury questionnaire than the one the court approved. "[P]rior to ordering an anonymous jury, the Court removed questions proposed by Defendants (relating to political leanings, exposure to pretrial publicity, opinions about trial lawyers, and others) that are nearly identical to those approved by the Fifth Circuit in Edwards. "
One part of the defense motion establishes beyond argument that more people in
Part of it involves an argument that apparently 10% of the population of
I’m so proud of this.
The motion concludes with a long plea for individual sequestered voir dire on publicity issues (although it doesn’t directly use those terms). I really think this is correct –the defendants ought to get a chance for detailed individual voir dire on publicity. But I’m not making this call, and if I had to bet, the judge doesn’t go with my gut, or at least as far as I would go.
When are the parties going to start arguing that the merits of the case will have a slight role in the trial? – Unless merit has nothing to do with the outcome of the case.
But I do think it stinks for Sid to receive the stench of the Wilson case if he had not been involved.
NMC, I marvel at your ability to provide succinct analysis at this time of the evening. I can’t do anything but babble (without paragraph breaks) after 5. Cheers to you, and what you offer to those interested. Here here.
the motion for an anonymous jury is just as they say, an argument based no on a record of affidavits about jury tampering in a prior case, but rather on the assertion that in this case, the judicial bribery allegations are true and present a danger of jury tampering.
I could go hunt around, but I would sure appreciate if someone could give me an assist. Did the prosecution ask for an anonymous jury initially? And then the defense responded with their special questions?
And my peers are Dickie’s peers, like it or not. He chose to live there.
Is what a MS born blogger has written.
http://shelbydupree.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-you-googled-dickie-scruggs.html
Part of it involves an argument that apparently 10% of the population of Mississippi reads the Folo blog. I’m so proud of this.
Me too, but . . . um . . . seein’s how our sitemeter is password-protected an’ all, how do they think they know that?
By the way, according to Wikipedia, must be we can extrapolate a one-in-ten chance that blond jungle-boy Jan-Michael Vincent (now *gasp* 63 years old) reads folo:
Yo, J-M, I say better you try gumbo (though chacon àson goût, I suppose).
Sigh.
Seacrest 4, thanks for the trip back to our old friend Shelby’s place.
I think the prosecution has weighed the possibility of a successful appeal by the defense due to the anonymous jury, as well as the getting-longer-every-day-prior-history of the defendants’ lack of respect for the sanctity of the courts, and decided where they feel more comfortable putting their bet.
It isn’t like bribing a juror is a huge moral decisive leap for you if you have actually tried to bribe a judge (or several of them).
I’ve been associated with a trial where a juror got bribed. You have no idea what that problem is like when you have evidence it has happened after a hung jury or not guilty verdict. I’ll take the appeal route, and the chance of having to retry the case, any day, over the alternative. And, I’ll bet this USAO made the same decision.
Well, I wasn’t born there. But most everybody else I’m related to was . . .
observer, thanks for that peek into the prosecutors’ probable decision-making process. (Well, let’s add another p for “persuasive” too.)
Good post over to your place, Shelby.
I agree with observer, my bet is that the USAO has made the decision to risk the appeal on this issue over possible jury tampering.
Any of these alleged problems with the jury questionare can be solved at trial by a good voir dire by both the Judge and counsel for each party. This is not rocket science stuff. Just ask the damned questions. Thus, I see little potential appeal merit in that part of the motion.
Also, it is news to me that we not only have a constitutional right to be tried by a jury of our peers, but also a constitutional right to have the jury pool’s identity made known to counsel before the trial to allow a party to do intensive investigations into jury members and their families, and to have some time and opportunity to bribe the jury. I know we don’t have a constitutional right to any particular sized jury, so long as it meets the minimum requirements in federal court. And as long as the process is fair to both sides, with questions allowed during voir dire to weed out those with any undue bias, then I simply do not see the problem. It seems a proper matter within the Judge’s discretion. The defendants can get just as fair of a trial with an anonymous jury as they can with a known jury.
Personally, I would like to see anonymous juries become the norm for all cases, criminal and civil. I have always had faith in our jury system and in the ability to get fair juries. I have never done extensive pre-trial investigation into potential jurors in the jury pool list. I have always trusted my instincts during voir dire, asked the questions I thought appropriate for my client during voir dire, and after many, many trials, have always received verdicts that I thought were within the realm of reasonable and fair.
When not tampered with, this system works. And based upon the wire- tap evidence of wrongdoing, which IMO equates to supporting affidavits due to their level of credibility, the anonymous jury decision by Judge Biggers is warranted. There is for sure a risk of tampering.
Nice summing-up here, afotl. Thanks.
Well, I finally got time to read this whole motion, including the paragraph
24-7 coverage? Hokey-smokes, if that’s true, all you 222,000 pikers are REALLY holding out on our ads and tip-jar even worse than I thought, so get crackin’, wouldja? I can’t wait to see this vaunted Ex. 17 they got, alleging proof of that kind of folo readership.
Shoot, I reckon Keker’s so hungry for gumbo and French bread from his reading here, he’s just whining to Judge Biggers, “I wanna go to N’awlins, I wanna go eat, Daddy! Are we there yet?!”
Ex 17 is a comment from you saying there were 220,000 hits in the last half of February, Lotus.
Ah, then as you pointed out last night, NMC, they’re trying to morph “views” into “viewers.” We wish, huh? (Did they spell my name right?)