U.S. v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 27 July 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. Crim.A. 98-165-B-M2.,Crim.A. 98-165-B-M2. |
| Citation | 119 F.Supp.2d 589 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Edwin EDWARDS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
James B. Letten, Peter G. Strasser, Dept. of Justice, U.S. Atty.'s Office, New Orleans, LA, Michael William Manger, U.S. Atty.'s Office, E.D. La., New Orleans, Thomas L. Watson, Dept. of Justice, U.S. Attys. Office, New Orleans, LA, Eddie J. Jordan, Jr., U.S. Atty.'s Office, New Orleans, LA, Stephen A. Higginson, U.S. Atty.'s Office, E.D. La., New Orleans, LA, for U.S.
Richard G. Crane, Corrections & Sentencing Law, Nashville, TN, Daniel I. Small, Butters, Brazilian & Small, LLP, Boston, MA, for Edwin Edwards.
Edwin Edwards, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.
Stephen Edwards, Baton Rouge, LA, pro se.
James M. Cole Bryan Cave LLP, Washington, DC, for Stephen Edwards.
Rebecca L. Hudsmith, Federal Public Defenders Office, Lafayette, LA, for Cecil Brown.
Servando C. Garcia, III, Ryan J. Roemershauser, Garcia & Bishop, Metairie, LA, William H. Jeffress, Jr., James R. Heavner, Jr., Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, LLP, Washington, DC, for Andrew Martin.
James Michael Small, Law Offices of J. Michael Small, Alexandria, LA, for Bobby Johnson.
RULING
The United States of America1 filed a Motion for an Anonymous Jury in this case.2 The defendants opposed the motion.3 On January 7, 2000, the Court granted the government's motion.4 The Court now assigns its reasons for granting the government's motion.
The grand jury for the Middle District of Louisiana returned a 34-count indictment and later a superseding indictment against Edwin W. Edwards, Stephen Edwards, Cecil Brown, Andrew Martin, Bobby Johnson, Gregory Tarver, and Ecotry Fuller. This indictment charged, among other things, violations of Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"),5 RICO conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, illegal wiretapping, money laundering and extortion. Because of the high media interest in this case, the Court issued a "gag order" on November 9, 19986 and February 9, 20007 in an attempt to control prejudicial statements made by the parties in this case and to ensure the parties would receive a fair trial with an impartial jury. The Court also issued a credentialing order for members of the media and another order allowing the press to have a place to conduct interviews outside of the federal courthouse.8 To further ensure a fair and impartial jury which would not be subject to improper and prejudicial contact, influence, or harassment from the parties, the press and others, the Court granted the government's motion for an anonymous jury to the extent the Court withheld the names, addresses9 and places of employment of the jurors from the parties, the media and the public. The Court now assigns reasons to support its decision.
The government requested an anonymous jury for the following reasons: (1) "Edwin Edwards is alleged to have been the central figure of an enterprise which corrupted a major industry in the State of Louisiana;"10 (2) Edwin Edwards accomplished the alleged illegal acts "in large measure through the power of his elected office as governor;"11 (3) Edwin Edwards and Stephen Edwards are charged with interfering with the lawful judicial process, specifically conspiring to obtain illegal wiretaps of the homes of FBI agents who were investigating their criminal activity; (4) Edwin Edwards is charged with interfering with the lawful judicial process, specifically attempting to bribe Judge Alfred Foster Sanders, III and offering to terminate a pending investigation being conducted by the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana;12 (5) all defendants potentially face lengthy prison sentences; and (6) the potential for publicity and/or harassment of jurors due to the high level of media scrutiny.13
The defendants have filed an opposition to the motion for anonymous jury based on the following reasons:14 (1) there is no evidence of any of the defendants being tied to "organized crime" in the traditional sense; (2) there is no evidence of physical harm present; (3) the defendants have not interfered with the judicial process; (4) the defendants would suffer prejudice if an anonymous jury is empaneled; and (5) there is a strong potential to adversely affect the exercise of their peremptory and cause challenges during voir dire. Defendants rely heavily on the factors enunciated in United States v. Krout15 to support their arguments.
Oral argument was held on the motion on September 14, 16 and 17, 1999. The Court granted the motion and noted it would assign written reasons at a later date. These reasons now follow.
The issue of whether a court may use an anonymous jury in the trial of a defendant charged with a criminal offense is not a matter of first impression. The Fifth Circuit as well as other circuits have approved the use of an anonymous jury under certain circumstances. A review of the jurisprudence from the Fifth Circuit and the facts of this case support the Court's decision to use a partially anonymous jury herein. While the Court did grant the government's motion to use an anonymous jury in this case, the use of the term "anonymous" is very misleading. It is true the Court did not give the parties, the media or the public the names, addresses or places of employment of the jurors. However, the Court did provide all concerned with a voluminous amount of information about each juror. The Court used a 28-page questionnaire which was answered by each potential juror and consisted of 116 questions, some with numerous sub-parts.16 In addition, the Court conducted an extensive voir dire of the potential jurors comprising approximately 2,000 pages of transcript. The parties were permitted to suggest questions and follow up questions to be asked of each juror. All of the parties had an exhaustive amount of knowledge about each juror which allowed each of them to make an informed decision on which jurors should be accepted, challenged for cause, or peremptorily challenged. The Court now turns to a discussion of the jurisprudence from the Fifth Circuit on this issue.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals first addressed the issue of whether it was proper to have an anonymous jury in United States v. Krout.17 In Krout, as in this case, the names, addresses, and places of employment of the jurors were withheld. Relying on jurisprudence from the Second Circuit, the Fifth Circuit set forth several factors that may justify anonymity of a jury: (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 defendant will suffer a 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 and harassment.18
In Krout, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to empanel an anonymous jury. The appellate court found that the district court's decision was supported by the evidence adduced at the trial and by the wiretap affidavits presented by the government. Additionally, the Fifth Circuit found that the "Texas Mexican Mafia" was an inherently dangerous organization. Since Krout was decided, a number of Fifth Circuit decisions have upheld use of anonymous juries under a variety of circumstances. A careful review of those cases is in order.
In United States v. Riggio,19 the defendant was indicted for conspiracy to commit arson and use of fire to commit a federal felony. Concerned about possible jury tampering, the trial court assigned numbers to the jurors to assure anonymity. The trial court based its decision to use an anonymous jury on the following factors: (1) the record reflected that witnesses were allegedly threatened;20 (2) the defendant had been accused of jury tampering in a previous case; and (3) there were alleged ties of the defendant to organized crime. In affirming the district court, the Fifth Circuit stated the following with respect to the propriety of empaneling an anonymous jury:
In determining whether jurors need protection, the district court should consider the defendant's involvement in organized crime, his past attempts at interfering with judicial proceedings, his previous history of violence, the extent of press coverage, and the likelihood of juror harassment or intimidation.21
The Fifth Circuit also noted that Riggio had "committed fraud in order to serve on another jury, demonstrating a lack of respect for the judicial process and suggesting that he was capable of and willing to interfere with the jury system."22 The Court also noted that "[t]he district court had a reasonable basis to conclude that similar threats and attempts at intimidation were likely to be made to the jurors if their identities were known."23
In United States v. Branch,24 a trial involving the Branch Davidians, the district court sua sponte ordered the use of an anonymous jury. The Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court's decision. However, in doing so, the Fifth Circuit stated that referring to the jury as "anonymous" was misleading for the following reasons:
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. That said, we should be wary of painting with too broad a brush. "Anonymous" juries include those about whom more has been concealed than here. The jurors here...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Edwards
...direct evidence to justify an anonymous jury in the cases of Edwin Edwards, Stephen Edwards, and Martin. See United States v. Edwards, 119 F.Supp.2d 589, 603 n. 76 (M.D.La.2000). Regarding Martin, the district court pointed to a phone conversation in which Martin claimed that he had a trans......
-
United States v. Ashburn
...submission contains detailed factual representations that might reveal the identity of government witnesses."); United States v. Edwards, 119 F. Supp. 2d 589, 595 (M.D. La. 2000) ("It is clear from the Fifth Circuit jurisprudence that a trial court may consider various forms of evidence in ......
-
United States v. Frazier
...an extensive questionnaire that was the result of a joint effort between the Court and the parties. See United States v. Edwards, 119 F. Supp. 2d 589, 592 (M.D. La. 2000) (noting that "the use of the term 'anonymous' w[a]s very misleading" because, even though "the Court did not give the pa......